Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
 

tama

(9,137 posts)
6. "Active information"
Fri May 11, 2012, 05:00 AM
May 2012

is a Bohmian notion related to quantum physics and biologists looking for link to physics to explain self-organization (eg. the capacity of living organisms to alter their own heredity) would do well to look in that direction. Matti Pitkänen has developed the idea further giving it also mathematical anatomy (cells as holographic quantum computers etc.).


As for dogma or paradigm of materialistic determinism, Pitkänen does not mince his words:


If one accepts the non-materialistic view - that is quantum jump as a re-creation, then causality of volition is unavoidably the core element of consciousness.

For the materialistic approach (Pribram) the causality of volition reduces to that of deterministic laws of nature and the challenge is to why we should have the illusory experiences of choice and decision. Why almost everything we say spontaneously reflects these experiences? To exclude from world view something so fundamental is madness. This madness originated in the Newtonian revolution, which led to the belief that the laws of Nature must be fully deterministic.

Personally I have never experienced the wonderful feeling that as a physicist in deterministic world I can in principle predict everything: I am the Overlord. But I remember how difficult it was still to get the courage to see the absolutely obvious: the majority of the science community is deadly wrong. The psychological root of materialism are in a primitive greed for power.

http://matpitka.blogspot.com/2012/05/mystery-of-time-again.html#comments
The Evolution Paradigm Shift [View all] HiPointDem May 2012 OP
You used the word Paradigm Confusious May 2012 #1
I didn't write the articles. I didn't notice shapiro saying anything like what you attribute to him HiPointDem May 2012 #2
you didn't read the article then Confusious May 2012 #3
why don't you paste the passage you're referring to when you say i didn't read the article. HiPointDem May 2012 #4
Right here Confusious May 2012 #5
"someone who says they have the truth and that others aren't listening" doesn't equal HiPointDem May 2012 #22
Nah, I've read enough of these Confusious May 2012 #32
"Active information" tama May 2012 #6
More quantum diarrhea skepticscott May 2012 #9
Sounds like postmodernist Horsesh*t Confusious May 2012 #10
I'm not talking to you tama May 2012 #11
I guess I hit a nerve Confusious May 2012 #13
Mentality? tama May 2012 #15
When the shoe fits Confusious May 2012 #30
You realize that you linked a joke, right? The page generates random pomo-sounding fake essays. HiPointDem May 2012 #26
I used it as an example Confusious May 2012 #29
You're talking about a book by a credentialed scientist who, among other accomplishments, HiPointDem May 2012 #33
yea, well, to repeat myself from below Confusious May 2012 #38
Pseudoscience. UnrepentantLiberal May 2012 #7
Lemarck was wrong then, and Lemarck is wrong now. harmonicon May 2012 #8
LAmarck. HiPointDem May 2012 #21
d'oh!! (nt) harmonicon May 2012 #28
If I were as snarky as some of the folks on this thread I would have been all over that, you HiPointDem May 2012 #35
Oh, yes, and I appreciate it. harmonicon May 2012 #40
Well yeah, but organisms do alter their genome 4th law of robotics May 2012 #56
The old axiom, "Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary proofs" still holds. byeya May 2012 #12
RTFB tama May 2012 #16
Woo-Woo. Odin2005 May 2012 #14
Boo-Boo :) tama May 2012 #17
From the interview: tama May 2012 #20
Mostly hogwash. Intelligent Design with a new hat. LTX May 2012 #18
Thanks for the link tama May 2012 #19
interesting. the majority of the posters dismiss with a single word/line = "woo". HiPointDem May 2012 #23
Bashing Neo-Darwinism + supporting Lamarckianism = Woo. Odin2005 May 2012 #24
it doesn't? are you sure? HiPointDem May 2012 #25
Well it's "deniable", for sure :D tama May 2012 #42
See post 41 by MV, Shapiro doesn't know what he's talking about. Odin2005 May 2012 #43
Shapiro's response tama May 2012 #44
Maybe we should have a discussion Confusious May 2012 #49
Yes, it would have been more accurate for him to state... Humanist_Activist May 2012 #59
Should I explain why I don't believe Confusious May 2012 #31
Shapiro is a spoon-bender? Does he do that when he's not doing bacterial genetics? HiPointDem May 2012 #34
Yea, well sometimes people Confusious May 2012 #37
no, it doesn't mean he's "right". i don't think his book is about being "right" so much as you seem HiPointDem May 2012 #39
Well, first off Confusious May 2012 #48
I'm not sure the complexity he observes cannot be incorporated into mainstream evolution. aikoaiko May 2012 #27
Maybe it can. Thanks for commenting on the work. HiPointDem May 2012 #36
A critique of Shapiro by a colleague muriel_volestrangler May 2012 #41
The establisment is wrong!!! ;) tama May 2012 #45
I agree tama. Edim May 2012 #46
This tama May 2012 #50
Answer to 1): Yes muriel_volestrangler May 2012 #52
I will gladly admit my agnosticism tama May 2012 #55
That shifting is due to the "DNA trees" you're talking about. jeff47 May 2012 #62
Established theory doesn't require the questioning you claim. jeff47 May 2012 #58
Newton knew his theory was incomplete at best, and possibly wrong from the get go... Humanist_Activist May 2012 #60
Not quite jeff47 May 2012 #61
There ProSense May 2012 #47
"Innovation, not selection, is the critical issue in evolutionary change." tama May 2012 #51
It's only math jargon if you're talking about math, otherwise it's just nonsense mathematic May 2012 #53
Yup tama May 2012 #54
Shapiro's excerpt would need major correction... bhikkhu May 2012 #57
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»The Evolution Paradigm Sh...»Reply #6