The whole point of natural selection is that a creature is more likely to survive if it has a built-in trick that provides an advantage in its environment. Furthermore, it is advantageous to be as adaptable as possible (as opposed to adapted) because the world is always changing. The exception to this is when you have a self-reinforcing system that generates a "lowest common denominator" order that grows ever higher in an adaptive cycle. For example, if oxygen were to disappear from the earth, only some of the life on this earth would die. That's because the human creature is built for a system that contains oxygen to be breathed. And finally, some systems are abstract enough to spontaneously generate a dynamic self-reinforcing, adaptive environment that accelerates evolution: namely, the idea-processing brain. Read Daniel Dennett (Consciousness Explained, etc.) and Hofstadter (Godel Escher Bach, Mind's I, etc) for some cool ideas.
So that brings us to two separate points: first, some folks are mistakenly assuming that the DNA is "sampling the quantum multiverse" in a manner implying that it knows what mutation will work in its environment. Second, it was mentioned that consciousness only exists in one of the multiverses, which is inconsistent with any theory on the evolution of life containing higher cognitive functions.
First, DNA is quite independent from it's environment. Sure it makes proteins, and cell machinery and then organs and chemical systems and finally an animal form, but the actions taken by these forms are only guided by the DNA. If any changes occur in the DNA, they can only be tested asynchronously from the final creatures environment by means of probablistic survival. UNLESS there is an immediate feedback mechanism to the DNA. Feedback mechanisms can take subtle forms, so I wouldn't be surprised if one existed but hasn't been found yet. However, I think the research scientists are doing their job and it appears as though one doesn't exist. So that does away with a notion that any DNA change would have a direct cause in the final creatures environment.
It does NOT imply that "sampling the quantum multiverse" doesn't generate advantageous mutations. For example, there could be a DNA structure which "knows" which strands are new and which are old, and then build the new structures such that there is a lot of "sampling" and testing and tweaking going on there, while the old structures (like for example the notion of building DNA itself!) would stay intact. Very interesting indeed!
Second, he mentioned that our consciousness only exists in this multiverse, which is very peculiar. It's pretty clear to people that although they've changed over the years, they are still "them" somehow. This is mainly due to memories, and of course a similar thought structure to interpret them. So to say that a consciousness that diverges from our own in space time is not a consciousness is peculiar. Anyway, this notion was probably brought on by a "soul" attempt to look at it, which is also very peculiar when framed in a natural selection context. For example, does an ape have a soul? No? So when do you "get" one? Only when you're as intelligent as a human? To me, it is clear that intelligence was produced by evolution.
Anyway, that was way longer than I intended. If you actually read all that... then... wow. Later.
Slashdot Mirror
The whole point of natural selection is that a creature is more likely to survive if it has a built-in trick that provides an advantage in its environment. Furthermore, it is advantageous to be as adaptable as possible (as opposed to adapted) because the world is always changing. The exception to this is when you have a self-reinforcing system that generates a "lowest common denominator" order that grows ever higher in an adaptive cycle. For example, if oxygen were to disappear from the earth, only some of the life on this earth would die. That's because the human creature is built for a system that contains oxygen to be breathed. And finally, some systems are abstract enough to spontaneously generate a dynamic self-reinforcing, adaptive environment that accelerates evolution: namely, the idea-processing brain. Read Daniel Dennett (Consciousness Explained, etc.) and Hofstadter (Godel Escher Bach, Mind's I, etc) for some cool ideas.
So that brings us to two separate points: first, some folks are mistakenly assuming that the DNA is "sampling the quantum multiverse" in a manner implying that it knows what mutation will work in its environment. Second, it was mentioned that consciousness only exists in one of the multiverses, which is inconsistent with any theory on the evolution of life containing higher cognitive functions.
First, DNA is quite independent from it's environment. Sure it makes proteins, and cell machinery and then organs and chemical systems and finally an animal form, but the actions taken by these forms are only guided by the DNA. If any changes occur in the DNA, they can only be tested asynchronously from the final creatures environment by means of probablistic survival. UNLESS there is an immediate feedback mechanism to the DNA. Feedback mechanisms can take subtle forms, so I wouldn't be surprised if one existed but hasn't been found yet. However, I think the research scientists are doing their job and it appears as though one doesn't exist. So that does away with a notion that any DNA change would have a direct cause in the final creatures environment.
It does NOT imply that "sampling the quantum multiverse" doesn't generate advantageous mutations. For example, there could be a DNA structure which "knows" which strands are new and which are old, and then build the new structures such that there is a lot of "sampling" and testing and tweaking going on there, while the old structures (like for example the notion of building DNA itself!) would stay intact. Very interesting indeed!
Second, he mentioned that our consciousness only exists in this multiverse, which is very peculiar. It's pretty clear to people that although they've changed over the years, they are still "them" somehow. This is mainly due to memories, and of course a similar thought structure to interpret them. So to say that a consciousness that diverges from our own in space time is not a consciousness is peculiar. Anyway, this notion was probably brought on by a "soul" attempt to look at it, which is also very peculiar when framed in a natural selection context. For example, does an ape have a soul? No? So when do you "get" one? Only when you're as intelligent as a human? To me, it is clear that intelligence was produced by evolution.
Anyway, that was way longer than I intended. If you actually read all that... then... wow. Later.