The Future of Biology: Reverse Engineering

Creation-Evolution Headlines ^ | 3/14/05 | Staff

[Rafterman]

Yes, I am an agent of Satan, but my duties are largely ceremonial.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you so very much for your excellent summary and discussion!

[OhioAttorney]

Good illustration. What it illustrates is one of two possible things: (a) two purportedly identical color-qualities may turn out on closer inspection not to be identical after all; or (b) two people may have slightly different subjective experiences under very similar external conditions, so that one person experiences the same (identical) shade twice where someone else experiences two different shades.

I see what you're getting at, but I think the illustration leaves open the possibility that each of the specific subjectively-experienced shades could be identically repeated.

Indeed, there's a sense in which each shade has to be 'repeated' even to be experienced at all: an instantaneous shade of color at a dimensionless point is no color at all, so the experience has to be 'spread out' over both space and time in order to happen in the first place. In that case, I can mentally subdivide either the space or the time and get two (or more) identical color-experiences.

Now I really have to go. Thanks to all of you for an interesting chat, and I expect I'll be around again on Monday or thereabouts.

[MacDorcha]

I normally dont do this,but I'm going to play devil's advocate here.

I think Pat's arguement was that "yes, we can hear it" but before it's percieved, is it sound? The mechanism that triggers "sound" in our brain is activated on the outside. We percieve "sound" only when we can record it.

Stop me if I got you wrong Pat.

This is a specific arguement I don't claim to have full knowledge of either, but I do like to play it out as much as I can, reardless of who I'm speaing with/for.

[MacDorcha]

LOL

[MacDorcha]

speaing=speaking

[r9etb]

LOL!

[betty boop]

There was no physical organism to hear that sound yet there you have it - proof that sound exists even if noone hears it.

Great observation, A-G!!!

[js1138]

Here's a web site that attempts to show what it is like to have various kinds of color blindness. I think the examples are bad, and I think some of them are incorrectly labeled, but it's a start. Your friend with protonopia does not see everything as shades of grey. He just sees colors differently, and he will label some colors differently from you.

If color exists independently of the eye and brain, why will some people say that two color chips match exactly, and other people say they don't?

[MacDorcha]

And to play out what I just stated about liking to argue either side:

If the reactive element existed until now, that would prove, still, that "sound" (as a vibration- as we percieve it) did in fact function in the same manner before us as it does now, and will likely continue to do so.

[js1138]

The roll of "cow" existed before you woke up this morning. You don't have to percieve it for it to be.

Moving from one sore point to another, is there a Platonic role for "whale"?

[MacDorcha]

No link.

Color does exist seperately. The problem is that "perception" is still playing it's hand.

A machine would identify them as different colors. But they still, in fact, exhibit color.

[StJacques]

On the big bang . . .

I'm with Einstein. It is unscientific to assume that the event did not have a cause and we may with reason hypothesize that the cause was beyond the objective reality we know, since that objective reality did not exist before the big bang. Therefore the cause was beyond the objective reality we know.

That is as close as science will ever come to presenting proof of the existence of God.

And for anyone who is wondering, I do personally view the big bang as the moment of creation and I do attribute it to God.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you for your replies! And thank you for the kudos, betty boop!

IMHO, the "does the tree falling the forest make a sound" argument can be boiled down to a dispute of definitions:

Dictionary of Technical Terms

sound

1. An oscillation in pressure, stress, particle displacement, particle velocity, etc., in a medium with internal forces (e.g., elastic, viscous), or the superposition of such propagated oscillations.

2. A sensation evoked by the oscillation described above in the human ear.

In case of possible confusion, the term sound wave or elastic wave may be used for concept 1 and the term sound sensation for concept 2. Not all sound wave can evoke an auditory sensation, e.g., ultrasound. The medium in which the sound exists is often indicated by an appropriate adjective, e.g., airborne, water borne, structure borne.

I defer to the technical definition of the word "sound" - hence sound existed before there were any organisms (human or otherwise) to hear it.

[Centurion2000]

bump

[MacDorcha]

Can you concieve of a whale but not give any details defining it's exact species?

Large, aquative mammal with a horizontal tail fin that eat. Can you give me an exact species that that whale is?

It swims, we know this by "aquatic"

It consumes, has a spine, breathes air. We know this because it is an animal, as evident from the fact that it is mammal.

The roll is filled, but I am yet to tell you if it is a Blue Whale or a Sperm Whale, or even a toothed Orca.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you for your reply and challenge!

If color exists independently of the eye and brain, why will some people say that two color chips match exactly, and other people say they don't?

The observer has nothing to do with the truth of the matter - whether the two color chips are identical or not.

Indeed, you may present the same color chip multiple times to a single observer and get mixed responses - when you as the investigator have prior knowledge that it is in fact the same color chip.

[StJacques]

and these laws can be discovered (not invented) through experimentation.

False (and if one claims objectivism is not a blind faith note the internal contradiciton) . . .

Well at least you're honest about it Tribune. ID supporters believe it is scientific to invent the laws of nature. Scientists do not.

And on global warming, I know at least two geologists who will sit down and argue that we are actually entering a cooling phase and they will point to some rather significant evidence to make their point. These same geologists will laugh if anyone argues that there is scientific evidence to contest the Theory of Evolution.

And as to my religious beliefs, I state without reservation that I do believe in God most fervently. I consider my faith to be quite strong in fact. But I reject the notion that the Theory of Evolution undermines that belief in any way. My faith is not threatened by science and never will be.

[js1138]

If it is indeed simply the reaction of our brains to moving electrons, why don't coloblind people have a blank space where things with those colors are?

Actually, something like this can happen. The best way to demonstrate this is to get out some black and white film and take some pictures with a red filter over the lens. That would simulate blue-blindness (although human blue-blindness is not exactly equivalent).I had a college professor with a blue deficiency. He said he could see blue in sunlight, but in dimmer light, blue objects looked black. Since he could see and understand blue, he could describe the perceived difference.

All objects in the real world have complex spectral distributions. Nothing in real life emits or reflects a single wavelength. There are an infinite number of possible mixtures of spectral colors that can give the subject impression of green (or any specified shade).

[MacDorcha]

"And as to my religious beliefs, I state without reservation that I do believe in God most fervently. I consider my faith to be quite strong in fact. But I reject the notion that the Theory of Evolution undermines that belief in any way. My faith is not threatened by science and never will be."

Then we are of one accord, brother. :)