David Hare-Scott wrote:
songbird wrote:
David Hare-Scott wrote:
songbird wrote:
David Hare-Scott wrote:
...
This application of complexity theory is not universally accepted.
No matter the point that I was trying to make, that the outcomes of
evolution are limited by the availablity of pathways from the
previous situation to a new one remains. Whether this postulated
mechanism opens up more pathways that permit greater leaps from one
state to another remains to be seen, as does how often it might
occur.

well now that there is an active designer in the house
the game will significantly change... already it has
begun and we're only in the few slivers of time in
terms of the past and how long things have gone before.

i would love to be able to sleep for five hundred or
a thousand years and be able to come back and see what
has happened.

I don't understand what you are saying. Could you be more explicit?

saying that evolution is undirected is false.

Just to make sure we are not misunderstanding each other, what I mean is
there are no targets or goals in structure or function the process aims for.
That is there is no specific direction set from the outset, no planning.
That doesn't mean that there is no change for the better (better only in the
sense of more adapted to the current environment) but that such changes are
reached by a combination of natural mechanisms that could well reach some
other position. Evolution may or may not result in the reproductive success
of the organism, if it does the organism is sufficiently suited to the
environment if not it dies out. This is a critical point, there may be many
possible adaptations, or combinations of them, that bring about a similar
result but they are not known in advance.

If you accept that then we agree. If not why do you say that?

i've written similarly in this thread, so can't
disagree in that it is how evolution used to happen
and will likely happen somewhat like that into the
future. the difference is now that humans are
adjusting and removing different species at a
rate much faster than blind evolution will ever
accomplish. i.e. the process will become more
efficient and more directed. we'll continue to
select species we like and moderate or alter
those we don't like (or get rid of them completely
if we can -- i.e. polio, smallpox, t.b., saber
toothed tigers) on the hit list at present i'm
sure rats and mosquitoes are up there in the
sights of some. weeds, certainly some species
of those would be a target for elimination if
various corporations and scientists could come
up with a means.


it is directed (sometimes in ways that are
contradictory (one day it is cold, the next
day it is hot), sometimes orthogonal to the
variation (the change favors big feet with
webs between the toes but the species lives
on rocks not in or near water) but now there
is a new more potent form of direction, an
actual designer who can get around poor
starting designs by coming up with something
completely different.


OK, who or what is this designer and how does she/it do this designing?
What evidence do you have that such exists and please give an example of it
doing its thing.

humans, some scientists, some not, each acts
as a selective agent that previously did not
exist.


i for one would like a newly redesigned
spine that isn't succeptible to disk bulges
which pinch nerves. it is likely that within
a few hundred to a thousand years we may
actually get a differently designed spinal
column

How will that happen? How do you know it will happen?

science keeps advancing or working on the
big problems. damaged and painful spinal problems
are a huge health care need at present. some can
be remedied with the right approaches, but
others require a more radical intervention like
surgery (with all the risks associated with that
it is something many people would like to avoid
if the option existed).

so i know that science continues to work on the
problem. that it might come up with a differently
designed spine, be able to encode it in genes so
that it is expressed as humans develop, and then
have the right outcome is many years in the future.
perhaps it won't be needed. i can't really predict
the future, but i do know it is currently a huge
problem.


(or leave biological forms behind in
various ways).



Are you talking about entering The Matrix or what?

If you are tending towards religion or mysticism then you are outside the
scope of science and there is no point in us going any further with this.

no, it may have been science fiction in the past
to talk about interfacing humans to computers directly
and many other techniques of biological processes
getting taken over by biological chips or many other
technologies only now coming along. still many years
to go there too.

but tell me this, if people are so willing to wear
devices like hearing aids, have cochlear implants,
have retinal implants to restore vision, develop
kidneys and bladders from layers of cells, have heart
pumps, drug pumps, etc. all implanted if needed. well
tattoos alone tell you that many people don't care
exactly what happens to their body as long as enough
others will go along. in the case of a redesigned
spine i'm pretty sure many people would gladly sign up
for it as soon as it became generally available. would
you deny your children a better spine that could resist
injury or heal itself back to original form if it were
damaged? would you not accept a better kidney if yours
were already failing and it could be accomplished easily
enough for a fairly modest use of resources? how about
an extra heart or more memory for the brain? extra
capacity for food storage or liquid storage? none of
these things are that far-fetched.

i really don't see any end to body modifications
once that gets going and they are already going.
thicker skin that can resist cold or heat but still
have all the sensitivity of the original? who'd care
about mosquitoes and bugs if they couldn't get through
the skin or we didn't even have blood any longer? would
we be able to design a skin that could resist the cold
and vaccuum of space? perhaps somewhat. there is a
ton of science still to be done. we're really just
at the leading edge of this and once it does get
going we will likely have a huge explosion in different
forms of human. to exploit the new niches that become
available once we get out of the gravity well of
planets.

anyways, no, i am not mystical in the sense that i
would consider it impossible to leave biological
processes behind. i don't think the mind exists
apart from biology/matter/energy/physics and i'm
fairly sure that the form may be able to change
once we understand the basic arrangements and
requirements.

i do know that if we can ship minds to far away
places along with whatever they need to create a
manufacturing ability at the other end using local
materials then we no longer have to solve the huge
problem of shipping habitat and all the supporting
life forms. instead we ship information and storage
for information and basic manufacturing to ramp up
at the other end. all of which can be sent at much
higher accelerations and at less risk of failure
(many copies of the same thing could be sent knowing
most of them might not make it, but it only takes
a few to get a new colony going). so we take a
trick from the biological processes we have learned
about here, but we kick it up a notch and go with
a designed goal to reach other planets or star systems.

as far as mysticism would go i would say that it is
for the purpose of space travel that humans have been
created (general problem solvers with minds flexible
enough to solve the problem of reconfiguring their
own existence so they can get out of the static trap
they are in and move on to more adaptable forms).

not that i'm biased against the biological world.
i just see the danger of being a life-form, aware as
we are, and being in only one location and subject
to catastrophe so i want backup plans up and running
ASAP.

in the meantime, i garden.


songbird