humans as systems with functions

[Jonesy]

Why are humans so 'complex'? Take dreams for example. We cannot explain them. And even if we found exactly which neurons/atoms move about during dreams, can we determine why these movements occur? Why does a dream occur in the first place? I mean, we are asleep, so how can we see with our eyes closed? Because clearly I saw things yesterday while having my eyes closed during sleep. Now, that is so complcated that I have trouble imagining how evolution could 'evolve' our ability to perceive images while we are actually not looking at anything, but have our eyes closed. It seems to me that there is a physical world (atoms) and a non-physical, which seems to be causing the movement of the atoms. And what about evidence of 'astral walking'? How can we ignore these phenomena? I mean, I believe evolution cannot account for many of our humanly abilities. An intelligent input seems a good explanation, although I'm not talking about god or anything like that. All I'm trying to say is that there are many evidence that the 'all evolved gradually' view simply cannot apply to many observable phenomena. Some things to me seem too complex to simply include it also in the 'evolved' category. Ok, I would grant 'evolved-with-inputs' if there is such a concept. BUt I cannot agree with 'evolution only'. Logic tells me that very complex things require intelligence or at least 'a purpose'. I mean, everything in a human body has a purpose so why not the actual human itself? Uff, hope somebody clears the issues for me, as I really cannot go past the overwhelming complexities of the human. You just don't get machines like we are with an essentially random process. Even though I don't believe in god, 'machines' to me imply necessarily 'design' and 'purpose for the machine'. Or am I getting confused between 'living machines' and 'non-living machines'? Some poeple would say that non-living machines require intelligence. And that living machines don't need any intelligence because the fact that they are comprised of 'living particles' means that they could develop into complex systems without any higher-level input. But to me, 'systems' and 'machines' imply 'intent'. And surely we can class the human body as a 'system ' or 'machine'. And that means intent to me. Intent to 'produce the systems that perform functions'. The human body does perform functions, doesn't it? It is a nice and working 'machine', ey? So, why are we so scared, even if we dont believe in god, to admit that there are logically good chances that even these 'living systems' that we are were 'intended' (somehow)? It's a big 'somehow' but this problem must be faced.

[RufusAtticus]

Humans are not the product of intelligent design because if we were we'd have paragraphs.

[Duvenoy]

Agree, Rufus. A tough read without paragraphs.

If I have it straight, Jonesy is implying an ultimate purpose, the very thing that Evolution does not have.

A species might indeed evolve to fit into an ecological nich, but given enough time, that nich will dissappear and the species with it, unless it not so specialized that it can further evolve into another. As did our ancestors, the greatest non-specialists ever.

Why should Evolution, or any other, natural process have an untimate purpose?

doov

[scigirl]

[quote]Originally posted by Jonesy:
I mean, everything in a human body has a purpose so why not the actual human itself? <hr></blockquote>
Are you sure you mean everything?

scigirl

[Duvenoy]

[quote]
Are you sure you mean everything? <hr></blockquote>

Whoa!! There's a trap if ever I saw one!

:D

doov

[Oolon Colluphid]

Hmmm. A quick search on Jonesy’s other posts shows that his last was in this ancient thread. But as he’s around, and didn’t get a full response last time, I’m bothering to reply now.
Let’s hope he’s not a post-and-runner.
Why are humans so 'complex'?
Because all the ‘simple’ ecological niches are already taken.
Take dreams for example. We cannot explain them.
Bookshops are full of books purporting to explain them.

And there are plenty of people researching them. What troubles you?
And even if we found exactly which neurons/atoms move about during dreams
The neurons don’t generally move. Ions move in and out across membranes as neurons do their thing. This is exactly the same process as in more usual brain functions.
can we determine why these movements occur? Why does a dream occur in the first place?
As has been suggested in your new thread, try www.google.com
I mean, we are asleep, so how can we see with our eyes closed?
We can’t. If we were awake, dreams would be hallucinations.
Because clearly I saw things yesterday while having my eyes closed during sleep.
You seem to have an odd definition of ‘seeing’, since the things you ‘saw’ presumably weren’t in front of you at the time.
Now, that is so complcated that I have trouble imagining how evolution could 'evolve' our ability to perceive images while we are actually not looking at anything, but have our eyes closed.
Again, Argument from Personal Incredulity. I see you’ve not been spending this last year and a half reading up on these things.
It seems to me that there is a physical world (atoms) and a non-physical
Nope. Just the former, I’m afraid. You are welcome to believe in the latter if you want, but there’s no evidence for it at all.
which seems to be causing the movement of the atoms.
Nope. Pretty well understood mechanisms move the atoms fine on their own.
And what about evidence of 'astral walking'?
What evidence?
How can we ignore these phenomena?
Quite easily. They don’t exist. They are misinterpretation, after-the-fact rationalisation, and good old fashioned fibbing.
I mean, I believe evolution cannot account for many of our humanly abilities.
Such as?
An intelligent input seems a good explanation,
Many clever folks have contributed intelligent input to countless books on these subjects. Try eg Randi and Ramachandran.
although I'm not talking about god or anything like that. All I'm trying to say is that there are many evidence that the 'all evolved gradually' view simply cannot apply to many observable phenomena.
Name some.
Some things to me seem too complex to simply include it also in the 'evolved' category.
Name some.
Ok, I would grant 'evolved-with-inputs' if there is such a concept. BUt I cannot agree with 'evolution only'.
I’m sure we’re all gutted about what you can or can’t agree with.
Logic tells me
I see little sign of your application of logic.
that very complex things require intelligence
The sort of intelligence that put wings that cannot work on beetles that live on and in the ground anyway?
There’s another way to produce organised complexity. It is by algorithmically repeating a sieving process on random variations.
or at least 'a purpose'. I mean, everything in a human body has a purpose
I repeat Scigirl’s question: really? What, even the shape of our appendix? Even our satellite DNA?

so why not the actual human itself?
We provide our own purposes.
Uff, hope somebody clears the issues for me, as I really cannot go past the overwhelming complexities of the human.
Sure. I’m not underestimating this stuff in the slightest. But there’s nothing among it that cannot have been formed by the known sieving process.
You just don't get machines like we are with an essentially random process.
Oh deary-dear. Evolution 101, lesson 1, minute 2: evolution by natural selection is absolutely not a random process. The mutations are, but by definition selection is not.
Even though I don't believe in god, 'machines' to me imply necessarily 'design' and 'purpose for the machine'.
I encourage you once more to seek out Richard Dawkins’s The Blind Watchmaker. It should answer your problems, and do so more eloquently than most of us here can manage. You should be able to pick up a copy second-hand quite cheaply from www.abebooks.com. (Just checked, and there’s four shops in Australia with copies right now.)
Or am I getting confused between 'living machines' and 'non-living machines'?
Yes. Non-living machines crucially do not make copies of themselves.
Some poeple would say that non-living machines require intelligence.
Obviously.
And that living machines don't need any intelligence because the fact that they are comprised of 'living particles' means that they could develop into complex systems without any higher-level input.
That much is nonsense. There’s no such thing as ‘living particles’. What counts is replication.
But to me, 'systems' and 'machines' imply 'intent'.
Sure. But it doesn’t apply when the ability to replicate is involved.
And surely we can class the human body as a 'system ' or 'machine'.
Yep. One that can have children.
And that means intent to me. Intent to 'produce the systems that perform functions'. The human body does perform functions, doesn't it? It is a nice and working 'machine', ey?
Yep. And its function is to pass on the genes that ride along inside it. Or if you prefer, to leave descendants.
So, why are we so scared,
I’ve no idea why you might be scared. I’m not.
even if we dont believe in god, to admit that there are logically good chances that even these 'living systems' that we are were 'intended' (somehow)? It's a big 'somehow' but this problem must be faced.
First you need to do better at demonstrating that a problem exists.

TTFN, Oolon

[Jet Black]

let us assume for a moment that humans have an externally defined purpose (other than say to propagate genes and memes)

what is the purpose of that purpose?

then having etablished that purpose

what is the purpose of that purpose?

and so on ad infinitum.

[Jet Grind]

Why are humans so 'complex'?

I think the appropriate question is "how did humans become so complex".

Take dreams for example. We cannot explain them. And even if we found exactly which neurons/atoms move about during dreams, can we determine why these movements occur?

We know that at least some dreams are random firings of neurons in the brain, they're no different from any other chemical reaction, except that these ones involve neurotransmitters and synaptic connections.

Why does a dream occur in the first place? I mean, we are asleep, so how can we see with our eyes closed? Because clearly I saw things yesterday while having my eyes closed during sleep.

I'm no expert, but I'd have to guess that it has something to do with the same operations that occur in our brain as we are perceiving images in the real world, which we have located in certain parts of the brain (i.e the visual cortex, the auditory cortex, etc.)

Now, that is so complcated that I have trouble imagining how evolution could 'evolve' our ability to perceive images while we are actually not looking at anything, but have our eyes closed.

I'd have to disagree. Artificial evolution in computers has been able to do some pretty amazing things with designs and programs. I have no reason to doubt that similar processes in the real world could produce something as complex as the human brain or body. There is stuff about that in the current issue of WIRED magazine and tons of info about it in Kevin Kelly's "Out of Controll". If you want to know about the evolutioon of complexity, pick up a copy of Richard Dawkins' "Climbing Mount Improbable".

It seems to me that there is a physical world (atoms) and a non-physical, which seems to be causing the movement of the atoms.

There's no evidence of that.

And what about evidence of 'astral walking'? How can we ignore these phenomena?

How about evidence of people doing kameameha waves? There isn't any. If you know someone who can do this "astral walking" stuff, call James Randi, he owes that person one million dollars.

All I'm trying to say is that there are many evidence that the 'all evolved gradually' view simply cannot apply to many observable phenomena.

I'd have to disagree. Show me some observable phenomena that isn't wholly explicable by natural laws, or biological phenomena that isn't wholly explicable by evolutionary processes.

Some things to me seem too complex to simply include it also in the 'evolved' category.

Baseless.

BUt I cannot agree with 'evolution only'. Logic tells me that very complex things require intelligence or at least 'a purpose'. I mean, everything in a human body has a purpose so why not the actual human itself?

Not everything in the human body has a purpous, there are many vestigial parts. A homegrown example the human tail-bone.

[Shadowy Man]

I am not troubled by the existence of dreams (except the troubling dreams) or the complexity of the brain that produces them.

Systems can exhibit behaviors more complex than the rules that govern them.

That is perfectly natural. I see no conflict with that and theory of evolution. To believe that something that occurs naturally is "too complex" is just the basis for the ol' argument from incredulity.

[Don Alhambra]

Originally posted by Jonesy
Why does a dream occur in the first place? I mean, we are asleep, so how can we see with our eyes closed? Because clearly I saw things yesterday while having my eyes closed during sleep.


We don't see with our eyes, contrary to popular belief. The eyes are just collectors of data, specifically the direction, wavelength and intensity of electromagnetic radiation in the visible spectrum (visible light). The cells in the retina transmit data to the visual cortex via the optic nerve, where it is interpreted. Only when the data has been interpreted can an image be formed. We don't see with our eyes, we see with our brains.

When you are asleep, especially during REM sleep, the general consensus is that the brain is performing filing and maintenance tasks. The visual cortex is active during dreams, and the eyes move (hence REM or rapid eye movement). Thus the fact that images are perceived while you are asleep is unsurprising. The images were there anyway, or were constructed out of fragments of memory while the brain makes sense of the day's events.


This has been a public service announcement.

[Gregg]

Originally posted by Jonesy
It seems to me that there is a physical world (atoms) and a non-physicalAn intelligent input seems a good explanation, although I'm not talking about god or anything like that.Even though I don't believe in godSo, why are we so scared, even if we dont believe in god, to admit that there are logically good chances that even these 'living systems' that we are were 'intended' (somehow)? It's a big 'somehow' but this problem must be faced. Jonesy, I'm trying to help you clarify your thinking...it seems a bit confused. You say that this "intelligence" is "non-physical" but it's not a god. Well, a non-physical intelligent agent is a pretty good working description for a god, but since you won't call it a god (since you don't believe in those), what is it? An angel? A ghost or spirit? A demon? What? How is the existence of this non-physical intelligent agent any more likely than the existence of a god? Why is it easier for you to believe in it if you don't call it a god?

Also, where did this non-physical intelligent agent come from? Even if it's non-physical, it must be complex. How could some formless ectoplasm have consciousness? If it's complex, doesn't it follow that it, too, must have been designed? After all, something that complex can't just spring out of nothing, can it? In that case, who or what designed it? And who or what designed the thing that designed it? And who or what designed the thing that designed the thing that designed it? Will you get out of this by saying the non-physical intelligent agent has just always existed? But what about anything complex having to be designed?

I hope this helps you clarify your arguments. Me, I've just confused myself.... :)

Gregg