On Mon, May 30, 2016 at 8:39 AM, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote
>> >> arithmetic >> , >> e >> lementary >> or otherwise, doesn't lead to complexity or to anything else. >> Dawkins like Darwin was interests in what matter can do (like produce >> life), and without matter > > > > > That idea has been refuted. > > Where? > > > Even without primary matter, arithmetic leads to both the material > complexity > How can you have material complexity if you don't have any material? > > and the non material one. Show me an example of material complexity but don't use any material (and that includes electrons) when you do so. > > > Your invocation to your God (Matter) not only explain nothing, > Wow, calling a guy known for disliking religion religious, never heard that one before, at least I never heard it before I was 12. > > > how does it select the material computations among the non material one. > Easy, non material computations don't exist. Now I have a question for you, how do "non material computations" select the computations that produce correct answers from the infinite number of computations that do not? > > > How does it manage to make the non material computations non conscious? > I'm not sure what "it" is but undoubtedly "it" does "it" the same way" it "makes non-dragons non-dragons. Dragons are not conscious and neither are non material computations, in fact non material computations are not anything. > > > Invoking a God (personal or not) will never work in Science. > Wow, calling a guy known for disliking religion religious, never heard that one before, at least I never heard it before I was 12. >> >> And Darwin showed how iteration with some random variation thrown in >> will produce complexity if the resources needed for reproduction are not >> infinite. Or to say exactly the same thing more simply, Evolution is just >> random mutation and natural selection. > > > > > How could we know the mutations are all random. Some are, some are not. > Bacteria already can augment the rate of mutations by the activity of some > genes. > Some genes may increase the rate of copying errors but those genes have no foresight, they just make the machinery crank out more mistakes; on rare occasions one of those mistakes might get lucky and make reproduction more likely, but it's still random. > > I think that even if evolution is, at some level, "just" random mutation > and natural selection, > Mutation is random but natural selection most certainly is not! And natural selection could not exist if the *PHYSICAL* resources that life needs were infinite, but they are not. > > there is an infinity of intermediate levels showing that higher level > programming can be playing some major role in evolution. > If there is an infinity of anything then it's not physical , and thus Natural Selection is impossible , and thus Evolution is impossible , and thus the spontaneous production of the complexity needed to produce intelligence is impossible. > > > sex is already such a thing. It accelerates the genetical dialog between > individuals, allowing an acceleration of the growing of diversity. > True, but sex is physical so I don't see how that helps your argument. Is the integer 42 male or female? > > > To say that Evolution is just random mutation and natural selection is > like saying that the program Deep Blue is just a bunch of Nands. > Yes, it is like saying that, and both statements are true. They're stated in a rather undramatic way perhaps, but are true nevertheless. John K Clark > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
