Nature is Quantum Intelligent: Split fron QM effects... algae

[Socrates]

Originally Posted by Jet Black

There has been some speculation for a while now that quantum mechanical effects have been exploited by living organisms, particularly in photosynthsis, in which electron transfer is often far more efficient than one would expect by random hops alone, and a number of experiments have already observed QM effects in organisms

http://www.sciencenews.org/view/feat...Living_Physics

Now a group in the University of Toronto have observed superposition states in algae - a purely quantum mechanical state.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0203131356.htm

The exploitation of Quantum mechanics by living organisms is really cool, since room temperature highly complex systems have not really been considered to be a good situation for QM effects to be a significant factor. Most experiments that we do to observe Quantum Mechanics tend to be very cold, or limited systems involving small collections of atoms and photons, but now we can see that nature has been doing this stuff for billions of years.

Absolutely. The intelligence of Nature has been doing this always.

[damitall]

Originally Posted by Socrates

Absolutely. The intelligence of Nature has been doing this always.

I wondered how long it would be before Soccs glommed onto this.

[Socrates]

Originally Posted by Febble

Yes, thanks

That's a pretty interesting phenomena - "it tries all of the routes at once".
And everybody nods off back to sleep - nobody thinks about what that means about the true nature of reality.

[VoxRat]

Originally Posted by Socrates

...
And everybody nods off back to sleep - nobody thinks about what that means about the true nature of reality.

except, of course, "Socrates-Man"

By the way, when are you ever going to learn?

one phenomenon, two phenomena.

[Jet Black]

Originally Posted by Socrates

And everybody nods off back to sleep - nobody thinks about what that means about the true nature of reality.

I didn't realise you are an expert in quantum mechanics.

[Socrates]

http://www.sciencenews.org/view/feat...Living_Physics

“For some reason it seems that nature has maybe coordinated the movement or done something else to let this coherence survive,” Ritz says. “And what that reason is would be very interesting to find out because it may give us a clue of how we could control processes at that level.”

The intelligence of Nature is quite impressive. Far, far above the level of human beings.

[Febble]

Originally Posted by Socrates

http://www.sciencenews.org/view/feat...Living_Physics

The intelligence of Nature is quite impressive. Far, far above the level of human beings.

In what sense, Charlie?

[Species8472]

Originally Posted by Socrates

That's a pretty interesting phenomena - "it tries all of the routes at once".
And everybody nods off back to sleep - nobody thinks about what that means about the true nature of reality.

I see you are not used to the world of quantum mechanics. But just because you're not, doesn't mean no one is. What is "true nature of reality" all depends on what scale you're looking at.

[Socrates]

Originally Posted by Species8472

I see you are not used to the world of quantum mechanics. But just because you're not, doesn't mean no one is. What is "true nature of reality" all depends on what scale you're looking at.

Scale is very important. No doubt about that.

[Tindalos]

I think I know where Soccy's ideas are coming from.

It appears that part of it comes from the "Great Chain of Being", wiki'd here and here.


Also, Soccy seems to be heaviliy influenced by Deepak Chopra, especially wrt Nature's Intelligience, as can seen here and here with some further info located here as well as here.

It also seems lately that Soccy is taken with Eugene McCarthy and his Stabilization Theory.

Not to mention quotemining and minsinterpreting both Gould & Shapiro.

[Socrates]

I do not respond to people who do not have the common decency to use the name Socrates which I use on this forum.
I call people by the name they use on this forum. Others can do the same.

[Jet Black]

Originally Posted by Socrates

I do not respond to people who do not have the common decency to use the name Socrates which I use on this forum.
I call people by the name they use on this forum. Others can do the same.

please have the decency not to fuck up interesting thread with your retarded presence.

[Gagundathar Inexplicable]

At what point did you start to believe that you could dictate the actions of others on this board?
We can attempt to persuade others to follow the conventions that we prefer, but demanding such is rather ludicrous.
After all, 'Socrates', it is not as if you have demonstrated that you are worthy of anything other than hilarity and opprobrium.

Do you live by yourself, or does someone assist you with your daily activities?

[Socrates]

Originally Posted by Gagundathar Inexplicable

At what point did you start to believe that you could dictate the actions of others on this board?
We can attempt to persuade others to follow the conventions that we prefer, but demanding such is rather ludicrous.
After all, 'Socrates', it is not as if you have demonstrated that you are worthy of anything other than hilarity and opprobrium.

Do you live by yourself, or does someone assist you with your daily activities?

I have not told others how to act.
I have only said how I will act.

[Socrates]

Originally Posted by Tindalos

I think I know where Soccy's ideas are coming from.

It appears that part of it comes from the "Great Chain of Being", wiki'd here and here.


Also, Soccy seems to be heaviliy influenced by Deepak Chopra, especially wrt Nature's Intelligience, as can seen here and here with some further info located here as well as here.

It also seems lately that Soccy is taken with Eugene McCarthy and his Stabilization Theory.

Not to mention quotemining and minsinterpreting both Gould & Shapiro.

I referred to Deepak Chopra because the poster I was talking to had brought him up. The ideas I am presenting are not heavily influenced by Deepak Chopra.
Likewise with the Great Chain of Being. The person who I was talking to brought up that idea.

I have not quotemined nor misrepresented either Shapiro or Gould. I have been very precise about the aspects of their work that I am incorporating into the ideas I am presenting.

I am impressed with McCarthy because he has ideas that in some ways are similar to mine about the origin of species. (What I have called "parallel lines")
But as I have already pointed out he is an evolutionist.
Since he does not incorporate templates and intelligence into the picture, he is not quite on the right track.

Pretty much everything you have said is a mischaracterization.

[gamera]

Originally Posted by Socrates

I referred to Deepak Chopra because the poster I was talking to had brought him up. The ideas I am presenting are not heavily influenced by Deepak Chopra.
Likewise with the Great Chain of Being. The person who I was talking to brought up that idea.

I have not quotemined nor misrepresented either Shapiro or Gould. I have been very precise about the aspects of their work that I am incorporating into the ideas I am presenting.

I am impressed with McCarthy because he has ideas that in some ways are similar to mine about the origin of species. (What I have called "parallel lines")
But as I have already pointed out he is an evolutionist.
Since he does not incorporate templates and intelligence into the picture, he is not quite on the right track.

Pretty much everything you have said is a mischaracterization.

How about the Lovelock's Gaia Hypothesis? Isn't that where you're coming from, with tinctures of Intelligent Design that you don't want to admit?

[ericmurphy]

Originally Posted by Socrates

I have not told others how to act.

No; you just whine and cry and stamp your little feet if they don't act the way you want them to, you whiny little baby.

[Socrates]

Originally Posted by gamera

How about the Lovelock's Gaia Hypothesis? Isn't that where you're coming from, with tinctures of Intelligent Design that you don't want to admit?

What an odd way to put it: "...that I don't want to admit".
If the Gaia hypothesis appeals to you I will not disagree with you. But I am focusing on the intelligence of Nature which if it is anything, it is within the level of the earth, within your Gaia.
But note that you have brought up Gaia - not me.

[Steviepinhead]

Originally Posted by Socrates

Scale is very important. No doubt about that.

No, no. Scales are not important at all; indeed, they are hopelessly passe.

Feathers are what it's all about. They are all the rage.

[TestyCalibrate]

[mod]Split from here:
http://talkrational.org/showthread.p...260#post801260[/mod]

[RAFH]

Originally Posted by Soccy

What an odd way to put it: "...that I don't want to admit".
If the Gaia hypothesis appeals to you I will not disagree with you. But I am focusing on the intelligence of Nature which if it is anything, it is within the level of the earth, within your Gaia.
But note that you have brought up Gaia - not me.

Is that like the stuff that's within the Eurkaryote?

[supersport]

Originally Posted by Febble

In what sense, Charlie?

here's one:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0509113330.htm

‘We found that, in this great tit population, female birds are able to adapt their behaviour from year to year to respond to changing environmental conditions,’ said Professor Ben Sheldon, of the Edward Grey Institute in Oxford’s Department of Zoology, lead author of a report of the research in this week’s Science. ‘In this case, they have been able to keep track with the changes that have happened over recent decades, showing that population responses to climate change can be driven by the adaptability of individuals rather than genetic changes.

ToE says behavior is linked to genes. But individual birds change their behavior based on environmental cues. Not only can this not be attributed to luck, but it contradicts the ToE assertion that only populations evolve and that everything in nature is tied to genetic changes.

It is clear that science has missed the bus by ignoring the power of consciousness. In fact, in their quest to define the world in materialistic terms, they've dethroned consciousness and replaced it with genes.....which isn't working out too good for them.

[Entropy]

Originally Posted by supersport

here's one:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0509113330.htm

‘We found that, in this great tit population, female birds are able to adapt their behaviour from year to year to respond to changing environmental conditions,’ said Professor Ben Sheldon, of the Edward Grey Institute in Oxford’s Department of Zoology, lead author of a report of the research in this week’s Science. ‘In this case, they have been able to keep track with the changes that have happened over recent decades, showing that population responses to climate change can be driven by the adaptability of individuals rather than genetic changes.

ToE says behavior is linked to genes. But individual birds change their behavior based on environmental cues. Not only can this not be attributed to luck, but it contradicts the ToE assertion that only populations evolve and that everything in nature is tied to genetic changes.

It is clear that science has missed the bus by ignoring the power of consciousness. In fact, in their quest to define the world in materialistic terms, they've dethroned consciousness and replaced it with genes.....which isn't working out too good for them.

TOE says SOME behaviour is linked to genes.

[Gagundathar Inexplicable]

Responding to Guzman's dangling catnip mouse...

Just because YOU don't understand the nature of consciousness doesn't mean that such is unknowable. In fact, there are members of this very board who are studying how consciousness arises in neural networks. And guess what, Guzman? You don't have to interject some mystical woo to get a valid hypothesis.

You and 'Socrates' and the other losers on this board (you all know who you are), are very quick to project your intellectual failures upon others and to personify all scientists as 'Science' in a vain attempt at discrediting the foundational principles upon which our technological culture was built. Honestly, Guzman, how far do you think Humanity would have gotten if sane people didn't use a materialistic basis for reality? You apparently think that electrons are just another word for invisible sprites, and you look at the world as inherently unknowable. I think the reason you do so is because you are too fucking stupid to actually 'get' it.

[MrFungus420]

Originally Posted by VoxRat

except, of course, "Socrates-Man"

By the way, when are you ever going to learn?

one phenomenon, two phenomena.

Doo-doo-da-doo-doo
Phenomena..
Doo-doo-doo-doo