The Heretic: Thomas Nagel

Buddy said:
I just finished reading this article on SoTT:

The Heretic: Who is Thomas Nagel and why are so many of his fellow academics condemning him?

Personally, I feel like the materialists have a fundamental lack of faith in their own position. This may be why they're so fanatically dedicated to it. It's a bit sickening to know how Nagel is being viewed by his colleagues.

Yes, caught this article this morning and it is "sickening", yet was not surprised given our philosophical and scientific stewardship these days, to materialize or create subjective truths as if they were/are objective, with not much room for anything else. And when and if contrary ideas/information comes up, ponerology kicks in and alignments are made do isolate people like Nagel with their peers.
 
In his book Unsnarling the World-Knot, David Ray Griffin quotes something John Searle wrote: "The deepest motivation of materialism is simply a terror of consciousness" with its "essentially terrifying feature of subjectivity," which most materialists think to be "inconsistent with their conception of what the world must be like." This is in a chapter on wishful- and fearful-thinking, and how it affects a person's worldview. Aside from simply fearing the consequences of the reality of consciousness on one's materialistic assumptions about reality, I think there's something more to it. Just look at the immense amount of ridicule against the intelligent design movement, which is founded on essentially the same principles as Bryant Shiller's 5th Option, that intelligence is the best possible explanation for the origin of the information in the genetic code. The PTB seem very fearful of the ideas that humans are conscious and have free will...
 
Thinking about this debate and Nagel's book, as well as the criticisms to the theory of evolution, the other day I realized that what Darwin describes as natural selection (as I understand it) does not result in evolution (i.e. a change of the species into more complexity), but in change that is a movement sideways - not forward. Therefore, it cannot explain how a creature of the complexity of a horse came to be from single-celled organisms; much less why humans have these superior faculties that are not required to survive in the jungle or the savannah.

The classic example of natural selection is that of the butterflies of a certain species, most of which are white, which live on trees with white trunks. One day a coal mine is opened nearby and the trunks turn black, so now white butterflies are easily identified by predators and most are killed, except the darker/black ones. The off-spring of the survivors will be dark as well, so the species will have changed. This is supposed to illustrate how a species becomes more adaptable and therefore 'evolved'.

However, there is the question of why some of the butterflies were darker in the first place. Random mutation? Ok, that could be in a case like this, in which white or black butterflies are variations of equal complexity. But a change from white to black is just a movement sideways, not forward into more complexity.

So how to explain changes into something more complex? If the ability to develop mathematics or art became at some point a more adaptable quality for human beings, are we supposed to believe that some humans randomly mutated into having brains capable of math or art before something happened in the environment that made math or art relevant?? If mutations are random, then how many 'failed' mutations (mutations which actually make the members of the species even less adaptable than they originally were) do we need to go through before we get a 'good' mutation? A million? How about a mutation that is not only convenient for survival but that makes a species remarkably superior, such as math or art? A hundred million? With so many mutations and so little probability of getting the right one, you would expect the species to become extinct in a few generations.

But that's not how it happens. Somehow nature is prepared with the right mutations just in time to keep life going.

Furthermore, the right mutation happens before the outside event determines natural selection. Which means that natural selection does not constitute an explanation for the mutation, which is the actual step into more complexity.

In short, natural selection explains some changes of adaptability in a species, but it does not explain evolution. Having said that, I'm not a biologist so perhaps I've misunderstood Darwin.

I hope that was clear.
 
Approaching Infinity said:
In his book Unsnarling the World-Knot, David Ray Griffin quotes something John Searle wrote: "The deepest motivation of materialism is simply a terror of consciousness" with its "essentially terrifying feature of subjectivity," which most materialists think to be "inconsistent with their conception of what the world must be like."

That would make sense in light of what Laura wrote about the fundamental choice to be or not be. Also reminds me of what Kant wrote about how David Hume was practically driving Science into oblivion with his empiricism and it's "self-devouring logic." In fact, as Kant stated, the entire motivation for On Critique of Pure Reason was credited to Hume for having "aroused me from my slumber."

There's another float for the "we never learn, do we?" parade, it seems.
 
Windmill knight said:
So how to explain changes into something more complex? If the ability to develop mathematics or art became at some point a more adaptable quality for human beings, are we supposed to believe that some humans randomly mutated into having brains capable of math or art before something happened in the environment that made math or art relevant?? If mutations are random, then how many 'failed' mutations (mutations which actually make the members of the species even less adaptable than they originally were) do we need to go through before we get a 'good' mutation? A million? How about a mutation that is not only convenient for survival but that makes a species remarkably superior, such as math or art? A hundred million? With so many mutations and so little probability of getting the right one, you would expect the species to become extinct in a few generations.

I think these are very good points. Just finished reading Stephen Meyer's book Signature in the Cell. Meyer's a leading proponent of intelligent design, and his argument is very similar to Bryant Shiller's. A couple relevant points: for every 150-amino acid protein, only 1 in 10^74 possible sequences are functional. There are approximately 10^65 particles in our galaxy. As Meyer argues, there aren't enough 'probabilistic resources' in the history of the universe to give any reasonable chance of getting a functional protein by chance processes. But say you do have one. As you say, how many mutations before you get another of the 1 in 10^74 functional sequences?? I see only two solutions: either the genetic code is pre-programmed with certain constraints so that it will mutate in certain functional directions (Shiller hints at this, I think), or intelligence has to have a hand in every novel genetic feature (new genes, new organs, new bodies, new species, etc.). Either way, new-Darwinism isn't very realistic.
 
I thought Darwin's theory only attempted to explain origins of species, by which I figure he meant what you are calling sideways movement? I'm not sure where this evolvement related to 'complexity' described as simple organisms to more complex organisms (like horses) comes from.

Whose evolution theory is that? I might need to look it up.
 
Buddy said:
I thought Darwin's theory only attempted to explain origins of species, by which I figure he meant what you are calling sideways movement? I'm not sure where this evolvement related to 'complexity' described as simple organisms to more complex organisms (like horses) comes from.

Whose evolution theory is that? I might need to look it up.

I think WK is making the point that neo-Darwinism is better at explaining micro-evolution ('sideways') than it is at explaining macro-evolution.
 
[quote author=Windmill knight]Thinking about this debate and Nagel's book, as well as the criticisms to the theory of evolution, the other day I realized that what Darwin describes as natural selection (as I understand it) does not result in evolution (i.e. a change of the species into more complexity), but in change that is a movement sideways - not forward. Therefore, it cannot explain how a creature of the complexity of a horse came to be from single-celled organisms; much less why humans have these superior faculties that are not required to survive in the jungle or the savannah.

The classic example of natural selection is that of the butterflies of a certain species, most of which are white, which live on trees with white trunks. One day a coal mine is opened nearby and the trunks turn black, so now white butterflies are easily identified by predators and most are killed, except the darker/black ones. The off-spring of the survivors will be dark as well, so the species will have changed. This is supposed to illustrate how a species becomes more adaptable and therefore 'evolved'.

However, there is the question of why some of the butterflies were darker in the first place. Random mutation? Ok, that could be in a case like this, in which white or black butterflies are variations of equal complexity. But a change from white to black is just a movement sideways, not forward into more complexity.

So how to explain changes into something more complex? If the ability to develop mathematics or art became at some point a more adaptable quality for human beings, are we supposed to believe that some humans randomly mutated into having brains capable of math or art before something happened in the environment that made math or art relevant?? If mutations are random, then how many 'failed' mutations (mutations which actually make the members of the species even less adaptable than they originally were) do we need to go through before we get a 'good' mutation? A million? How about a mutation that is not only convenient for survival but that makes a species remarkably superior, such as math or art? A hundred million? With so many mutations and so little probability of getting the right one, you would expect the species to become extinct in a few generations.
[/quote]

Evolution as defined by the neo-darwinists is, the change in frequency of particular alleles (or gene copies) in a population over a given period of time. But in the view of the materialist viewpoint, there is no distinction between "sideways" and "forward" (as you define them). Any evolution or change in frequency driven by natural selection is by definition an increase in a population's organizational coherence with its community and environment, whether it's white moths becoming more common or more sophisticated eyes becoming more common. The mechanism of random mutation is the same for both

Furthermore, the notion that a species will become extinct in a few generations due to a large number of negative mutations ignores population size acting as a buffer to allow natural selection to breed out negative traits. Natural random mutations can produce a lot of negative mutations (hence, why when we talk of depleted uranium in Iraq we see children with organs outside their bodies or deformed limbs, rather than children with x-ray vision or telekinetic powers), but due to the conservation of the adaptive genes, those that ARE advantageous survive and become more prominent. The odds of it being advantageous are low, but so what? The scale of evolutionary time is vast enough for those to accumulate. You could argue about quantum tunnelling as some means by which intelligence helps to organize the living system, but that system still needs to explain why species X evolved a certain trait instead of its competitor. "God did it" has just about as much explanatory power as "random mutation" does at that point.

Then again, what do I know?
 
whitecoast said:
Evolution as defined by the neo-darwinists is, the change in frequency of particular alleles (or gene copies) in a population over a given period of time. But in the view of the materialist viewpoint, there is no distinction between "sideways" and "forward" (as you define them). Any evolution or change in frequency driven by natural selection is by definition an increase in a population's organizational coherence with its community and environment, whether it's white moths becoming more common or more sophisticated eyes becoming more common. The mechanism of random mutation is the same for both

Thanks for your comments whitecoast.

By 'sideways' I mean a mutation or change in the species that is equally complex as what was before, except perhaps it is more convenient given the circumstances (like black vs white moths). 'Forward' would be a change resulting in more complexity/sophistication/organization. Of course, neo-darwinists may say that there is no distinction and what appears to be more complex is subjective. But I think this is fallacious, because how could we claim that there are no organisms of higher complexity/organization than others? A horse is not a sea snail, and a sea snail is not a microbe. Isn't the whole point of the discussion to explain how that complexity came to be?

whitecoast said:
Furthermore, the notion that a species will become extinct in a few generations due to a large number of negative mutations ignores population size acting as a buffer to allow natural selection to breed out negative traits. Natural random mutations can produce a lot of negative mutations (hence, why when we talk of depleted uranium in Iraq we see children with organs outside their bodies or deformed limbs, rather than children with x-ray vision or telekinetic powers), but due to the conservation of the adaptive genes, those that ARE advantageous survive and become more prominent. The odds of it being advantageous are low, but so what? The scale of evolutionary time is vast enough for those to accumulate. You could argue about quantum tunnelling as some means by which intelligence helps to organize the living system, but that system still needs to explain why species X evolved a certain trait instead of its competitor. "God did it" has just about as much explanatory power as "random mutation" does at that point.

Then again, what do I know?

Granted that the size of populations needs to be taken into consideration; as well as the fact that many species do become extinct altogether, i.e. they fail to adapt. However, it still seems to me that the chances of mutating soon and often enough in the right way in order to survive drastic changes is infinitesimal small, as AI explained:

Approaching Infinity said:
A couple relevant points: for every 150-amino acid protein, only 1 in 10^74 possible sequences are functional. There are approximately 10^65 particles in our galaxy. As Meyer argues, there aren't enough 'probabilistic resources' in the history of the universe to give any reasonable chance of getting a functional protein by chance processes. But say you do have one. As you say, how many mutations before you get another of the 1 in 10^74 functional sequences?? I see only two solutions: either the genetic code is pre-programmed with certain constraints so that it will mutate in certain functional directions (Shiller hints at this, I think), or intelligence has to have a hand in every novel genetic feature (new genes, new organs, new bodies, new species, etc.). Either way, new-Darwinism isn't very realistic.

What you say about depleted uranium is a point in case. We never hear of mutations caused randomly by an external factor such as radioactive pollution resulting in people with super-powers (except in comic books of course).

Also, I do not think it is true that the scale of evolutionary time allows for convenient mutations to accumulate. Conditions change drastically (climate change, geological and cosmological catastrophes, etc) and within a few generations, which is why some become extinct - yet up to now many have survived!

I have thought a couple more arguments against (neo) darwinism. The first is that you can explain some changes in species facing variable external conditions, but not all. I am thinking of how we have been told that life first appeared in the oceans. At some point of evolution organisms 'jumped' out of the water and evolved to breath air. What I would like to know is how exactly did that jump take place? Did some fish mutate into having lungs apart from gills? Or did their gills suddenly mutate into being capable of processing air too? Extracting oxygen from air and water are two very different processes which require very different sophisticated organs, and the proof is that I would die if I tried to breath water and a fish would die if breathing air. How conceivable is it to think that a random mutation resulted in such a drastic and sophisticated change as growing lungs?

In other words, relatively small variations I might be able to accept, but one lucky huge jump (like that required to start breathing air instead of water) is much harder to swallow. Naturally it didn't happen little by little as there is not middle point between breathing water and air - either you breath them or you don't.

I have a friend who has got a PhD in genetics and he was once explaining Darwin to me. He mentioned that Darwin got his idea of natural selection from economics. In other words, free market, which in theory contends that unregulated markets will 'evolve' naturally and prosperously as the fittest enterprises grow and survive. Similarly, in the natural world no one directs the process and the fittest survive and 'evolve'. However - and this is my second argument - both processes are not comparable in the terms that Darwin pretended, because while strategies of survival in the natural world would be the product of random mutations, in the economic and social world all strategies are more or less rational. Because they are the product of beings with brains, i.e. entrepreneurs.

So, to say that natural selection and free markets are comparable processes would imply that there is some sort of rationality or logic to strategies of survival in the natural world - even if they are not perfect and many fail. If they were all truly random, all species would soon die off, in the same way that chaos would consume societies if people did not use their brains to go to work and try to make money. Can we imagine an economic viable society of people in a vegetative state or suffering from severe delusional schizophrenia, etc?

Again, I hope that was clear.
 
Windmill knight said:
By 'sideways' I mean a mutation or change in the species that is equally complex as what was before, except perhaps it is more convenient given the circumstances (like black vs white moths). 'Forward' would be a change resulting in more complexity/sophistication/organization. Of course, neo-darwinists may say that there is no distinction and what appears to be more complex is subjective. But I think this is fallacious, because how could we claim that there are no organisms of higher complexity/organization than others? A horse is not a sea snail, and a sea snail is not a microbe. Isn't the whole point of the discussion to explain how that complexity came to be?

Exactly, and to use the information theory phrase: "there's no free lunch." New information doesn't come from nowhere. Computer programs can't produce any more information than the information that was programmed or inputted by the programmer. And there's a limit to the amount of new information chance can produce. Seth Lloyd calculates it as being from 400-500 bits (that's the maximum amount given the hypothesized size and age of the universe--of course, there are assumptions built into that number, the big bang theory notably, but I think it's at least good for putting things into perspective). Genomes can have billions of bits of information. Where did the new information come from? Obviously, intelligence has to have a hand in it, either at the very beginning, or along the process.

Added: Here's a paper summary on ID that makes the same point:

A. C. McIntosh, “Functional Information and Entropy in Living Systems,” Design and Nature III: Comparing Design in Nature with Science and Engineering, Vol. 87 (Ashurt, Southampton, United Kindom: WIT Transactions on Ecology and the Environment, WIT Press, 2006).

This paper explores the proper way to measure information and entropy in living organisms. Citing the work of Stephen Meyer, the author argues that random mutations cannot increase order in a living system: “[R]andom mutations always have the effect of increasing the disorder (or what we will shortly define as logical entropy) of any particular system, and consequently decreasing the information content. What is evident is that the initial information content rather than being small must in fact be large, and is in fact vital for any process to work to begin with. The issue of functional complexity and information is considered exhaustively by Meyer who argues that the neo-Darwinist model cannot explain all the appearances of design in biology.” McIntosh continues, explaining that only teleology -- intelligent design -- can explain the increases in information that generate observed biological complexity: “Even within the neo-Darwinist camp the evidence of convergence (similarity) in the suggested evolutionary development of disparate phylogeny has caused some writers to consider ‘channelling’ of evolution. Such thinking is a tacit admission of a teleological influence. That information does not increase by random changes (contrary to Dawkins’ assertion) is evident when we consider in the following section, the logical entropy of a biochemical system.” He concludes that goal-directed processes, or teleonomy, are required: “There has to be previously written information or order (often termed teleonomy’) for passive, non-living chemicals to respond and become active.”
 
Approaching Infinity said:
Exactly, and to use the information theory phrase: "there's no free lunch." New information doesn't come from nowhere. Computer programs can't produce any more information than the information that was programmed or inputted by the programmer. And there's a limit to the amount of new information chance can produce. Seth Lloyd calculates it as being from 400-500 bits (that's the maximum amount given the hypothesized size and age of the universe--of course, there are assumptions built into that number, the big bang theory notably, but I think it's at least good for putting things into perspective). Genomes can have billions of bits of information. Where did the new information come from? Obviously, intelligence has to have a hand in it, either at the very beginning, or along the process.

This article by Stuart Greene has some postulates that are relevant to the question of pre-existing information:

http://www.ecobiotics.com/QEB.htm

The QEB Files: The Decoherence Question and Reflections on Quantum Panspermia - Was the Big Bang Actually the Big Entanglement?

The most challenging aspect of any quantum computational system is the problem of maintaining coherence. Briefly stated, coherence means that the superposition of quantum information states between its quantum-bits (q-bits) precisely models the problem the computer is tasked to solve.

Any interfering state information, however slight, changes the relationship between the q-bits, sending the system into a condition in which the computer no longer accurately models the problem. This is called decoherence. When applied to a properly entangled quantum information state, it harvests a meaningful result. When accidentally applied to a system before it has fully entangled the information state of the problem, it yields nonsense.

While conventional computers are also subject to various types of errors, these can be easily checked and, if appropriate provisions have been made, detected and/or corrected. In a quantum computer, because every facet of the net information state influences the characteristics of every other facet, this is not possible to accomplish in the same way. Investigators of biological quantum computing, including Sir Roger Penrose and Stuart Hameroff, invest a great deal of effort and ingenuity in postulating how organic structures may protect themselves from unwanted, premature decoherence, thereby allowing parts of the body to function as a quantum computer. From the perspective of Quantum EcoBiotics (QEB), these considerations are unnecessary. Why? There are two interlocking reasons:

First, QEB starts with the premise that the quantum information state of an organism's environment is not really "outside" or separate from the environment. That is, the superposition of the information state of an organism's biological quantum computer invariably considers both the state of the organism and the state of its environment as a single system.

Second, building upon this same point, QEB recognizes that these two facets of the organism's quantum information state - the inner and the outer - are, and have always been, adaptively entangled. There has never been an instant of separation between the organism and its environment, no matter its biological complexity - from the fissioning of a bacterial daughter cell to the fertilization and development of a mammalian embryo.

Furthermore, this entangled relationship is self-regenerating and unbroken throughout life through the continual exchange of information between the "inner" aspect of the biological organism and the "outer" aspect of its environment. The two are connected in exactly the same way that the head and tail side of a coin are connected. They comprise a single system with two aspects and those two aspects are immersed in a ceaseless, fluid movement of entangled information. It's somewhat like a quantum "corpus callosum" connecting the left and right hemispheres of the brain. The cessation of this fluid exchange marks the condition of death - the removal of the adaptive relationship between the organism and its environment. It's interesting to note that subtle bioenergetic exchange is clearly measurable for about 72 hours after brain death - the same figure cited in most spiritual traditions for the length it time the "soul" remains in contact with the physical body.

There are some very interesting corollaries to this observation, one of which is particularly challenging:

This picture suggests that the evolution of an adaptive proto-consciousness may have been able to proceed through coherent quantum level organizations of inorganic matter and only later move onto a matrix of self-replicating molecules in an appropriate environment. In our case, this environment can be thought of as a carbon-based, DNA/RNA molecular computer network. The realization that coherent and even self-organizing non-organic matter may have preceded the evolution of self-replicating molecular computers could solve the "chicken and egg" riddle of the emergence of organic life forms.

As Richard Dawkins is fond of pointing out, the origins of life may be mysterious and improbable - but not improbable enough not to have happened at least once! But once you have the fact of life, as we clearly do, Darwinian principles work to organize it very nicely [but see the discussion above]. Recognizing that coherent, informational self-organization through non-organic quantum computers can exist separately from the organic, self-replicating matter of living organisms, allows the improbability of organic life to be broken down into smaller steps that, once conjoined, add up to the enormous leap of a perfectly tuned system of molecular information storage, adaptation and replication.

This discussion begs another, even more speculative hypothesis: If quantum information state entanglement is inherently independent of space and time - leading to Einstein's famously edgy observation of "spooky action at a distance" - then couldn't it be possible for a previously organized system to leave an informational imprint on the physical matter of the young Solar System? This imprint, which would manifest as a set of coherent, self-organizing quantum information states, could become established in the sub-atomic architecture of whatever matter was available and, in time, allow the transition to whatever appropriate molecular matrix emerged in the newly forming world.

In our case, that turned out to be the matrix of DNA/RNA/ribosomes in a carbon and mineral rich aqueous environment. On other planets and objects, it could be something totally different - perhaps even as strange as nucleonic matter as some science fiction authors have speculated. But the implication remains that the quantum information "seed" of life may be present everywhere, waiting patiently to "evolve" into a material expression whenever conditions present themselves. This is Crick's idea of "panspermia" without the extreme improbability of little green men in spaceships flying around, limited by the speed of light but nonetheless planting DNA on every suitably yeasty planet.

In a nutshell, this idea suggests that the potential for life may lay dormant in the local coherence of quantum information fields throughout the cosmos and that the legacy of the "Big Bang" may not only be the spreading of physical matter into an ever widening gyre. The Big Bang may also be the "Big Entanglement" in which the quantum information state of everything got linked. Dense enough, coherent enough patches of that linkage then manifest almost like a "projector" unbound by space, time and Einstein's traffic laws - sending out the impetus and the ability to run the "movie" of quantum state coherence on any suitable "screen" that develops. The organization of stars, galaxies and planets may be the expression of the original material coherence and the nanoscopic development of coherence manifesting as life on Earth may be another.
 
Approaching Infinity said:
Windmill knight said:
By 'sideways' I mean a mutation or change in the species that is equally complex as what was before, except perhaps it is more convenient given the circumstances (like black vs white moths). 'Forward' would be a change resulting in more complexity/sophistication/organization. Of course, neo-darwinists may say that there is no distinction and what appears to be more complex is subjective. But I think this is fallacious, because how could we claim that there are no organisms of higher complexity/organization than others? A horse is not a sea snail, and a sea snail is not a microbe. Isn't the whole point of the discussion to explain how that complexity came to be?

Exactly, and to use the information theory phrase: "there's no free lunch." New information doesn't come from nowhere. Computer programs can't produce any more information than the information that was programmed or inputted by the programmer. And there's a limit to the amount of new information chance can produce. Seth Lloyd calculates it as being from 400-500 bits (that's the maximum amount given the hypothesized size and age of the universe--of course, there are assumptions built into that number, the big bang theory notably, but I think it's at least good for putting things into perspective). Genomes can have billions of bits of information. Where did the new information come from? Obviously, intelligence has to have a hand in it, either at the very beginning, or along the process.

Added: Here's a paper summary on ID that makes the same point:

A. C. McIntosh, “Functional Information and Entropy in Living Systems,” Design and Nature III: Comparing Design in Nature with Science and Engineering, Vol. 87 (Ashurt, Southampton, United Kindom: WIT Transactions on Ecology and the Environment, WIT Press, 2006).

This paper explores the proper way to measure information and entropy in living organisms. Citing the work of Stephen Meyer, the author argues that random mutations cannot increase order in a living system: “[R]andom mutations always have the effect of increasing the disorder (or what we will shortly define as logical entropy) of any particular system, and consequently decreasing the information content. What is evident is that the initial information content rather than being small must in fact be large, and is in fact vital for any process to work to begin with. The issue of functional complexity and information is considered exhaustively by Meyer who argues that the neo-Darwinist model cannot explain all the appearances of design in biology.” McIntosh continues, explaining that only teleology -- intelligent design -- can explain the increases in information that generate observed biological complexity: “Even within the neo-Darwinist camp the evidence of convergence (similarity) in the suggested evolutionary development of disparate phylogeny has caused some writers to consider ‘channelling’ of evolution. Such thinking is a tacit admission of a teleological influence. That information does not increase by random changes (contrary to Dawkins’ assertion) is evident when we consider in the following section, the logical entropy of a biochemical system.” He concludes that goal-directed processes, or teleonomy, are required: “There has to be previously written information or order (often termed teleonomy’) for passive, non-living chemicals to respond and become active.”

A big FWIW on this but what came to my mind when reading the above is the concept of "negative entropy" that I think Erwin Schrödinger talked about. But this concept might relate to how new information can be transmitted from a higher to a lower source in the biological world thru an interface of some kind (and I'm just speculating here).

Let's say that there is a vast free information field of some kind. Then between this free information field and any existing biological entity (that's subject to the laws of entropy) there is an interface or intermediate level of some kind, maybe it's a kind of organized virtual state or something like that that carries an image or design of this "biological complexity" within it that this biological entity aspires to grow into and this intermediate level allows for the transmission of the information from a higher point of potential to a lower point of actuality. But then you have environmental influences and all like that which may result in the biological entity taking a diverse variety of different forms but the fundamental design is still there in that (assumed) interface field which doesn't change.

So the negative entropy regulates the entity's growth in the upward direction towards it's fundamental design and the positive entropy is what causes it to break apart in the downward direction. Thus a balance of the two kinds of entropy is what more or less maintains the integrity of the biological entity as a whole and governs its growth. Well, just speculating about all this and this is a VERY simple explanation! Anyway I found this on negative entropy that might relate in some way to all this:

From _http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/129024/communication#toc21922
Entropy, negative entropy, and redundancy

Another concept, first called by Shannon a noise source but later associated with the notion of entropy (a principle derived from physics), was imposed upon the communication model. Entropy is analogous in most communication to audio or visual static—that is, to outside influences that diminish the integrity of the communication and, possibly, distort the message for the receiver. Negative entropy may also occur in instances in which incomplete or blurred messages are nevertheless received intact, either because of the ability of the receiver to fill in missing details or to recognize, despite distortion or a paucity of information, both the intent and content of the communication.

Although rarely shown on diagrammatic models of this version of the communication process, redundancy—the repetition of elements within a message that prevents the failure of communication of information—is the greatest antidote to entropy. Most written and spoken languages, for example, are roughly half-redundant. If 50 percent of the words of this article were taken away at random, there would still remain an intelligible—although somewhat peculiar—essay. Similarly, if one-half of the words of a radio news commentator are heard, the broadcast can usually be understood. Redundancy is apparently involved in most human activities, and, because it helps to overcome the various forms of entropy that tend to turn intelligible messages into unintelligible ones (including psychological entropy on the part of the receiver), it is an indispensable element for effective communication.

Messages are therefore susceptible to considerable modification and mediation. Entropy distorts, while negative entropy and redundancy clarify; as each occurs differentially in the communication process, the chances of the message being received and correctly understood vary. Still, the process (and the model of it) remains conceptually static, because it is fundamentally concerned with messages sent from point to point and not with their results or possible influences upon sender and receiver.
 
Windmill knight said:
Granted that the size of populations needs to be taken into consideration; as well as the fact that many species do become extinct altogether, i.e. they fail to adapt. However, it still seems to me that the chances of mutating soon and often enough in the right way in order to survive drastic changes is infinitesimal small, as AI explained:

Just want to point out you're not the only one to point this out. ;)

_http://www.discovery.org/a/2177

Denton (1986:301-324) and others have argued that similar constraints apply to genes and proteins. They have questioned whether an undirected search via mutation and selection would have a reasonable chance of locating new islands of function--representing fundamentally new genes or proteins--within the time available (Eden 1967, Shutzenberger 1967, Lovtrup 1979). Some have also argued that alterations in sequencing would likely result in loss of protein function before fundamentally new function could arise (Eden 1967, Denton 1986). Nevertheless, neither the extent to which genes and proteins are sensitive to functional loss as a result of sequence change, nor the extent to which functional proteins are isolated within sequence space, has been fully known.

The whole paper is worth reading. (It's the one that caused an uproar, since it was published in a mainstream journal, and influenced the making of the documentary Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed)
 
Back
Top Bottom