From: David MOREY (us@divadeus.freeserve.co.uk)
Date: Sun Sep 07 2003 - 15:36:17 BST
Hi
Yes I agree with this Rich, from my studies of mid-nineteenth century science
I very much felt that thinking was more wide ranging
in this period. John Burrow in his book 'The Crisis of Reason'
about the nineteenth century writes some
interesting stuff about how the idealists and materialists
try to describe the whole of reality from their particlaur perspective
but that matter ends up sounding like a form of
agency, and the subject ends up sounding like a sunstance
as they push their ideas into a theory of everything.
Regards
DM
----- Original Message -----
From: Richard Loggins
To: moq_discuss@moq.org
Sent: Sunday, September 07, 2003 1:41 PM
Subject: Re: Sheldrake (MD economics of want and greed 4)
Hi David,
I just might add that Darwin himself didn't exclude other explanations for evolution to drive natural selection. On the contrary, he was OPEN to other mechanisms to explain this. Darwin was a devout christian, afterall. It's the neo-Darwinists that are guilty of limiting these drivers to chance mutations of genes. I mean genes were not even yet created in Darwin's lifetime.
Rich
David MOREY <us@divadeus.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
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:
To:
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
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software
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 : Sun Sep 07 2003 - 15:40:15 BST