Janic you are proof that evolution (of thought) does not exist!
Value judgment, worthless!
You're right, I should have put quotes in "biosphere" rather than using it as is.Isn't the biosphere a thin film of life covering a terrestrial planet?janic wrote: All of our mechanical achievements are "animated" like the biosphere and are nothing but lifeless objects.
This big pebble that is the earth, is not biological, it is only the living forms that inhabit it that cause this confusion.
All I am saying is that the complexity of living things forms a whole greater than the sum of the elements that compose it, it is the foundation of ecology.There is an improvement in the reasoning then, since it is the basic postulate of "creationism" to note that chance does not explain and especially does not demonstrate anything!
This is what I say and repeat: a car is in itself only a large pile of scrap metal which alone is ... only a pile of scrap metal! The " everything greater than the sum of its elements "This is the technological device that represents, PLUS the motorist which is not an integral part of the car. As living things are more than just a heap of cells and organs that all corpses have too. And it is this more, which is not even definable (even with a word used to hide our ignorance) it is what differentiates raw matter, from the earth for example, from living matter.
An ecosystem has only the appearance of a form of intelligence due to itself. This aspect has already been seen and reviewed. An ecosystem (like the animal that we are) is only functional if all the parts that compose it are present sets, which makes impossible a progressive form postulated by evolutionism.Denying a form of intelligence to an ecosystem seems absurd to me, it is so obvious when we study the economy (intelligent techno-system).
https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/IntelligenceIntelligence appears at a certain level of interaction, through adaptive capacities, speed of reactivity
Intelligence is the set of processes found in more or less complex systems, alive or not, which allow to understand, learn or adapt to new situations. :
You should have gone further: " Intelligence is studied by cognitive psychology, developmental psychology, anthropology (evolution), cognitive ethology (animal intelligence), neuroscience (biology) or even genetics.
In animals it is the endocrine and / or neuronal communication systems that produce intelligence »
Animals of which we are a part displeases those who see humans as the pinnacle of creation… sorry evolution, but it is the same discourse moreover. It would therefore be necessary that these different disciplines harmonize in all, which IS UTOPIC.
This is why we apply this term of intelligence to computer devices too, AI. But before embarking on a discourse that would arise from this appearance of the living, we must already manage to provide proof, which is desperately lacking.
you are right to put question marks.Isn't this what the biosphere has been doing for more than 3 billion years ???
It's only on the assumption that life has existed for 3 billion years, which is only a free postulate!
She explains it wonderfully, we are all thermodynamic beings!Thermodynamics neither explains nor can explain living things, whereas this is very suitable for inert matter.
We are thermodynamic like the engine of a car, which is not alive!
I peel Roddier's speech, which establishes links because they stick to his speech, but without proofs impossible to provide. But, once again, he has the freedom to link whatever he wants, automatically excluding the possibility of an external factor! It is like wanting to solve an equation with 4 unknowns (for example) by making it enter only 3 unknowns, it will obviously give a result, but far from what it would have given with 4 unknowns.
Here is a start of analysis, I am not yet at the end of the video:
Memorization allows the cause to precede the effect (31'42 '') hence the irreversibility and the sense of time.
Totally agree !
Out of equilibrium thermodynamics:
In the presence of a permanent flow of energy, so-called “dissipative” structures organize themselves to dissipate energy. Prigogine (33'30 '')
During the design, the creation of an engine [*], the inventor, the creator of it, provides that the heat generated is going to have to be removed to avoid its destruction, and therefore it designs a certain number of means to do this: conductive materials, coolant or fins, ventilated (= cyclone) with thermal, hydrodynamic regulation systems, etc ... is this a self-organization?
Any ignoramus will recognize that not since the product is known for not being self-made and therefore self-organized. But many other phenomena to which our contemporaries (who did not attend the initial organization necessary to produce these flows), may think (for lack of information) that the phenomenon is self organized, self fabricated. is ignorance as Klein would say)
Therefore, apart from initial life, no “self-organization” has ever been observed in animal or plant organisms. However, in matters of reasoning, we do not start from the omega, but from the alpha to build an alphabet. (the information in question which obeys rigorous laws).
The premise that life Sis organized is only a view of the philosophical spirit only, when it cannot be proven.
This is why the examples used depart from the usual diagrams known in mechanics for example which are however simple means of explanation.
But everyone ignores what life is and therefore its "appearance" on this planet and therefore it is only imaginative projections, not science.
Examples of dissipative structures:
a cyclone, the Earth's atmosphere, a living organism, an animal or plant species
41'40 '' self-organization dissipative structures self-organize like neural networks.
"What I'm going to try to tell you here is a bit like me saying it, it is not yet something fully accepted, we begin to understand that dissipative structures are organized like neural networks
To be continued !
[*] I use this example again because it evokes it itself with the Carnot cycle!
Izentrop
I am at the 50 'of your video and I must say that so far I agree 90% (roughly) with his speech (which I have mentioned many times over this topic). His analysis is excellent, although it lacks (but it is not his purpose) a follow-up of the cultural and societal environment from start to finish when he had started to mention it. However, it is this environment which will decide that such or such "scientific" option will be privileged rather than another. What will come of it next?