Darwin's Discovery: Design without a Designer

[Graybeard]

Seriously, imo, there's just not enough hard scientific information known yet, about natural selection, to allow sensible scientific discussion, though it be true, with enough study of all it's disparate pieces, there seems no unified presentation to ground. I've never seen one...

If you think it is, then write your own personal post about it, so someone will have some meat to tackle. So far, your only giving far too small a bits and pieces of your own ideas, and a lot of others. I am only going to discuss yours__So where's you...?

I was listing Parameters that you were asking for ??

My own view (from others) is that Natural Selection is driven by probability. This drives everything.

There are only 3 'numbers'

None = No mutation
One = Mutation
Many = Collective (the effects of a single mutation cascading)

Mutations occur because of uncertainty.

cool bananas ... greg

[Lloyd Gillespie]

Sorry Greg, sad to inform you but this is settled epistemic science. The science of mind boys clearly know what conception is and how it functions, as they have for about two millenia. Imagination precedes intellectual use, but to form concepts of reality, this is the choice of judgment and will controlling imagination, or scientific theories and hypothesis into either exaggerations, or soundness, by the use of respect for scientific methods. Conceptualism is how we know to scientifically define the objective, so we can have the science of concepts, in the first place, to do science. You are correct about imagination being the thinker of possibles and impossibles, but wrong about free-will, as these agents have been thoroughly explored for centuries, starting with the early Greeks science of mind__epistemology. Will is a fully finite agent, whereas imagination can be both finite and infinite in ability, therefore not the same... Will is a finite agent because you can't make your physical world any more than it is finitely possible to do so__no matter how much will applied, whereas imagination can build castles in the sky, to infinity...

Couldn't refuse on that one...

I would like to consider the 'conceptual thought' as imagination. To me it is 'imagination' that allows us to think not only what is possible .. but also what is not possible .... and I think this attribute is responsible for what we consider as free will and is possibly unique to Homo Sapiens .... others that possessed it having gone extinct.

cool bananas ... greg

[Lloyd Gillespie]

No Greg, I just choose the accuracy of historical scientific knowledge of the mind, by thousands of wise men and women who went before. Conceptualism is the only way we can describe scientifically the difference between subjective and objective knowledge__You wanna destroy that...? Greg, we can objectively see ourselves in memory, just as we can objectively see a race car, or scientific experiment we were working on yesterday__That's objectivity of conceptualism. It's not a termi thingi__It's common sensible reality amongst most of the people of the world. What separates objective conceptualism from subjectivity is the fact that feelings can not be conceptualized__Feelings can only be seen by direct perception, as they are non-conceptualizable, and therein lies the scientific differences between objectivity and subjectivity__Fact, not fiction. Objectivity is not as many think by simply being the external world, it's both the external world, and our internal conceptual ability to represent this same external world in concepts of the external or internal world of conceptual/perceptual memories of the real world, and quite factually accurate... You can't compare too states of happy in your mind, as you can two states of physical matter. Oh I just realized, it's also what distinguishes the physical world from the meta-physical world. Hey this is interesting. Try to compare to Heavens__Can't be done__Against the laws of meta-physics... Just joking...

To solve a problem ... you need to conceive of possible outcomes .... some bizarre and far from likely .. all the way to others most likely .... I think the word imagination serves.

Don't get me wrong ... conceptual thought is the same term to me ... but Lloyd wishes particular to develop a common set of terms ... or at least comparisons between terms.

fully agree with you

greg

[Graybeard]

Lloyd .... because I only got a tiny brain ... and your confusing me ....

Could you do me a favour by just replying with a number (or combination of numbers) to the following question.

Which of these do you associate as being the closest to your worldview ? ? (explanations of each on Lorrina's link ) I know they all contain paradoxes but which one goes the closest for you ....

1 ... Homunculi

2.. Dualism

3.. Epiphenomenalism

4.. Solipsism

5.. Panpsychism

Please don't say all or none .... just the number that is closest no matter the difference. Pretend you have to choose.

Mine is closest to Number 3

Yours is closest to number ?

I'm just having difficulty in knowing exactly what your saying.

cool bananas .... greg

[Graybeard]

I wonder what that guy/gal in Los Angeles thinks .... been reading this for ages

(log on bud ... lol)


cool bananas ... greg

[Lloyd Gillespie]

And............................................... .................................................. .................................................. .......................................

I was listing Parameters that you were asking for ??

My own view (from others) is that Natural Selection is driven by probability. This drives everything.

There are only 3 'numbers'

None = No mutation
One = Mutation
Many = Collective (the effects of a single mutation cascading)

Mutations occur because of uncertainty.

cool bananas ... greg

[Lloyd Gillespie]

1. Homunculi with qualifications, as physical perception being myself observer of myself__It's the Lefebvre view of brain/mind__Russian... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vladimir_Lefebvre

"Two things here are all-important to assure oneself of and to remember. The first is that a person is not absolutely an individual. His thoughts are what he is "saying to himself," that is, is saying to that other self that is just coming into life in the flow of time. When one reasons, it is that critical self that one is trying to persuade; and all thought whatsoever is a sign, and is mostly of the nature of language. The second thing to remember is that the man's circle of society (however widely or narrowly this phrase may be understood), is a sort of loosely compacted person, in some respects of higher rank than the person of an individual organism." C.S. Peirce

The Peirce quote also explains the graphic of the same ideas...

LINK

Lloyd .... because I only got a tiny brain ... and your confusing me ....

Could you do me a favour by just replying with a number (or combination of numbers) to the following question.

Which of these do you associate as being the closest to your worldview ? ? (explanations of each on Lorrina's link ) I know they all contain paradoxes but which one goes the closest for you ....

1 ... Homunculi

2.. Dualism

3.. Epiphenomenalism

4.. Solipsism

5.. Panpsychism

Please don't say all or none .... just the number that is closest no matter the difference. Pretend you have to choose.

Mine is closest to Number 3

Yours is closest to number ?

I'm just having difficulty in knowing exactly what your saying.

cool bananas .... greg

[Graybeard]

Ok ..... I accept that with your qualifications .... I also have qualifications with Epiphenomenalism.

Give me some time to read up on Lefebvre.

Will come back here

greg

[Graybeard]

And do you know what "the world" is to me? Shall I show it to you in my mirror?

This world: a monster of energy, without beginning, without end; a firm, iron magnitude of force that does not grow bigger or smaller, that does not expend itself but only transforms itself; as a whole, of unalterable size, a household without expenses or losses, but likewise without increase or income; enclosed by "nothingness" as by a boundary; not something blurry or wasted, not something endlessly extended, but set in a definite space as a definite force, and not a space that might be "empty" here or there, but rather a force throughout, as a play of forces and waves of forces, at the same time one and many, increasing here and at the same time decreasing there ...

Frederick Nietzsche, The Will to Power.

I tend to agree with the above statement. I relate it to the process of Evolution as a relatively closed system.

With Lefebvre I am having difficulty with the term 'socially produced space'.

As well, how do you bring the 'interpretation' or the 'translation' of the things he says into a narrow enough confinement so the meaning is not ambiguous .... What he writes seems to allow differing interpretations.


cool bananas ... greg

[Lloyd Gillespie]

Yeah Greg, I was a Nietzsche freak for years, until I read all his works, then I was able to see through him. He's a transcendental relativist, which I detest, as it's not a grounded reality, to the real world I now live in, and really always have__Race car ground, ya know? I still like his Sarathustra Superman idea, that was in Benedict B's thread you also thanked on earlier today, but his 'Beyond Good and Evil' finally opened my eyes. He serves a purpose of stepping people's minds through the moral process, but he's just too far out for me, personally, socially and politically. Once I'd found Peirce, I abandoned about all other thinkers, for his totally scientific approach to philosophy of mind, and science of mind. There's many others who follow in his footsteps, and as a matter of fact, I hardly read anyone I do not now find Peirce's ideas in, if I see any value to their thoughts at all. I've even e-mailed many modern intellectuals, and they all, so far, have admitted Peirce's influences. He just wrote so much about everything, he's like Plato and Kant, covering every thought possible to think, yet the most grounded person I've ever read. I like Lefebvre for his math applied to mind mechanics. He's worked for both the Russian and American militaries, where his maths are used to understand and predict general moves into the future of terrorists, just generally that is, with possibility and probability maths and military games of. Russia is still big on his maths, as is our military...

You can't get a handle on his ideas unless you read him extensively, and I've read the public debates between him and other world thinkers, and he wins hands down, with his simple Boolean maths applied to human behavior. Naturally some ideas of any modern thinker are compromised, due to the over-confusions of just about all thinkers today, and when that happens to me, I just go back to the solid Peircean ground, and all the greats who truly respected his ideas__He's the best I've ever read, out of thousands. There's two main schools of thought in the computer-robotics industry here in America, and many other countries around the world__Peirce and Chomsky, and Chomsky is heavily read into Peirce. Lefebvre and Peirce's boolean possibility and probability logics play into each's hands...

[/I]I tend to agree with the above statement. I relate it to the process of Evolution as a relatively closed system.

And what about the em field's influence...? What about great minds, like Huygens, Newton, Einstein's and Feynman's influence on evolution improvements...? That is if it weren't for the silly political fears of nuclear power for civil uses, etc... I really don't understand what you mean by closed system, as I don't see any systems as closed__imo, they all inter-flow into each other, somewhere...

With Lefebvre I am having difficulty with the term 'socially produced space'.

I never read anything like that of his, but Peirce long ago explained the same process as the habits of humanity, building space__Housing, businesses and even churches, etc... There's nothing complex there... In philosophy it's discussed under architecture as esthetic space__What is the most comfortable space to build a community or home into, etc...? Larger homes are more comfortable than cramped woods camps, if one can afford them, that is. There's always extenuating circumstances to any ideas. Bourdeau from France, I think, is another one to deal with the socially produced space ideas. It's really quite common, and no big deal__just another simple concept of description...

As well, how do you bring the 'interpretation' or the 'translation' of the things he says into a narrow enough confinement so the meaning is not ambiguous .... What he writes seems to allow differing interpretations.

By understanding simple Boolean maths, and his even simpler uses of them, probability calculations as you've already mentioned. Any large ideas must be handled with probability math, it's just the trick to use the correct probability math for the situation at hand__Huygen's, Boole's, Jevons', Peirce's and Keynes' are safest bets, as Bayes, Laplace, and Boltzmann corrupted too many others with false statistical foundations of their probability maths. And what you're referring to as differing interpretations is exactly what game theory probability is all about__How do you find a terrorists possible and probable actions, unless you play every scenario out, just as Feynman had to do to achieve QCD...? These are serious military games possibility and probability maths...

cool bananas ... greg[/QUOTE]

Greg, anything you want explained, like the above__Feel free to ask, anytime. I love answering good questions...