Re: Sheldrake (MD economics of want and greed 4)

From: abahn@comcast.net
Date: Sat Sep 06 2003 - 14:31:15 BST

  • Next message: abahn@comcast.net: "Re: MD Dealing with S/O pt 2"

    Hi David,

    I am aware of A.R. Wallace. But, I will stand by my statement that there would
    be no evolution w/o Darwin. Darwinism is much bigger than the works of Charles
    and i would inlude in there the works of Wallace, even though he created his
    theory independent of Darwin. The history of Science has awarded the prize to
    Darwin. It does no good to quibble about it now. Now we have a theory of
    evolution and this is synonymous with Darwinism. Giving Darwin only a couple of
    chapters is fine by me is long as those chapters are the preface, Introduction
    and Chapters 1-3. THe only cause of stagnations in thinking are stagnated
    thinkers. :) Getting rid of Darwinism will not help in the least. In fact, I
    don't even know if it would be possible to do that.

    Regards,
    Andy
    > Hi
    >
    > No evolution without Darwin this is just bad information,
    > check your history of
    > science, e.g. A.R.Wallace. There have also been many
    > other evolutionary theorists. See Peter Bowler's
    > book on the history of evolution. Darwin is only a few
    > chapters. Sure Darwin is almost the only game in towm now, and this is
    > causing a great stagnation in thinking.
    >
    > Regards
    > DM
    >
    > ----- Original Message -----
    > From: <abahn@comcast.net>
    > To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
    > Sent: Saturday, September 06, 2003 1:23 PM
    > Subject: Re: Sheldrake (MD economics of want and greed 4)
    >
    >
    > > Hi Scott,
    > >
    > > Yes, It think we are back at dueling dogmas again (but, I havn't walked my
    > dog
    > > yet). For one we each mean something different when we say Darwinism.
    > But that
    > > is okay. You recognize what I am saying, by catagorizing it as evolution.
    > I
    > > don't think we would have evolution without Darwin. But, what is the
    > point in
    > > arguing about this.
    > >
    > > My point about computers, if I understand your position correctly, is that
    > you
    > > were reducing it to a mechanism of bits (1 and 0's). Then calling this
    > > mechanism a perfectly spation-temporal mechanism. Neurons work something
    > like
    > > this, if this is what we want to reduce brain activity to (although, I
    > think
    > > there is more going on here, not sure...?), but you don't want to reduce
    > brains
    > > to neurons (if I understand you correctly). You want to reduce it all the
    > way
    > > down to atoms (or photons). What if there is no all the way down? What
    > if it
    > > just keeps going? OR what if it is a Perfect continuum? THe point is, I
    > think,
    > > we know exactly where to stop going down (reducing) when trying to figure
    > out
    > > the mechanism of a computer--at bits. We don't know the same thing with
    > the
    > > brain. Although, for all practical purposes, the nueron works just fine.
    > >
    > > My point about self-consciousness was that it depends on language. I am
    > happy
    > > to throw episodic memory in there also. I conceded consciousness to you a
    > long
    > > time ago. We will never know. So, if you want to assume it as
    > omnipresent,
    > > with no need for explanation, that is fine by me. So, yes we don't know
    > what
    > > makes a nueron (nerve cell) conscious. But, we have some pretty good
    > ideas
    > > about how we think. Not that there is no mystery there, but you have
    > given a
    > > pretty good description (for me) of how self-consciousness works. Well,
    > it
    > > seems pointless to assume self-consiousness after we have already assumed
    > > consciousness (is that what you are doing?). In other words, after the
    > species
    > > homo sapiens are extinct, is there still self-consciousness in the
    > > universe--like consciousness? Is there still intelligence? What we
    > (humans) do
    > > which makes us different from all other organisms is reflect on the fact
    > that we
    > > are conscious beings. We share episodic memory with many (perhaps all?)
    > > organisms (or, using Holland again, complex adaptive systems). But, we
    > are the
    > > only organism or species to develop a complex language. This tool
    > (internal
    > > model, evolutionary adaptation) has made possible self-consciousness and
    > thus
    > > the intellectual level. I don't see the *purpose* in there in that the
    > > emergence of this tool was a random event, selected for its local
    > advantages.
    > > The evolutionary jury is still out on whether this will be a globally
    > succesful
    > > strategy.
    > >
    > > I'll leave it at that for now,
    > > Andy
    > >
    > >
    > > MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
    > > Mail Archives:
    > > Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
    > > Nov '02 Onward -
    > http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
    > > MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
    > >
    > > To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
    > > http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
    > >
    > >
    >
    >
    >
    > MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
    > Mail Archives:
    > Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
    > Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
    > MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
    >
    > To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
    > http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
    >

    MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
    Mail Archives:
    Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
    Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
    MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net

    To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
    http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Sep 06 2003 - 14:32:22 BST