Are Insects Downloading Data in Time and Space?

[coffin_dodger]

Dr Evil said:

Edit: This is why this subject riles me up so much:
http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016 ... ary-runoff

...just to let you know - which may come as a surprise - not everyone that doubts quantum theory believes in God.
Conflation is not a defense, it's just easy.

[jakell]

Sure, there are non-religious alternatives (Aliens!), but what they have in common is zero evidence, and regardless, the main proponents of ID are creationists trying to push it as science and a valid alternative to evolution.

Aliens is the obvious one, but we could also posit something dwelling on this planet, and talk of non/pre-humans. the main thing is that this pushes Creationists to stop talking of 'intelligent design' and state their case in open religious terms instead, this undermines some of the pretence of a scientific approach that modern creationists adopt.

The advantage of non-supernatural ID is that it can now be considered alongside Darwinian Evolution, as there is no qualitative difference. Absence of evidence here is not evidence of absence. If we take certain forms of ID that don't involve massive sudden changes and works alongside evolution, then the evidence we have for evolution would be indistinguisable from that of ID, there would be no way of telling interference in evolution (artificial selection) from natural evolution.

The above hypotheses make no difference to the scientific position. Too many science types insist on purely naturalistic (non interventionist) evolution, to the extent that their position becomes unsupportable and dogmatic, playing right back into the hands of the Creationists again (these guys are good!)
All that science needs to show is that natural evolution is a possibility, then it's done it's job (subtle as it is). This apparently subtle position puts the onus back on Creationists who declare that it is impossible, however they cannot show why this is, and there the foot shuffling on their part begins

I don't really care if someone believes in ID for whatever reason, but I do care when they try to push it into schools on equal footing with evolution. I don't believe in compromising with idiots.

They're still harping on about teaching the controversy when there is none, complaining about discrimination when there is none and generally being complete, disingenious fucktards trying to push their personal beliefs on everyone.

Sorry, should have added "aliens/enlightened ancient civilization/extra-dimensional beings/time traveling AI" to my list, but it doesn't change anything, there's still no evidence whatsoever that anything external is guiding evolution, supernatural or not.

I think it's a very fair request of mine that you leave headers in posts so that the argument can be followed.

Here I speak of how Creationists can shift the argument so that it looks like a simple battle over territory (ie quantitative, not qualitative), and therefore the claims of those on the side of naturalism are completely hollow.. even worse, that they have an inferior understanding of their own position.
They win in other words, and quite easily too as it's been handed to them on a plate.

The continuous claim of there being 'no evidence' is an inferior response which is put aside quite easily by the bolded part above. The Creationist will then swiftly go on to show that the entire structure of 'naturalism' is simply another religion like theirs,

(repost due to editing error)

[82_28]

I watched an episode of Stephen Hawking's Genius series last night and he did a damn fine job explaining the big bang for the layperson. All shit I already knew, but it was a very well put together production.

I was in awe so to speak of how far the technology has come for his ability to communicate. I've been to two lectures of his in my life and met him "personally" but one thing I noticed was the lack of fans. When I went to see him in the mid 90s, man, the noise the cooling fans made was almost more loud than his voice coming out of the packed large hall's PA. I'm sure he probably has some sort of array of android devices powering his communication now.

I wrote a whole short story about meeting him like 20 years ago. If you're lucky I'll relay it tonight. It is hella crazy how it happened. I wish I had the original. But it is a great story. After beer run I will attempt to capture it again and then post. One of the most moving in more ways than one moments in my life that I am pretty sure I was the only one who noticed.

[DrEvil]

Dr Evil said:

Edit: This is why this subject riles me up so much:
http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016 ... ary-runoff

...just to let you know - which may come as a surprise - not everyone that doubts quantum theory believes in God.
Conflation is not a defense, it's just easy.

Pretty sure I never said that, I just have a big problem with the obvious idiots, like the woman in the article. I don't care what she believes in private, but when she tries to push her beliefs on everyone else it becomes a problem. Why should her personal religious beliefs trump actual, observable science?

If you doubt quantum physics you're sticking your head in the sand. It's real, observable and used (or rather, worked around) every day in various electronics. Birds use it for navigation, plants use it in photosynthesis. You can even set up your own double slit experiment and check it for yourself.

[DrEvil]

Look! Real quotes!

Sure, there are non-religious alternatives (Aliens!), but what they have in common is zero evidence, and regardless, the main proponents of ID are creationists trying to push it as science and a valid alternative to evolution.

Aliens is the obvious one, but we could also posit something dwelling on this planet, and talk of non/pre-humans. the main thing is that this pushes Creationists to stop talking of 'intelligent design' and state their case in open religious terms instead, this undermines some of the pretence of a scientific approach that modern creationists adopt.

The advantage of non-supernatural ID is that it can now be considered alongside Darwinian Evolution, as there is no qualitative difference. Absence of evidence here is not evidence of absence. If we take certain forms of ID that don't involve massive sudden changes and works alongside evolution, then the evidence we have for evolution would be indistinguisable from that of ID, there would be no way of telling interference in evolution (artificial selection) from natural evolution.

The above hypotheses make no difference to the scientific position. Too many science types insist on purely naturalistic (non interventionist) evolution, to the extent that their position becomes unsupportable and dogmatic, playing right back into the hands of the Creationists again (these guys are good!)
All that science needs to show is that natural evolution is a possibility, then it's done it's job (subtle as it is). This apparently subtle position puts the onus back on Creationists who declare that it is impossible, however they cannot show why this is, and there the foot shuffling on their part begins

I don't really care if someone believes in ID for whatever reason, but I do care when they try to push it into schools on equal footing with evolution. I don't believe in compromising with idiots.

They're still harping on about teaching the controversy when there is none, complaining about discrimination when there is none and generally being complete, disingenious fucktards trying to push their personal beliefs on everyone.

Sorry, should have added "aliens/enlightened ancient civilization/extra-dimensional beings/time traveling AI" to my list, but it doesn't change anything, there's still no evidence whatsoever that anything external is guiding evolution, supernatural or not.

I think it's a very fair request of mine that you leave headers in posts so that the argument can be followed.

Here I speak of how Creationists can shift the argument so that it looks like a simple battle over territory (ie quantitative, not qualitative), and therefore the claims of those on the side of naturalism are completely hollow.. even worse, that they have an inferior understanding of their own position.
They win in other words, and quite easily too as it's been handed to them on a plate.

The continuous claim of there being 'no evidence' is an inferior response which is put aside quite easily by the bolded part above. The Creationist will then swiftly go on to show that the entire structure of 'naturalism' is simply another religion like theirs,

(repost due to editing error)

Of course it's an easy win. The creationist position is so far removed from reality it's bordering on parody.

I completely disagree with your assertion that "Absence of evidence here is not evidence of absence".
Another saying is "extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof".

You can't just say "Aliens are manipulating evolution" with no evidence to back you up and expect anyone to take you seriously.

[jakell]

Look! Real quotes!

Sure, there are non-religious alternatives (Aliens!), but what they have in common is zero evidence, and regardless, the main proponents of ID are creationists trying to push it as science and a valid alternative to evolution.

Aliens is the obvious one, but we could also posit something dwelling on this planet, and talk of non/pre-humans. the main thing is that this pushes Creationists to stop talking of 'intelligent design' and state their case in open religious terms instead, this undermines some of the pretence of a scientific approach that modern creationists adopt.

The advantage of non-supernatural ID is that it can now be considered alongside Darwinian Evolution, as there is no qualitative difference. Absence of evidence here is not evidence of absence. If we take certain forms of ID that don't involve massive sudden changes and works alongside evolution, then the evidence we have for evolution would be indistinguisable from that of ID, there would be no way of telling interference in evolution (artificial selection) from natural evolution.

The above hypotheses make no difference to the scientific position. Too many science types insist on purely naturalistic (non interventionist) evolution, to the extent that their position becomes unsupportable and dogmatic, playing right back into the hands of the Creationists again (these guys are good!)
All that science needs to show is that natural evolution is a possibility, then it's done it's job (subtle as it is). This apparently subtle position puts the onus back on Creationists who declare that it is impossible, however they cannot show why this is, and there the foot shuffling on their part begins

I don't really care if someone believes in ID for whatever reason, but I do care when they try to push it into schools on equal footing with evolution. I don't believe in compromising with idiots.

They're still harping on about teaching the controversy when there is none, complaining about discrimination when there is none and generally being complete, disingenious fucktards trying to push their personal beliefs on everyone.

Sorry, should have added "aliens/enlightened ancient civilization/extra-dimensional beings/time traveling AI" to my list, but it doesn't change anything, there's still no evidence whatsoever that anything external is guiding evolution, supernatural or not.

I think it's a very fair request of mine that you leave headers in posts so that the argument can be followed.

Here I speak of how Creationists can shift the argument so that it looks like a simple battle over territory (ie quantitative, not qualitative), and therefore the claims of those on the side of naturalism are completely hollow.. even worse, that they have an inferior understanding of their own position.
They win in other words, and quite easily too as it's been handed to them on a plate.

The continuous claim of there being 'no evidence' is an inferior response which is put aside quite easily by the bolded part above. The Creationist will then swiftly go on to show that the entire structure of 'naturalism' is simply another religion like theirs,

(repost due to editing error)

Of course it's an easy win. The creationist position is so far removed from reality it's bordering on parody.

I completely disagree with your assertion that "Absence of evidence here is not evidence of absence".
Another saying is "extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof".

You can't just say "Aliens are manipulating evolution" with no evidence to back you up and expect anyone to take you seriously.

It's only an easy win because some vocal evolution enthusiasts make a poor case (through overconfidence), it's not inherent in the position.

I am not claiming that aliens are manipulating evolution (so I don't need to find evidence or proof), just that it is an allowable hypothesis, it is naturalistic, although granted, it is also extraordinary.
Science only needs to allow that these things are possible, it needs go no further. to press wholly for pure naturalism is a dogmatic position which plays into the hands of the Creationists

I make it to distinguish it from a supernatural claim, to force Creationists to take a more honest and representative position instead of the deceptive borderline term 'Intelligent design' which they shouldn't really be using as it is too broad for their tightly defined position.

[NeonLX]

The only thing that ever made sense to be about quantum physics was Schrodinger's cat. I think it's "real" (quantum physics, not the cat) because it explains a great deal of the weirdness of the spirits in the material.

[82_28]

So I promised this story of how I met Hawking one on one.

Mid 90's. . .

I went to a lecture at Temple Buell Theater in Denver and I sat next to this guy in a wheelchair who had shit tons of dot matrix printouts of who knows what. But it was apparently all science stuff. There were microphones scattered about the hall. The question and answer time ended and the "show" was over. Then he commandeered a microphone when Hawking was about to go off stage to get to his reception at the hotel in the Tabor Center Hotel. He asked some question challenging him on something and security or the ushers or whatever came and took the microphone out of his hands.

Well, dude tells me he has tickets to said reception and asked will I push him up the street to the event. So I did. There was a huge ice sculpture and tons of hors d'oeuvres, wine and beer. All these people started piling in and I asked them what they did and they were all elderly scientists from CU, CSU etc while sitting at our tables so I got into mild conversation and hella intimidated by it all.

Everyone was discussing the lecture and this guy I wheeled in there started talking over actual professors and shit. All I could say was yeah, I came with him. Embarrassed by some guy I did not know.

Then Hawking shows up and everything goes silent. Everyone begins to just stare at him, crowd around him and I felt so awful for him being a "novelty" as it were. They bring in some other guy in the city who had ALS and they just sat there with their interpreters doing what they do. That was all right. I sorta paced around and noticed a table full of books and noticed they were all about creationism and asked to myself why the fuck are those here? Stephen Hawking to my left and all this pseudo science shit in the same room to my right. All the while pissed about him being stared at like a circus freak.

There was another event in the adjacent event room. To whom the books were intended for. The doors opened and out poured a bunch of fat fuck "christians" who noticed Hawking and started ogling him now too. What a misfit this guy must be!

I started to literally cry and left down the escalators. These fucking idiot creationists were looking at our generation of Galileo or Einstein (throw a name in the hat and pick one) and didn't know who the fuck he was, just something to look at.

The discordance was way too much to emotionally take standing before one of the greats.

I got my opportunity. I wrote it way better back in the 90s, but there you have the gist of it.

[jakell]

I was surprised to see Creationists and Christians mentioned in your account here, I tend to associate them more with 'The New Atheists' (Dawkins et al) type events, then I realised that they were actually from an unrelated event and their inclusion was incidental.

The reason I was surprised is that 90% (+) of the debate around Creationism vs naturalism is drawn towards the Darwinian Evolution issue, with the actual origin of life coming second place and the origin of the Solar System and Universe coming third, these latter do get mentions though (sometimes as a convenient or accidental derailment of former). It's not a surprising focus though, the former does grasp the imagination of laypersons more readily and is more directly related to common existential issues, this was also apparent in the 19th century when the debate was far younger.

It's probably worth me highlighting again that Darwinian Evolution does not address the origin of life, only its subsequent development. Creationists will use this conflation to ask awkward questions of evolutionists who don't understand their own position, and watch them tie themselves in knots trying to answer them.
Like with the meaning of Intelligent Design, if one wishes to debate these people (rather that simply getting angry and venomous over and over again.), then this is an important distinction.

[82_28]

Yes Jakell, it all happened in my hardcore atheist days (no longer) also I was just a kid that was "sought after" by the old atheists to be some sort of emissary for them to lure in youth. I thought the hatred to be intolerable. I don't and have never given a fuck about hate or turning towards it. Just when I went to their meetings they were not the "free thinkers" they said they were. I definitely was not coerced as I sought them out on my own. Just last year, in fact, I went to a Catholic mass and did my first communion, crossed myself and everything before the priest. I don't believe in shit. But I figured why the fuck not. I just think that something exists inside my psyche that all psyches share that love and respect for every last thing on Earth/Cosmos.

It is hard to convey this to people because shit is always cut and dried. I can't tell you how many times I have tried to get an animal to laugh.

But you are right. The Origin remains quite the enigma and that's why I don't give a shit about the idea of ID. Religious fundamentalism though can go fuck itself.



EDIT: By not giving a shit, I mean it is no issue with me. It's up to the "user".

[jakell]

I think the heydey of 'hardcore atheism' is over in general and pretty much coincided with Dawkins' and the other horsemen deciding they needed to do some sort of worldwide campaign against religion, it's noticeable that no-one is stepping into their shoes. It's not necessary for rationalism to do that sort of thing... the rise of atheism did absolutely fine on it's own over the last few centuries with no-one getting pushy about it.

I don't think they made much of a dent in any Christian believers (and very likely no effect at all on Muslims) and seemed to be mainly preaching to the choir. What they did seem to produce is a lot heat that just made for more arguments that, more often than not, ended discussions rather than encouraged them.
It's good that we don't have to be angry any more.

Regarding ID (which doesn't translate automatically to religious fundamentalism), it's useful to have more than one hypothesis, as I said on the first mention of this here:

I do enjoy the whole 'Intelligent Design' idea as a sort of thought experiment. Unfortunately, Creationists have hijacked the term and too many people associate it with them alone, but it's a lot wider than that and can include scenarios that are not at all supernatural...


..At it's very basic, ID can be considered as an alternative hypothesis to Darwinian Evolution. Try suggesting this to your average hard headed science buff though and it's often surprising at the strength of reaction, it's like you have suggested that they be baptised.

[jakell]

This is the video that started it all for me. It was presented as the first post in a thread with the above name. It's not one of the best videos of its kind (and definitely not the worst), but is a fairly accessible intro to the more technical end of things.



My first step (as ever) was to throw out the 'Intelligent Design = Creationism' assumption which is fairly easily done, but not so easily accepted as that is an equation that people on both sides seem to cling to. Once thrown out we can proceed to look at the issue more coolly.

In general, I've split the issue into the three main areas that people seem to congregate in, these are obviously artificial and I use them for clarity. Mix them up and the issue becomes unmanageable (although useful for rhetoricians):

1) Development of Life on Earth (Darwin and all that),
2) Origin on Life on Earth,
3) Origin of the Universe

As I said above, the majority of the discussion centres around no. 1, usually because of the hot-air whirlwind created by Creationists and Evolutionists, but it's a natural focus as we are talking about things that we can easily see around us.
The area that the above video concentrates on sits uncomfortably between 1 & 2 though, ie, it uses ideas of natural selection (or rather points where it is lacking), but looks at things where there would be no physical evidence of it, so we are talking of abstractions.

A possible goal?... to get science enthusiasts to stop claiming vehemently that this is all wrapped up and start to be a bit more open minded. I've come to the conclusion that the later showings of scientism are looking like a cargo cult, ie a dogmatic faith in something that produces goodies and benefits (via technology in this case).
What happens when the cargo supply starts to dry up (or is toxic/spoiled)? Then I'll get on to my real project which, by the looks of things, will have to wait quite a while, in the meantime... Intelligent Design

[82_28]

Math Bee: Honeybees Seem To Understand The Notion Of Zero

Honeybees understand that "nothing" can be "something" that has numerical meaning, showing that they have a primitive grasp of the concept of zero.

That's according to a newly published study in Science, which shows that bees possess a mathematical ability once thought to exist only in dolphins, primates, birds and humans who are beyond the preschool years.

"This is quite amazing, in my view, that bees can really do it," says Andreas Nieder, a scientist who studies how animals' process the idea of "nothing" and was not part of the research team.

He says zero was discovered relatively recently in human history, and was essential in the development of both mathematics and science. "It's a hard and very abstract concept," Nieder says. "It is a sort of eccentric uncle in the number family."

Previous experiments have shown that honeybees have some facility with numbers, because they were able to count landmarks as they foraged around for a sweet reward. But in these tests, the insects couldn't count very high — only to about four.

Still, that made a team of researchers in Australia and France want to explore what else the bees could do with numbers. Scarlett Howard at RMIT University in Melbourne, Australia, lured bees to a wall where they were presented with two square cards. Each card had a different number of black symbols, such as dots or triangles.

Howard trained one group of bees to understand that sugar water would always be located under the card with the least number of symbols. "They could come and see two circles versus three circles, or four triangles versus one triangle, or something like that," she explains.

The bees quickly learned to fly to the card with the fewest symbols, an impressive feat.

But then they got another test: The researchers presented the bees with a card that had a single symbol — and a blank card that had nothing on it.

The bees seemed to understand that "zero" was less than one, because they flew toward the blank card more often than you'd expect if they were choosing at random — although they weren't that good at distinguishing between the two.

It got easier for them when they had to compare zero with a larger number. "When we showed them zero versus six, they did that at a much higher level than zero versus one," Howard says. "So what tells us is that they consider zero as an actual quantity along the number line. They're actually better at doing zero versus six because those two numbers are further apart."

"We were very surprised and happy, excited, to see that actually the bees were choosing the empty paper," says Aurore Avargues-Weber, a CNRS researcher with the University of Toulouse.

Even very young children, she points out, have trouble understanding that zero is a number. "It's easy for them to count 'one, two, three, four,' but zero, it's nothing, it's not something to count. So it's not the same category," she explains.

She had expected that the bees would see a blank paper as something irrelevant that was completely different than what they had been trained on, because to understand zero, "brains need to represent something out of nothing. It's not trivial."

What's more, the brains of bees are incredibly tiny brains compared with the brains of humans, Nieder notes. "Bees really have a mini-brain with fewer than one million brain cells," he says, "compared to 86 billion nerve cells in our brain."

Even so, the bees can understand the abstract concept of an empty set — the precursor or prerequisite to understanding the symbolic number zero — and he says he found that very surprising.

https://www.npr.org/2018/06/07/61786346 ... on-of-zero

[BenDhyan]

^ Math bees ok, but can they spell?

[82_28]

Ever heard of a spelling bee? I know I lost in 4th grade.