Maslow's hierarchy of psychosocial needs

[AntonioLao]

If Darwin was a psychologist he would have lost his mind aboard the HMS Beagle.

[Lloyd Gillespie]

If Darwin was a psychologist he would have lost his mind aboard the HMS Beagle.

He lost his mind when he found out another was going to publish the same material ahead of him__so he worked himself into a psychological tizzy...

You gotta' realize England had the power to usurp many nations' prominent men's work, i.e., outright steal the credit for others hard work__Imperial Preference Laws...

[AntonioLao]

Since Darwin's "Origin of the Species" was based purely and simply on the scientific method of observation, one can hardly find any mathematical inferences. Once someone published one's findings, s(he) can hardly ever take back any plausible argument which gives certain meaning to the phrase "publish or perish." The first to publish always gets the credit. The same happened between Newton and Leibniz, also between Einstein and Poincare for special relativity and between Einstein and Weyl for the unification of general relativity and electromagnetism. Both Weyl and Einstein failed but later their efforts became instrumental for the theoretical and experimental successes of QED and QCD.

[Lloyd Gillespie]

Since Darwin's "Origin of the Species" was based purely and simply on the scientific method of observation, one can hardly find any mathematical inferences. Once someone published one's findings, s(he) can hardly ever take back any plausible argument which gives certain meaning to the phrase "publish or perish." The first to publish always gets the credit. The same happened between Newton and Leibniz, also between Einstein and Poincare for special relativity and between Einstein and Weyl for the unification of general relativity and electromagnetism. Both Weyl and Einstein failed but later their efforts became instrumental for the theoretical and experimental successes of QED and QCD.

Peirce published first, and has not received his due__right to this day...

My argument with Darwin is not over evolution__It's over natural selection, being a subjective interpretation, which ain't scientific, especially since objective science shows the natural geo and bio-environments having more influence over evolution, than any minute or even non-existent NS, as described__especially when epi-genetics of the microbes are studied, acting on the RNAi signals... What process is controlling what process can not yet be fully scientifically answered, as to cause and effect... To me, it's more a geo over bio control mechanism, a per se the Higgs' Field, which just happens to be randomness to uniformity, and back to randomness__round and round...

[AntonioLao]

My question is what is "natural selection?" Where can I find Peirce's published work on natural selection? Although I have already noted long before, I'm now sure that you have all your scientific facts mixed up. You are talking like a jigsaw puzzle with all the correct pieces but no sensible interconnection. Some of your correct pieces belong to other molds altogether beside the one you are talking about.

[labelwench]

The 'facts' often seem to contradict each other, in all arenas of my own investigation, yet perhaps the apparent paradox lies within the observers' own parameters of understanding, is the avenue of my present exploration.

All that 'IS' cannot be wrong, or such would not exist.

That there is far more to know than I am capable of holding in balance in my mind, seems the more likely hypothesis.

[SteveA]

A large issue is one of context. A picture is worth a thousand words and a direct experience worth 10,000 words ... to an extent even a single moment of experience escapes precise capture by any number of words, but even in areas where we should technically be able to communicate perfectly well, if people aren't using the same context or switch between them (especially if someone doesn't even recognize they're switching contexts), then it's like trying to refer to the singular "ripple" in the lake:



Regarding natural selection or evolution, it appears that if there is any form of progression over time involved, then there should be some metric to measure it. What's the "forward" direction for evolution? It can't be simply survival. Space and rocks appear to have done better in terms of survival. I don't believe it's solely change - the weather is constantly changing yet it doesn't appear to fall into the category of something that evolves (though it may, but if so, it's on a scale of complexity not easily observed).

It appears this "forward" direction for evolution is a mental conceptualization driven by desires and emotions and due to some rare fluke/coincidence/random roll of the dice the universe happens to have created pressures in the same direction. What amazing coincidences

[labelwench]

Nicely stated, Steve.

Your rock analogy gives me a segue to this song.

Enjoy!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=keIvA2wSPZc

Stood there boldly
Sweating in the sun
Felt like a million
Felt like number one
The height of summer
I'd never felt that strong
Like a rock

I was eighteen
Did'nt have a care
Working for peanuts
Not a dime to spare
But I was lean and
Solid everywhere
Like a rock

My hands were steady
My eyes were clear and bright
My walk had purpose
My steps were quick and light
And I held firmly
To what I felt was right
Like a rock

Like a rock, I was strong as I could be
Like a rock, nothing ever got to me
Like a rock, I was something to see
Like a rock

And I stood arrow straight
Unencumbered by the weight
Of all these hustlers and their schemes
I stood proud, I stood tall
High above it all
I still believed in my dreams

Twenty years now
Where'd they go?
Twenty years
I don't know
Sit and I wonder sometimes
Where they've gone

And sometimes late at night
When I'm bathed in the firelight
The moon comes calling a ghostly white
And I recall
Recall

Like a rock. standing arrow straight
Like a rock, charging from the gate
Like a rock, carrying the weight
Like a rock

Like a rock, the sun upon my skin
Like a rock, hard against the wind
Like a rock, I see myself again
Like a rock

[AntonioLao]

All that 'IS' cannot be wrong, or such would not exist.

Before the advanced mathematics of topology it was commonly agreed by most mathematicians that there is no such thing as a square circle. Now, it can be defined that both these geometric figures are equivalent. Moreover, a cube is also topologically equivalent to a sphere or an egg or a football or a pear. But a cube is never equivalent to a bagel, one with a hole in the center.

[labelwench]

Before the advanced mathematics of topology it was commonly agreed by most mathematicians that there is no such thing as a square circle. Now, it can be defined that both these geometric figures are equivalent. Moreover, a cube is also topologically equivalent to a sphere or an egg or a football or a pear. But a cube is never equivalent to a bagel, one with a hole in the center.

I have no idea where you are going with this (chuckles), and I have reason to suspect that many of my posts engender a similar response in yourself (and others, lol.)

So, in keeping with the theme, where does a cylinder fit into all of this.

The ratios of a cylinder are used with a mathematical formula to determine the approximate weight of a horse.

http://www.animalhealthfoundation.co...tingweight.pdf