From: abahn@comcast.net
Date: Sat Sep 06 2003 - 18:35:59 BST
Hi David,
sorry about the absolutist language. We probably are talking about the same
thing. Dueling dogmas? Darwin has already been replaced. But, there is still
something called Darwinism.
Andy
ps How do you have the time to read all the journals along with the collected
works of Heidegger? Amazing :)
> Hi
> The Darwin chapters are of course nearer the end
> becasue there are a lot of theorists that laid the ground
> for Darwin,
> and I am fairly sure about the history of science
> as that's what I did at uni. All science is provisional,
> Darwin will be replaced one day, if you can't imagine that
> you are not trying very hard. I am probably not arguing with
> you accept for the strange absolutist language you use.
> You could say we would have no Darwin without Malthus.
> I am in the evolution is obvious, & Darwin is a very unconvincing
> explanation for the complexity of life forms, camp, if you're
> not, never mind, but keep reading the science journals to
> see where we are going.
>
> DM
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <abahn@comcast.net>
> To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
> Sent: Saturday, September 06, 2003 2:31 PM
> Subject: Re: Sheldrake (MD economics of want and greed 4)
>
>
> > 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
> >
> >
>
>
>
> 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 - 18:36:56 BST