Evolution as mental concept

[Turtle]

Thank you Modest, for two reasons. Firstly for being reasonable and not assuming that I am being deliberately provocative. Secondly for providing evidence against my assumption, so that I can counter it or at least have something to think about on the subject (Too much defensive reactions to my points that come across as 'Blasphemy!' being shouted, which puts me in the same position as Hydrogenbond:

 

so, obviously you refer to little ol' me here since i went all defensive on your gentle spirited bum and it's part of the record. context. good. now if you followed your own admonition, you'd be thanking me for getting your thread some action instead of whining about it.

 

deliberately provocative is like iron; you can make a sword or a plow with it, or both.

 

Forums are for debating points, by positing ideas that others can back or reject, through showing evidence that supports or runs contrary to those raised. For this to happen, both sides must remain dispassionate and level headed, not pick up verbal or real sticks to beat the opposition into silence, which shows fear on the part of the aggressor: We are supposed to let the light of understanding penetrate our craniums, not suppress it.

 

so again your words mock your actions here. (nasty ol' context! :rant: )here in this thread you promote & support openess & creativity, but over here you attacked it. :) >> When is art not art?

 

Do you know why people get mentally sick according to Buddhist tradition? Because they refuse to look at the reality around them and the recordings inside of a past they equally find hard to face - trauma in other words. Why is this important and how does it relate? To view life and our memories dispassionately means we see things as they are, not as we would like them to be and therefore we see them 'accurately'. This is the basis of discovery (The ignorant won't go where they fear there are dragons - the courageous go and check out if there really are any; check if their memories are accurate or whether they've suppressed data, to create an illusion/ avoided looking at the actual truth)

 

do you have a source supporting your assertions about buddihist traditions? where did you get your information? your comment is, first, not recognizing the reality of hypog rules to support your assertions and, second, religion is not science. by the title's implication, you meant to discuss evolution, which is a well described scientific theory. looks like a pretty big contradiction from this low view. :shrug:

[paigetheoracle]

so, obviously you refer to little ol' me here since i went all defensive on your gentle spirited bum and it's part of the record. context. good. now if you followed your own admonition, you'd be thanking me for getting your thread some action instead of whining about it.

 

I'm not whining about it - that is how you've interpreted it. I did say thank you for giving me the opportunity did I not?

 

deliberately provocative is like iron; you can make a sword or a plow with it, or both.

 

True

 

so again your words mock your actions here. (nasty ol' context! :friday: )here in this thread you promote & support openess & creativity, but over here you attacked it. :rant: >> When is art not art?

 

Yes, thanks again for pointing this out as well because this indicates how we as human beings have likes and dislikes that we defend against and promote, which is what is happening on this thread: My definition of art implies something well thought and beautiful in its own way, like Darwins theory of evolution, Newtons observations and the theory of relativity/ quantum physics. All of which leads me to my next point, which is are these earlier ideas in physics considered contradictory and wrong according to later assertions or complimentary as I hoped mine would be?

 

 

do you have a source supporting your assertions about buddihist traditions? where did you get your information? your comment is, first, not recognizing the reality of hypog rules to support your assertions and, second, religion is not science. by the title's implication, you meant to discuss evolution, which is a well described scientific theory. looks like a pretty big contradiction from this low view. :cheer: :phones:

 

No, Buddhism isn't science but it does attempt to look at the world rationally, which is what science (correct me if I'm wrong?) does too, making it closer to science than say most other religions I know of (Creationism is a sign of Gregor Mendel's work in action as it is inherited characteristics or throwbacks as in fashion or music trends).

 

As for my statement about Buddhism - no, I can't refer you to previous texts by others on this subject as it is my interpretation of what others have said/ done, not their actual words/ acts.

[sman]

(Creationism is a sign of Gregor Mendel's work in action as it is inherited characteristics or throwbacks as in fashion or music trends).

 

C'mon, paige. You gotta quit lighting fires!

 

I think you're saying that creation myths have "evolved" analogously the way languages do, which could be a meaningful discussion (though not about evolution). But it sounds an awful lot like you're saying that Creationism is a scientifically tenable idea - which is not meaningful, and will be attacked as if you are posting with a religious agenda.

 

Religions, languages, fashhion/music trends...etc do seem to behave in a way that is analogous of biological evolution, and I believe this is your basic observation in this thread. You might check out memetics. And again, you really should check out Evolutionary Biology. If, while learning about this science, you have questions or apprehentions, these forums can be a wonderful expanatory aid. :phones:

[paigetheoracle]

C'mon, paige. You gotta quit lighting fires!

 

I think you're saying that creation myths have "evolved" analogously the way languages do, which could be a meaningful discussion (though not about evolution). But it sounds an awful lot like you're saying that Creationism is a scientifically tenable idea - which is not meaningful, and will be attacked as if you are posting with a religious agenda.

 

Religions, languages, fashhion/music trends...etc do seem to behave in a way that is analogous of biological evolution, and I believe this is your basic observation in this thread. You might check out memetics. And again, you really should check out Evolutionary Biology. If, while learning about this science, you have questions or apprehentions, these forums can be a wonderful expanatory aid. :phones:

 

Thank you for this post. No I am not saying that creationism is a tenable idea and I have no conscious religious agenda.

 

Many thanks for bringing in 'analogous' because this is what I'm trying to point out. I'm not saying that they are the same mechanisms or we wouldn't have the sciences at all. The differences are physical (mechanical). I wouldn't expect a witch doctor or a pastor to fix my car or a philosopher my body if ill.:rant:

[Turtle]

...do you have a source supporting your assertions about buddihist traditions? where did you get your information? your comment is, first, not recognizing the reality of hypog rules to support your assertions...

No, Buddhism isn't science but it does attempt to look at the world rationally, which is what science (correct me if I'm wrong?) does too, making it closer to science than say most other religions I know of (Creationism is a sign of Gregor Mendel's work in action as it is inherited characteristics or throwbacks as in fashion or music trends).

 

As for my statement about Buddhism - no, I can't refer you to previous texts by others on this subject as it is my interpretation of what others have said/ done, not their actual words/ acts.

 

dude, that last senetence is contradictory of itself and the rules. :rant: whatever source you got your info from, you need to cite it. otherwise, you preclude us, the tender dear readers, from considering/analyzing if you have misinterpreted or mistated or misrepresented your reading/understanding of those sources. that you don't even try when requested, and moreover reply flippantly, doesn't bode well for your cred.

 

...If you post theories which are untestable, ideas which are obviously based on bad logic, arguments which appeal to faith but fail when faced with reason, you will meet opposition in these forums. ...

Rules

 

hi. :friday: i'm opposition; glad to meet ya. :phones:

[Eclogite]

Well you don't understand what I'm on about, this becomes obvious by your attacks upon me, like someone defending their religious views. I don't disagree with a lot of what others on this thread have said but the reverse cannot be said about my views. You're trying to analyse and I'm trying to synthesize and that is the difference. If you cannot see that this is the only difference, then this thread is dead, Fred (Mr Spock has left the building).

Paige,

as far as I am concerned - until you demonstrate otherwise - you have offered no rebuttal to my contention (echoed by Modest) that you are needlessly and confusingly seeking to combine two entirely different forms of evolution into one. Such an act might be an interesting exercise for an essay competition, but it adds nothing to understanding or insight.

 

If you still disagree then please specify what benefits arise from conflating all forms of change into one.

[paigetheoracle]

dude, that last senetence is contradictory of itself and the rules. :hyper: whatever source you got your info from, you need to cite it. otherwise, you preclude us, the tender dear readers, from considering/analyzing if you have misinterpreted or mistated or misrepresented your reading/understanding of those sources. that you don't even try when requested, and moreover reply flippantly, doesn't bode well for your cred.

 

Rules

 

hi. :D i'm opposition; glad to meet ya.

 

Thank you Turtle! I will need to look up the References that I interpreted, if I can be bothered. Yes, my credibility is slipping - not because I'm wrong necessarily but because apathy is creeping up on me and that means the effort to keep up the debate is sliding into oblivion. I used to relish the battle but twenty five years of migraines has reduced the Asperger's mush in my head, into even greater mush and where I once had the enthusiasm to pick myself up, dust myself down and start all over again, with good grace, enthusiasm and a sense of humour; that has dissipated with the new pills I'm taking (Sleeping longer and deeper, headaches and nausea not as bad but the cost is giving up the struggle: Youth's hope has given way to ages despair and blunted my blade)

[Pyrotex]

Paige, I have a friendly suggestion.

 

See if you can get a copy of Daniel C. Dennett's, "Darwin's Dangerous Idea".

 

What you might be trying to do is something like what Dennett did in this book.

Amazon.com: Darwin's Dangerous Idea: Evolution and the Meanings of Life (9780684824710): Daniel C. Dennett: Books http://www.amazon.com/Darwins-Dangerous-Idea-Evolution-Meanings/dp/068482471X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1265061510&sr=1-1

One of the best descriptions of the nature and implications of Darwinian evolution ever written, it is firmly based in biological information and appropriately extrapolated to possible applications to engineering and cultural evolution. Dennett's analyses of the objections to evolutionary theory are unsurpassed. Extremely lucid, wonderfully written, and scientifically and philosophically impeccable. Highest Recommendation!

 

Dennett starts with Darwin's original "evolution" as applied only to living organisms. Then he extrapolates the essential meanings and mechanisms of evolution. Then he shows how these can be applied to other aspects of our reality, including culture, key concepts such as 'freedom', architecture, financial institutions, religious belief, and the very meaning of life. His thesis is that "meta-evolution" (evolution abstracted one level higher) pertains to almost everything in the Universe. And that once the concept catches on for biology, it is inevitable that it will spread to all other fields of knowledge and experience. In this sense, it is a "dangerous" idea; once its validity is demonstrated, there will be no holding it back to just biology.

 

Does this help?

Pyro

[HydrogenBond]

The topic is evolution as a mental concept. This is in the philosophy section and the subsection called the philosophy of science. I will address all at the same time. The age old question, where did we come from and where are we going, is the basis of much thought over the millennia. In modern times, the first part of this two-part question is addressed at the biological level, by evolution, in a very solid scientific way. But some of us still wonder, how does all this extrapolate into where we are going? Part of the philosophy of science is to make predictions.

 

We know evolution will continue, like it has from the beginning. But the future, is not yet manifest, so there is no hard data for the future. There are no future references to cite, or future data to gather, to prove anything. Does this mean it is unscientific to look at possible paths for the evolutionary future? Evolution, to me, answers the first part of the question, with outstanding accuracy. But gets fuzzy to me when applied to the second half of the age old question. Maybe someone more knowledgeable in evolution can teach us.

 

The age of reason proved something to me. If we understand the past, which are the observable data, and organize this data in a special way, we can also know the future. Newton did this with the law of gravity. He showed it can be done. But what happens if we organized the past data in seemingly perfect way, which tells us what happened, but we can not use this organization to predict the future in a scale in par with the way we can organize the past? Newton's gravity is future heavy since it has been used to make so many new predictions.

 

There are two possible explanations. One, life is organized in a way that is not subject to complete rational extrapolation. Or two, we have yet to figure out how to organize the data in a way that can extrapolate to the second half of the age old question to at least create a balance state. I actually love science, but it is hard for me to accept that we can not organize life and evolution in way that can't answer the entire question in a balanced way. It seems like too many are ready to throw in the towel. I attack evolution, only to soften the foundation, with the hope that what comes out will be able to answer both parts of the age old question, which lie at the heart of the philosophy of science; explain data and make predictions. I am all for that.

 

Again this is about philosophy and the philosophy of science, which is to do make observations, organize the data into a theory and them make predictions to answer the entire past and future. The topic is also about mental concepts some of which can answer part 1 and 2. The topic focuses on evolution. I am on topic. I am not trying to hijack. I would like to hear what others think, without getting defensive.

[paigetheoracle]

Paige, I have a friendly suggestion.

 

See if you can get a copy of Daniel C. Dennett's, "Darwin's Dangerous Idea".

 

What you might be trying to do is something like what Dennett did in this book.

Amazon.com: Darwin's Dangerous Idea: Evolution and the Meanings of Life (9780684824710): Daniel C. Dennett: Books

 

 

Dennett starts with Darwin's original "evolution" as applied only to living organisms. Then he extrapolates the essential meanings and mechanisms of evolution. Then he shows how these can be applied to other aspects of our reality, including culture, key concepts such as 'freedom', architecture, financial institutions, religious belief, and the very meaning of life. His thesis is that "meta-evolution" (evolution abstracted one level higher) pertains to almost everything in the Universe. And that once the concept catches on for biology, it is inevitable that it will spread to all other fields of knowledge and experience. In this sense, it is a "dangerous" idea; once its validity is demonstrated, there will be no holding it back to just biology.

 

Does this help?

Pyro

 

Many, many thanks on this Pyro! I knew if I'd have thought of this then so would somebody else. It constantly amazes me that I come up with ideas that I'm sure are not unique and think are so brilliant, that it always surprises me when I find out I'm the only one who 'seems' to think this way. I've heard of the book and author but haven't read it but thank God, I'm not alone on this insight (The trouble with being so far ahead of the rest of the Indians, is that you keep getting shot in the back, until you resemble a porcupine - it happened to Galileo, Hugh Everett with his Many Worlds theory, Van Gogh with his paintings and numerous writers, who have been vilified for their radical views: You cannot leave anybody else's foot prints in the sand but your own, when you are first (follow a different drum/ beat a new path), so nobody else's 'work' can be used to back up yours - not here with this idea thankfully but my ideas on language usage have left me published and unsold as with many authors and people like Van Gogh).:)

[paigetheoracle]

Hydro,

 

something for you to ponder with regards to your question, which is down to duration of effect. We can calculate how long something will last by whatever fuels it 'but' this doesn't allow for interruption of effect, which is another variable e.g. a car going along the road at an average of thirty miles an hour, on a full tank going from A to B but he has a heart attacks and the car crashes/ the engine seizes up because he forgot to put more oil in the sump/ a truck driver coming the other way, falls asleep at the wheel and crashes into him/ A deer runs across the road and again leads to a crash/ etc. In other words external and internal variables, ruin what will predictably happen in subjective reality (the perfectly controlled day): We can always predict but we can never be totally sure of anything but the present (What we see and sense now) and the past (What definitely happened yesterday). Even with those parameters, there are difficulties in being able to trust what we experience as our senses can be misled in the heat of speeded up events (Slow, unemotional events that we've experienced many times before, will not disrupt our awareness of the world because we know what we are dealing with (predictable))

[Turtle]

... I actually love science, but it is hard for me to accept that we can not organize life and evolution in way that can't answer the entire question in a balanced way. It seems like too many are ready to throw in the towel. I attack evolution,

...

Again this is about philosophy and the philosophy of science, which is to do make observations, organize the data into a theory and them make predictions to answer the entire past and future. The topic is also about mental concepts some of which can answer part 1 and 2. The topic focuses on evolution. I am on topic. I am not trying to hijack. I would like to hear what others think, without getting defensive.

 

you admit to attacking evolution, finally (& believe me i won't let you forget it :doh:), and then you say no one can get defensive against your attacks? i don't think so bub. :) it doesn't make a fly's blot of difference whether you find it easy or hard to accept the science of evolution. metaphorically philosophically speaking of course. by your reasoning we oughta cut down the old-growth trees so we can start growing old-growth trees. :hihi: science is always amendable & time marches on. lead, follow, or get out of the way. :evil:

[paigetheoracle]

It's funny but when I started this thread, I felt like Cortez upon sighting Darian and ended up feeling like Benny Hill, in his Chinese director sketch, being interviewed by Henry Magee, one of his many stooges. Everything he said was misunderstood and he got more and more frustrated because his English (for that read science knowledge) wasn't that good and he had to keep correcting what he 'meant' as opposed to what others 'thought' he meant: It's all a question of language and interpretation it seems.

 

Perhaps this thread should be moved to Quality Jokes in Watercooler or the Language forum? To quote Benny Hill 'Oy Vay!' (The only time I've heard a Chinaman use a Jewish quote).:eek:

[paigetheoracle]

Actually this seems a good point to bring up a related idea, which is that survival is not the only thing life is about but exploitation of opportunities in the environment, through reproduction i.e. asexual reproduction replaces losses through age/ injury/ disease but sexual reproduction 'tests' changes that can lead to species growth across sea/ land and in the air (new models that push limits of previous organisms). Is this mentioned in the literature? (Just a thought ) - if so please exploit this space to talk about it: When I was in Scientology they never mentioned anything other than survival either.

[paigetheoracle]

One last point before I personally let this thread go.

 

Evolution is a challenge that wakes up the mind (that Eureka moment), not only to the actual (state of awareness) but to the possible (the powers of invention). No situation is anything but grist to the scientific mill of discovery and creation.

 

There is no room for repulsion or bigotry in science because learning is stiffled by this attitude of negative emotion (withdrawal from contact with actual matter or an idea) as neutrality looks at things as they are (awareness component) and positivism explores (inventive phase of discovery).

 

All of this I got while watching a program on BBC4 about light and how it led to smodern science as we know it, via Al Hazen and Roger Bacon, who were both imprisoned - the first discovering laws of sight because of his solitary confinement and the second getting imprisoned because of his enthusiasm for his discoveries, which were seen as heresy: He saw Go(o)d in them and was attacked for this apparently, according to the presenter.

This led to science via Newton, who himself studied this before going onto gravity, I assume from the direction the program went in (correct me if I'm wrong on either of these two points). He too suffered to get the data he needed, by pushing sticks into his eyes, to stimulate the optic nerves, in order to make his discoveries, proving Descartes wrong about his theory of light and science was born as we know it, though experimentation rather than theorisation alone.

 

One last point. I call Gregor Mendel's work 'The Comeback or Sinattra Effect'.:)

[HydrogenBond]

The topic is evolution as a mental concept. One way to address this in a productive way is to consider creationism as a mental concept.

 

In its day, the creation symbolism served the same purpose as evolution serves in our time. Creationism was an ancient theory to explain how reality formed/evolved using a conceptual model that was blend of what we could loosely describe as early cosmology, early biology, and early psychology, all integrated into one model.

 

Their image of evolution attempted to connect a wider range of knowledge/science than just biological evolution. It goes from cosmology in sort of a big bang; let there be light or energy (physics). It then forms the heavens or planets (physical chemistry) then adds life. (bio-chemistry and biology). It also attempted to interface humans and human nature (psychology), instead of keeping evolution segregated to only biology. It was far more ambitious, even if it does not satisfy the requirements of the scientific method. Creationism was more like an attempt at the grand unified theory of reality. Modern evolution is analogous to one of the forces, within the grand unified theory of reality, but does not adequately integrate beyond that.

 

Whether it is possible for biological evolution to extend backwards and interface the momentum of the physical chemistry of the earth, and/or forward into the progressing psychology of human nature, is for the future to decide.

[freeztar]

The topic is evolution as a mental concept. One way to address this in a productive way is to consider creationism as a mental concept.

 

Do you see the irony in those two sentences?

 

Creationism is not a productive way to discuss evolution, even as mental concepts.

 

In its day, the creation symbolism served the same purpose as evolution serves in our time. Creationism was an ancient theory to explain how reality formed/evolved using a conceptual model that was blend of what we could loosely describe as early cosmology, early biology, and early psychology, all integrated into one model.

 

Their image of evolution attempted to connect a wider range of knowledge/science than just biological evolution. It goes from cosmology in sort of a big bang; let there be light or energy (physics). It then forms the heavens or planets (physical chemistry) then adds life. (bio-chemistry and biology). It also attempted to interface humans and human nature (psychology), instead of keeping evolution segregated to only biology. It was far more ambitious, even if it does not satisfy the requirements of the scientific method. Creationism was more like an attempt at the grand unified theory of reality. Modern evolution is analogous to one of the forces, within the grand unified theory of reality, but does not adequately integrate beyond that.

 

Whether it is possible for biological evolution to extend backwards and interface the momentum of the physical chemistry of the earth, and/or forward into the progressing psychology of human nature, is for the future to decide.

 

I see what you are saying here, but as Pyrotex pointed out not too long ago, Evolutionary Biology explains exactly what it was set out to explain, nothing more and nothing less. Creationism seeks to explain *everything* using undetectable forces, whereas Evolutionary Theory seeks to explain the diversity of life on earth using empiricism. They are apples and oranges.

 

For what you are referring to, there are other scientific fields worth looking into, such as Evolutionary Psychology. There's no sense in combining all the disciplines that utilize the colloquial meaning of evolution as it quickly becomes confusing. Evolution has a very specific meaning within the field of Evolutionary Biology. Transferring other meanings for evolution waters down the very specific meaning given in Evolutionary Biology.

 

If you're making apple juice, it's best not to use oranges.