From: David MOREY (us@divadeus.freeserve.co.uk)
Date: Sat Sep 06 2003 - 20:52:12 BST
Yes, I am pretty amazing!
You're right: Darwinism it is.
It's doomed though. I'll send you flowers to put on its grave some time.
DM
----- Original Message -----
From: <abahn@comcast.net>
To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
Sent: Saturday, September 06, 2003 6:35 PM
Subject: Re: Sheldrake (MD economics of want and greed 4)
> 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
>
>
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 - 21:06:32 BST