I just had a profound idea which explains the problems with science that we have been discussing on and off for the past 6 months or so.

Science is evolution. It dawned on me while writing another post that science is an evolutionary, dynamic set of theories about reality. Truly, it is rather remarkable how science evolves much in the same way as biological organisms evolve.

Rather then trying to get everything perfect, scientists hypothesize and theorize ideas related to reality - then they test these ideas. This is much in the same way as how evolution has genetic variation, then if this variation is advantageous, they stick with it. If the variation is not advantageous, then it is left behind. This works in the same way as how we test theories in science and literately go through a survival of the fittest scenario.

In fact there are so many resemblances between how science works and evolution that I am a little surprised no one else has brought it up before. What we are looking at is literately an evolution of ideas, if you ask me its rather remarkable how something normally used to give organisms higher chances of survival has been naturally adapted into finding the best scientific theories.

I think this solves our previous problem with the fact that the science of today will inevitably be different then the science of tomorrow. The fact that science doesn't always get theories right, is just more so proof that science works like an evolving organism, adapting its theories and ideas as new genetic variations (new theories) come along.

The same process is ongoing in all areas, psychologically, biologically and technologically. It sounds mystical, but if you think about it its the only really simply solution to Life and evolution of our reality. Isn't that what Occams Razors all about?

Little adjustments here and there until we find a better path, a truer path, and its this trial and error I believe has been symbolized by our curiosity and search for the Truth - Ma'ats Feather!

Well not necessarily, many fields rely on massive breakthroughs which then follow a period of smaller advancement while we refine the breakthrough.

Sure, but isn't that how biological evolution works in a darwinian view? A rare mutation which is somehow then adopted, either by natural selection or some misunderstood mechanism. As for cosmology, the 'big bang' was a huge event, as was the formation of planets etc.

However you see it, I'm just happy to see anyone have a Eureka moment, even if it only partially meshes with my own views

Had anymore thoughts on this Max? I've been thinking about how we evolve our senses and resolution of those senses. For example learning to drive. Everyone has seen new drivers being extremely heavy on the pedals. As people get used to the requirements of driving, they become more sensitive to the engine noise, the pedal stiffness, the required pressures and many other things.

Another example is card shuffling, at first a person is very clumsy with cards, but over time they become more adept at sensing the required pressure and placement of their hands to be able to handle them cards better.

As a smoker I noticed the same effect with rolling cigarettes. At first the skins would tear because they felt so weak compared to the required pressure needed to roll a tight cigarette. Obviously you get used to the level of pressure required to handle the skins and become an expert roller.

Just like the body adapting to new external straings (weight lifting etc.), the mind seems to be able to refine senses to adapt to new pressures. There are many other non-physical examples I'm sure, but those are the ones that spring to mind as an attempt to prove the body AND minds adaptive abilities. Just like a blind persons other senses becoming more sensitive in response to blindness.

Any thoughts on this kind of fast paced evolution and adaption?

That's actually what is referred to as learning. A good source to look into is artificial intelligence theory and neural networks. Basically all those things you described refer to the mind learning through a trial and error process. In a sense it can be thought of as a fast paced evolution, the brain attempts to accomplish a goal - then it checks the result.

Learning can get rather complicated but its all based in simple ideas. Neural networks is probably the best visual explanation there is.

I know its referred to as learning, but the process seems a little more deep than simply learning. Its definaly trial and error also, but again theres more to it. Its more like a refining of the sense to match the stimuli. Its as if we're unaware of the depth of our potential abilities until we begin to use and hone them.

It just amazes me how far the body can go, and is there a physical limit to this? As a thought experiment, imagine a child who is put in a pitch black tiled room. Food can be placed behind any sliding tile, when and which tile is designated by a beeping sound, like those noises in a hearing test. As the child becomes adept at finding the food from the direction of the sound, the pitch is altered by a very small amount.

I would bet my life on the body responding in an evolutionary way, and actually honing the ears ability to hear the frequencies normally outside of the human range. How long it would take for the adjustment is debatable, and since food is involved I'm sure it would have to be quicker than 1 week. But I guess the response would be more like intuition than hearing at first.

Do you think this would be a good experiment, and how do you think the results would turn out?

Well you see they have done somewhat similar experiments by manipulating the way the mind learns via association. I would look into Behavioral Therapy which is essentially exploiting certain aspects of how the mind learns.

Ok, one arguement that I find interesting that is against evolution in general is that of irreducible complexity. The example people always use is flaggelar motors. The flaggella mechanism of bacteria has moving parts much like a small engine. The problem is that it could'nt have evolved, because with all the parts working together at once, a useless tail would have been selected against, not for.

Now I'm not trying to say I don't beleive in evolution; don't get me wrong. My point is, are there concepts, ideas, understandings..... that we can't evolve to? That we can't get to from here?

Well some people believe that humans have reached their capacity (they lack imagination in my opinion) and that in order to reach the next level of evolution, it will need to be done via cybernetics.

Humans, genetically, do not have all that much variation from every other being on this planet. I don't know if I would say that there are ideas, ect. to which we cannot evolve to.

Perhaps we would need to change drastically to explore all potential outcomes via evolution - but genetic code is dynamic, so while we may not be able to go back in time to examine other possible genetic outcomes, that does not necessarily mean that those outcomes can't be achieved in the future.

I do think we are in some ways limited by the perceptions we receive from society, I think we need to first break free of standing limitations before bring able to more forward in conscious understanding.

I've always viewed the brain as a justification mechanism. People act, and then fill in the gaps later as to why.

So, maybe the key is ethneogens no? New synaptic connections form that otherwise would'nt have been made. Then the brain restructures to justify that connection. If I'm tripping balls and conclude that god is an icicle, then my brain will look for a way to justify that position.

So perhaps hallucination, is mutation of thought?

People make decisions based off of emotions and justify them with logic.

So then, no non-premeditated act can be virtuous?

This sounds like booze logic, when you do things you wouldn't normal do and then blame the beer.

The perceived irreducible complexity is often the main argument for creationism. The problem with looking at it like that is you ignore that we don't know what the earlier form was, or how it used its body parts. Just because something looks like it has no intermediate steps doesn't mean there werent any. Likewise that view doesn't allow for large mutations which are adopted through natural selection.

I think dreams and hallucinations say more about our psyche than any psychologist could. I find the fact we're constantly swamped with images, dreams, emotions and memories and its extremely interesting that our minds are never totally silent. I would say that hallucination isn't so much a mutation as it is a normal cognitive brain process. Being able to visualise abstract ideas, and non-abstract items, is what allows us to plan ahead and hope for a better future.

I find the tarot and dream interpretation a good example of how people have got our psyche's totally wrong. I actually believe you can read your own tarot, as a way of accessing the sub-conscious. But I don't believe anyone can ever read anothers tarot, but they can prompt a person into reading their own. Similarly dream interpretation doesn't really ring true to me. I doubt a 'puddle' in a dream can mean one fixed thing, since a 'puddle' will have different meanings and history to each of us. This doesn't stop people selling dream interpretation books by the bucket load.

Basically you are asking if something can be morally correct if it is not consciously thought out beforehand. I suppose it is possible, for a non-premeditated act to be morally correct if you look at how in psychology, the morals and ethics of the conscious lie in the subconscious mind.

Therefore, if ethics are rooted in the subconscious and the subconscious will not violate those ethics, then I think perhaps it is possible to make morally 'good' decisions, whether or not they are thought out beforehand.

I agree that irreducible complexity is overrated as an arguement against evolution. I was just going off of the basic idea. My question is, what would constitute a large mutation in "science" or "thought" if were trying to draw a parrellel between the two. Even moving from a geo-centric model of the universe to a sol-centric model doesn't count as a large mutation, because it naturally follows the evidence.

I would think that mr. Einstein had a few large mutations of ideas. He himself was a mutation, as are many brilliant minds. It seems that a lot of our breakthroughs are done by eccentric and often mentally different individuals. Nikola Telsa was a brilliant and troubled man, who went broke despite being the genius who brought us AC current and even his lifelong pursuit of wireless energy is only now being rolled out: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/6129460.stm.

What I'm trying to say is that often it takes a brilliant and often 'mutant' mind to make breakthroughs in sciences that have been stagnant for decades. So the mutation can carry on up through the biology and into society.
Taking biology as an example, I find it difficult to class anything as a large mutation using your description above. Everything in this Universe is on a path that is formed from the previous two points in time. However far apart in time you decide to place those two points, the fact is the trajectory comes from the previous positions in time. This is basic geometry, two points makes a line. So an organism or idea, no matter how large a change, wouldn't be classed as a large mutation because it naturally follows the evidence?

An example I can think of comes from mathematics. I'm gonna have to think about how to state it though.