Home | Community | Message Board
You are not signed in.
Sign In New Account
Forum Index Search Posts Trusted Vendors Highlights Galleries FAQ User List Chat Store Random Growery

MagicBag Grow Bags
This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.

General Interest > Philosophy, Sociology & Psychology
Threaded Mode Threaded  Previous topic Previous  View all topics Index  Next topic Next 

Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Shop: Original Sensible Seeds Autoflowering Cannabis Seeds   MagicBag.co All-In-One Bags That Don't Suck   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   Myyco.com APE Liquid Culture For Sale

Jump to first unread post Pages: 1 | 2 | 3  [ show all ]
Evolution
    #11225164 -

Evolution is a growth, so what are we growing from & what are we growing to?
If we started in the sea, then swinging in tress, now walking the land, what is next?


Or even, where did it start from? Where will it end up?
Can the start & end be 2 different locations?


The term 'evolution' can only be referring to a single entity that is evolving through different species

So, who isit that is evolving?


:peace:


--------------------

Edited by Chronic7 (10/11/09 06:35 AM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Evolution [Re: Chronic7]
    #11225253 -

It started from something that is unrecognisable and will probably end that way. If life arose as substances in water on the earth, they will probably end as some space dust or alternatively be swallowed by something

Do you really think that a single entity evolves? I think it is species that evolve, and thus its not really a single entity, although it could be simplified and treated as such


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Evolution [Re: Noteworthy]
    #11225305 -

Yes but evolution is from species to species, so something beyond any particular species is evolving, what isit that evolved from sea creature, to land creature, to ape to human?

Also to say it started from something unrecognizable, is merely out of a failure to recognize, you should not find this offensive

:peace:


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Evolution [Re: Chronic7]
    #11225320 -

It has to be a form that evolved. If it didn't have a form it couldn't evolve could it? Now, i do accept that the is a spiritual dimension, although it is not visible, it is still a form.
So then, what makes this spirit? To me it is the law of cause and effect. It is my observation that cause and effect create a field (spirit) of 'what has to be' as an outcome of previous actions. This field or spirit is what evolves i think.

:flowers: Am i close?

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Evolution [Re: Ahimsa]
    #11225463 -

I think this is a confusion... although we give different names to different species, they are all actually one 'entity' that is evolving and has branched out. Each branch is a species, when we pick them apart, but essentially there are just a whole bunch of breeding pools constantly morphing, most if not all having come from the same source.

Life is what evolved into the myriad of things. We name its branches 'species' and when they become split, we consider the branches to have diverged in evolutionary paths. The single entity can be thought of as the branch, but we don't have a name for the branch. We just have names for the different systematically defined sections of the branch.

Imagine if an animal had a hairy patch and it evolves into a horn. The hairy patch can be said to 'evolve' into a horn, just like a species can be said to 'evolve' into another species. However it is more appropriate to say that the animal itself evolved, and that the hair was an aspect that changed. More less appropriate but still legitimately, you could say that the ecosystem evolved. And, also that the universe evolved.

It doesnt matter what scale you ask... you can say it is evolving on any level, as long as it is changing.

Species defined by breeding pool. It is the breeding pools that are evolving, when people say that a 'species is evolving'.


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Evolution [Re: Noteworthy]
    #11225474 -

I really like your analogy :thumbup:

My whole pointing is that through all this changing, growing & evolving, that grand tapestry you just so beautifully described...

There is something untouched, unchanging, something permanent

Noteworthy said:
all having come from the same source



That source is the only consistent abiding Reality
It is the only reliable & stable thing in the entire universe
it is the Self, yourself

:peace:


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Evolution [Re: Chronic7]
    #11225530 -

Chronic777 said:
The term 'evolution' can only be referring to a single entity that is evolving through different species


I disagree.  I don't think it really makes sense to just take a single entity apart from its environment and social relations and just talk about it evolving.  This is to commit what Whitehead referred to as the "fallacy of misplaced concreteness" -- to take a part as if it were a whole unto itself.

I personally think that evolutionary biologists should collaborate a little more with ecologists, as this would yield a more accurate understanding of evolution.  We talk about evolutionary adaptations as basically passive responses to changes in the environment.  But is it not also true that species themselves play a role in changing their environment?  Is not the environment largely constituent of the biological organisms within it?  Evolutionary biology needs to transcend its atomistic emphasis on individual species and take a more ecological view of evolution.  We need to understand that ecosystems themselves evolve.


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Evolution [Re: Silversoul]
    #11225540 -

I see no distinction between species/environment, evolution applies to both
In my eyes there isnt even 'both' though, they are one organism if you will...

To me its all one process

My point is who isit that goes through this process?
The process cycles but who goes through the cycles?

To Pinpoint, what actually isit that lives & dies?

:peace:


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Evolution [Re: Chronic7]
    #11225601 -

Chronic777 said:
I see no distinction between species/environment, evolution applies to both
In my eyes there isnt even 'both' though, they are one organism if you will...


That's sort of what I'm saying, but I'd also caution against going too far in that direction as well.  Arthur Koestler coined a useful term called a "holon" -- something which is both a whole and a part of a greater whole -- to describe the basic constituents of the universe.  So I would say that individual species(and individual organisms) do evolve, but that you can't fully understand their evolution apart from the evolution of their ecosystem.


Quote:
My point is who isit that goes through this process?
The process cycles but who goes through the cycles?

To Pinpoint, what actually isit that lives & dies?

:peace:


I would say that it occurs on several different levels.  I don't think Richard Dawkins is entirely wrong with his "Selfish Gene" theory, except insofar as it reduces all evolution to the organism's DNA.  The genes are evolving, but they do not do so in isolation.  They rely on the whole organism in the same way that the organism relies upon them.  They also rely on other genomes which are co-evolving along with them.  I would also argue that organisms possess agency in evolution.  Not in the way Lamarck believed, but in changing the environmental conditions in which they live, thus altering the conditions to which they adapt.


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Evolution [Re: Chronic7]
    #11230210 -
Log in to view attachment

Quote:
I personally think that evolutionary biologists should collaborate a little more with ecologists, as this would yield a more accurate understanding of evolution.


Science is more integrative nowadays, so I'm sure they do.  I know there's shit journals that will publish anything, but to get into the bigger ones, scientists need to take an integrative approach.  Biostatistics methods are booming with ways to analyze many factors of multiple species in order to further understand, among other questions, evolution. 

Quote:
Not in the way Lamarck believed, but in changing the environmental conditions in which they live, thus altering the conditions to which they adapt.


nobody wants to give lamarck credit, but he was right. 
Here we go.  everyone hop on board the Lamarckism train!

Quote:
Recognition of Lamarck’s contribution is hindered by two persistent misconceptions.

First, people wrongly assume that he believed in the direct induction of advantageous hereditary changes by the environment. Yet he writes repeatedly against this notion: “For, whatever the environment may do, it does not work any direct modification whatever in the shape and organization of animals.” The second misconception concerns volition. A popular caricature of Lamarckism depicts an animal, usually a giraffe, wishing to reach the upper branches of trees, and acquiring a long neck through will alone. This error may have originated from the mistranslation of the French ‘besoin’ — meaning ‘need’ — into the ambiguous term ‘want’, which can mean both ‘desire’ and ‘need’. This poor choice by the 1914 translator was probably influenced by Cuvier’s use of the word “désir” in his damning eulogy. Of course, Lamarck did err. He believed in the inheritance of acquired characters (as did Darwin); adhered to the principle of plentitude — according to which any conceivable organism that can exist does exist; violently opposed Antoine Lavoisier and modern chemistry; and believed that science has a deistic purpose — similar to the accommodationism of modern biologists such as Ken Miller and Francis Collins. In fact, the amount of scientific rubbish that Lamarck put on paper certainly exceeds the quantity of good science in his scientific oeuvre. In this respect, he is no different from Aristotle, Isaac Newton, Darwin, Albert Einstein, Fred Hoyle or Francis Crick. But by writing about evolution directly rather than en passant (as did dozens of philosophers from Empedocles to Count Buffon), and by tackling the subject of evolution in scientific rather than poetical terms (as did Erasmus Darwin), Lamarck is without doubt the father of evolutionary theory.



--------------------
The best way to live
is to be like water
For water benefits all things
and goes against none of them
It provides for all people
and even cleanses those places
a man is loath to go
In this way it is just like Tao        ~Daodejing

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Evolution [Re: Chronic7]
    #11230325 -

Chronic777 said:
I see no distinction between species/environment, evolution applies to both
In my eyes there isnt even 'both' though, they are one organism if you will...

To me its all one process

My point is who isit that goes through this process?
The process cycles but who goes through the cycles?

To Pinpoint, what actually isit that lives & dies?

:peace:



All life on our planet is at the whim of the Earth's natural processes.  The Earth is under the influence of the Sun and the neighboring/passing interstellar activity.  And don't forget the moon. 

I think evolution is passively occurring with the aid of these processes.  I have to disagree with your idea that they're interconnected.  I feel like it's a more downstream effect.

If you were talking about ecological evolution of species on an island, then yes they're uberly interconnected, but for the great great master determinant, no. 

It plays the record that we dance to.


--------------------
The best way to live
is to be like water
For water benefits all things
and goes against none of them
It provides for all people
and even cleanses those places
a man is loath to go
In this way it is just like Tao        ~Daodejing

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Evolution [Re: Cracka_X]
    #11230802 -

Karellen will come and safely transition the human race from the physical into a part of the universal hive-mind when the time is right.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Evolution [Re: kennedy]
    #11231823 -

:orly:


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Evolution [Re: kennedy]
    #11233668 -

kennedy said:
Karellen will come and safely transition the human race from the physical into a part of the universal hive-mind when the time is right.


This isn't Mysticism & Paranormal...


--------------------
The best way to live
is to be like water
For water benefits all things
and goes against none of them
It provides for all people
and even cleanses those places
a man is loath to go
In this way it is just like Tao        ~Daodejing

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Evolution [Re: Chronic7]
    #11234234 -

Chronic777 said:
Evolution is a growth, so what are we growing from & what are we growing to?
If we started in the sea, then swinging in tress, now walking the land, what is next?


Or even, where did it start from? Where will it end up?
Can the start & end be 2 different locations?


The term 'evolution' can only be referring to a single entity that is evolving through different species

So, who isit that is evolving?


:peace:


A single entity?  I'd argue that point...evolution isn't about the individual, it's about a species.  None of us here are "evolving" per-se, at least not in terms of evolutionary theory (it could be argued that we do evolve psychologically but that's a bit different)...for real evolution, particularly macroevolution we'd need to watch a few hundred generations pass by before any appreciable change began to take hold.

As it is now, I think our evolution will begin to take different forms given what we've become.  We're no longer functioning on the basic "survival of the fittest", we have techniques now by which we can heal or save people who, in nature, would have died off in infancy.  As such, it's no longer as much about which mutations enable the best chance of survival as it is about which mutations allow us to most powerfully integrate into society as a whole.  Intellect for example, I think more than watching for vestigial digits like our baby toes to disappear because they're no longer useful, our next evolutionary steps will be favoring those who can think most coherently...who have the intellect to gain more of those little tickets we call money.  Since those who are rich have become the "alpha" members of the pack rather than those who are quickest and strongest, those who have the status, cash and smarts are going to more likely pass on their genes than someone who's fast, agile and strong but works at macdonalds.

Quote:
Yes but evolution is from species to species, so something beyond any particular species is evolving, what isit that evolved from sea creature, to land creature, to ape to human?


It's important to clarify that we didn't really "evolve from apes" as such...it would be more accurate to say both ourselves and apes as we know them happen to have a common ancestor.  I think the issue here is that you're approaching evolution as static points on a grid, this species becomes this species...but evolution isn't static, it's fiercely DYNAMIC, it's transitional, not points on a line.  Rather it IS the line, a continual arcing process.

Quote:
It has to be a form that evolved. If it didn't have a form it couldn't evolve could it?


Why not?  Ideas are a good example, or beliefs...I began as a devout Christian (United Church of Canada), as I grew and became exposed to varying views on reality and truth I evolved from Christian gradually through into questioning, through countless other beliefs from Buddhism to Paganism to Pantheism and so on until I reached the point at which I am, as an atheist.  There's no distinctive "form" for those beliefs, even in my devout days my views were constantly shifting, growing and changing.

Quote:
My point is who isit that goes through this process?
The process cycles but who goes through the cycles?


Everything living goes through it, or rather is a stage of it.  Since there's no end here the process is something that gradually occurs over millions of years...no "one" goes through it, we as a species do.


--------------------
*+_Charos_+*

"Be me, for a little while"
--Eli

My Deviantart Page
My Youtube Page


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Evolution [Re: Chronic7]
    #11235826 -

Quote:
So, who what isit that is evolving?


Subatomic particles > atomic particles > molecules > self-replicating molecules > RNA/DNA > prokaryotes > eukaryotes

That is the current evolution of matter in this universe.


--------------------
"Nature is like a sculptor constantly improving upon her work, but to do so she chisels away at living flesh." H.K. Bloom

"Is God willing to prevent evil but not able? Then he is not omnipotent...
Is he able but not willing? Then he is malevolent...
Is he both able, and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him god." Epicurus c. 300 BCE

"When I brought up the fact that 'No drug is good or bad, they're all just A drug, what someone does with them determines the postive or negative outcome. Look at medicine, those are drugs' Reponse was that 'well medicine solves problems' well so does LSD." -Learningtofly

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Evolution [Re: mozhual]
    #11236415 -

so, we should really be talking about the evolution of electrons.


--------------------
The best way to live
is to be like water
For water benefits all things
and goes against none of them
It provides for all people
and even cleanses those places
a man is loath to go
In this way it is just like Tao        ~Daodejing

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Evolution [Re: Cracka_X]
    #11236505 -

Electrons are one small(or large depending on how you look at it) piece of the puzzle.


--------------------
"Nature is like a sculptor constantly improving upon her work, but to do so she chisels away at living flesh." H.K. Bloom

"Is God willing to prevent evil but not able? Then he is not omnipotent...
Is he able but not willing? Then he is malevolent...
Is he both able, and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him god." Epicurus c. 300 BCE

"When I brought up the fact that 'No drug is good or bad, they're all just A drug, what someone does with them determines the postive or negative outcome. Look at medicine, those are drugs' Reponse was that 'well medicine solves problems' well so does LSD." -Learningtofly

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Evolution [Re: kennedy]
    #11236591 -

kennedy, stop trying to derail this thread. The topic is evolution, not "Karellen".


--------------------
Republican Values:

1) You can't get married to your spouse who is the same sex as you.
2) You can't have an abortion no matter how much you don't want a child.
3) You can't have a certain plant in your possession or you'll get locked up with a rapist and a murderer.

4) We need a smaller, less-intrusive government.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Evolution [Re: Cracka_X]
    #11236611 -

Cracka_X said:
so, we should really be talking about the evolution of electrons.


No, we should be talking about the evolution of holons.


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Evolution [Re: Silversoul]
    #11237799 -

I dont think it is right to talk about the evolution of the smallest parts... for they actually stay the same. it is their arrangement that changes. We are (to our knowledge) made up of the same sort of stuff the rest of the universe is made of.. it is not the particles evolving but their arrangement, their form. However, if something is evolving, it only passes through stages.

Look, does an orange turn into orange juice and peel? or does the orange seed turn into orange juice and peel? or does the original life form evolve, in part, into a glass of orange juice and a stack of peels? It doesnt fuckin matter.. whenever something changes, it ceases being what it was before. Nothing lasts forever and so everything was once something else. Therefor, everything has evolved and likely will evolve again. This jus tmeans that at one point the thing changed into something else. We don't deny that 'the thing changed' just because it no longer exists, and didnt always exist.


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Evolution [Re: Noteworthy]
    #11238722 -

At one point in time no atoms existed, only subatomic particles, at one point in time no molecules existed, DNA etc.

DNA forms all life(ask any geneticist, DNA is what evolves because DNA IS THE SPECIES), but it too is just adenine, guanine, cytosine, thymine. Everything has smaller parts... so to not trace those parts' histories as part of the holon (or as howard bloom generally calls it 'superorganisms') would be to not full realize the entire object and all of it's properties.

Quote:
This jus tmeans that at one point the thing changed into something else. We don't deny that 'the thing changed' just because it no longer exists, and didn't always exist.


You are implying that it is foolish or even wrong to trace the evolutionary histories of animals....

Quote:
We have to recruit every atom that we possibly can into the scheme of DNA, into the clan of biomass, and into the family of life.

H.K. Bloom


--------------------
"Nature is like a sculptor constantly improving upon her work, but to do so she chisels away at living flesh." H.K. Bloom

"Is God willing to prevent evil but not able? Then he is not omnipotent...
Is he able but not willing? Then he is malevolent...
Is he both able, and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him god." Epicurus c. 300 BCE

"When I brought up the fact that 'No drug is good or bad, they're all just A drug, what someone does with them determines the postive or negative outcome. Look at medicine, those are drugs' Reponse was that 'well medicine solves problems' well so does LSD." -Learningtofly

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Evolution [Re: Chronic7]
    #11239902 -

Evolution is not a growth, it is a common misconception that evolution's goal is increased complexity, in fact complexity is just a random byproduct of evolution.


--------------------
:eatingout:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Evolution [Re: NortonStPhallus]
    #11240047 -

What supports your line of thinking?  ....


--------------------
"Nature is like a sculptor constantly improving upon her work, but to do so she chisels away at living flesh." H.K. Bloom

"Is God willing to prevent evil but not able? Then he is not omnipotent...
Is he able but not willing? Then he is malevolent...
Is he both able, and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him god." Epicurus c. 300 BCE

"When I brought up the fact that 'No drug is good or bad, they're all just A drug, what someone does with them determines the postive or negative outcome. Look at medicine, those are drugs' Reponse was that 'well medicine solves problems' well so does LSD." -Learningtofly

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Evolution [Re: mozhual]
    #11240071 -

The definition of evolution.


--------------------
:eatingout:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Evolution [Re: NortonStPhallus]
    #11240082 -

No it doesn't...  I'm not saying I disagree completely, but
Quote:
in fact complexity is just a random byproduct of evolution.

just is not fact.


--------------------
"Nature is like a sculptor constantly improving upon her work, but to do so she chisels away at living flesh." H.K. Bloom

"Is God willing to prevent evil but not able? Then he is not omnipotent...
Is he able but not willing? Then he is malevolent...
Is he both able, and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him god." Epicurus c. 300 BCE

"When I brought up the fact that 'No drug is good or bad, they're all just A drug, what someone does with them determines the postive or negative outcome. Look at medicine, those are drugs' Reponse was that 'well medicine solves problems' well so does LSD." -Learningtofly

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Evolution [Re: NortonStPhallus]
    #11240093 -

NortonStPhallus said:
The definition of evolution.


No, not really.  To say that there is no purpose to evolution, and that complexity is just a random byproduct of it, would be to project a nihilistic bias into evolution which is not a necessary part of its definition.


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Evolution [Re: Silversoul]
    #11240192 -

Quote:
Evolution is not a growth, it is a common misconception that evolution's goal is increased complexity, in fact complexity is just a random byproduct of evolution.


It's a common misconception that evolution HAS some goal, there's no evidence to suggest it's "led" by anything.  It's also iffy to suggest there's anything random about it.  Evolution is built from natural selection, random mutations occur...but which of those mutations will be most effective at helping a species survive isn't.


--------------------
*+_Charos_+*

"Be me, for a little while"
--Eli

My Deviantart Page
My Youtube Page


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Evolution [Re: Charos]
    #11240238 -

What about the non-random mutations of bacteria? That rarely get noticed. Eshel Ben-Jacob and James A. Sharpiro have done extensive research on this. I believe it was Eshel that took E. coli and got it to, in two consecutive generations, to evolve from eating sugar to eating silicate.

EDIT: I'm not disagreeing, just wondering if you've heard of and what thoughts you have on that.


--------------------
"Nature is like a sculptor constantly improving upon her work, but to do so she chisels away at living flesh." H.K. Bloom

"Is God willing to prevent evil but not able? Then he is not omnipotent...
Is he able but not willing? Then he is malevolent...
Is he both able, and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him god." Epicurus c. 300 BCE

"When I brought up the fact that 'No drug is good or bad, they're all just A drug, what someone does with them determines the postive or negative outcome. Look at medicine, those are drugs' Reponse was that 'well medicine solves problems' well so does LSD." -Learningtofly

Edited by mozhual (10/13/09 03:29 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Evolution [Re: Charos]
    #11240309 -

Charos said:
Quote:
Evolution is not a growth, it is a common misconception that evolution's goal is increased complexity, in fact complexity is just a random byproduct of evolution.


It's a common misconception that evolution HAS some goal, there's no evidence to suggest it's "led" by anything.  It's also iffy to suggest there's anything random about it.  Evolution is built from natural selection, random mutations occur...but which of those mutations will be most effective at helping a species survive isn't.


There's no scientific evidence of teleology in evolution only because science cannot measure purpose.  Science can only be neutral on that subject.  So to take away either interpretation -- that evolution has a purpose or that it is simply random and purposeless -- is to project that interpretation onto evidence which does not scientifically support either claim.


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Evolution [Re: Silversoul]
    #11240338 -

Quote:
There's no scientific evidence of teleology in evolution only because science cannot measure purpose.  Science can only be neutral on that subject.


Which was a big problem for one of my favorite authors, Nietzsche...science can't make value judgments on things such as that.  However my point still stands, whatever the reason there's nothing whatsoever to suggest evolution is "guided" by anything.


--------------------
*+_Charos_+*

"Be me, for a little while"
--Eli

My Deviantart Page
My Youtube Page


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Evolution [Re: Charos]
    #11240441 -

whoa, why're we talking about evolution being consciously guided?!

There are some things I can wrap my imagination around, but this isn't one.  I've tripped and felt there's a massive energy moving in a certain direction as far as shaping the world or about to open the flood gates onto imbalances.  This doesn't mean it's true though.  To believe evolution has a consciously driven bias is ridiculous.

I have no problem believing that evolution is a culmination of random events.  but evolution being driven? All I want to know is how do you know? support your claim with something other than extreme speculation that may have been aided with psychedelics.


--------------------
The best way to live
is to be like water
For water benefits all things
and goes against none of them
It provides for all people
and even cleanses those places
a man is loath to go
In this way it is just like Tao        ~Daodejing

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Evolution [Re: mozhual]
    #11240492 -

So R and K-strategies for species
an r-strategist is the one that produces a lot but is also eaten a lot
k-strategists are the ones that reproduce few, and focus much of their energy on the survival of their offspring.  Humans are considered k-strategists.

if there's anything about evolution, it's driving an arms race for survival.  and that race inadvertently selects for more complex or more numbers.


--------------------
The best way to live
is to be like water
For water benefits all things
and goes against none of them
It provides for all people
and even cleanses those places
a man is loath to go
In this way it is just like Tao        ~Daodejing

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Evolution [Re: Cracka_X]
    #11240561 -

I couldn't agree more, as do a lot of (but probably not the majority) scientists. By watching what succeeds you can, for lack of better knowledge, infer that it was one of the means for success. Does this mean it is fact? NO... does it mean it is a more reasonable explanation then "there is no reason or meaning to evolution and there is no way of speculating either way" and statements like it? YES, obviously... but it is not so concrete that I would find it relevant for discussion.


--------------------
"Nature is like a sculptor constantly improving upon her work, but to do so she chisels away at living flesh." H.K. Bloom

"Is God willing to prevent evil but not able? Then he is not omnipotent...
Is he able but not willing? Then he is malevolent...
Is he both able, and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him god." Epicurus c. 300 BCE

"When I brought up the fact that 'No drug is good or bad, they're all just A drug, what someone does with them determines the postive or negative outcome. Look at medicine, those are drugs' Reponse was that 'well medicine solves problems' well so does LSD." -Learningtofly

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Evolution [Re: mozhual]
    #11240976 -

My post was poorly worded and too absolutist as I made it in a hurry, but I still believe that the OP was wrong in saying that evolution is a growth, or that it has an ultimate goal of increasing complexity, there is no evidence for this. I was wrong in saying that "complexity is a random byproduct" my mistake.


--------------------
:eatingout:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Evolution [Re: NortonStPhallus]
    #11241026 -

Quote:
but I still believe that the OP was wrong in saying that evolution is a growth, or that it has an ultimate goal of increasing complexity, there is no evidence for this.

Thank you for clarifying.


--------------------
"Nature is like a sculptor constantly improving upon her work, but to do so she chisels away at living flesh." H.K. Bloom

"Is God willing to prevent evil but not able? Then he is not omnipotent...
Is he able but not willing? Then he is malevolent...
Is he both able, and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him god." Epicurus c. 300 BCE

"When I brought up the fact that 'No drug is good or bad, they're all just A drug, what someone does with them determines the postive or negative outcome. Look at medicine, those are drugs' Reponse was that 'well medicine solves problems' well so does LSD." -Learningtofly

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Evolution [Re: NortonStPhallus]
    #11242576 -

NortonStPhallus said:
My post was poorly worded and too absolutist as I made it in a hurry, but I still believe that the OP was wrong in saying that evolution is a growth, or that it has an ultimate goal of increasing complexity, there is no evidence for this. I was wrong in saying that "complexity is a random byproduct" my mistake.


Prominent evolutionists and evolutionists like Dawkins and Dennett -- certainly no fans of teleology -- have said that evolution inevitably leads to complexity wherever it is allowed to do so.  Now, saying that complexity is the goal of evolution is to add a teleological dimension to that observation, but one needn't be teleological about it to note that it is in the very nature of evolution to create complexity from simplicity.


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Evolution [Re: Silversoul]
    #11242911 -

Silversoul said:
NortonStPhallus said:
My post was poorly worded and too absolutist as I made it in a hurry, but I still believe that the OP was wrong in saying that evolution is a growth, or that it has an ultimate goal of increasing complexity, there is no evidence for this. I was wrong in saying that "complexity is a random byproduct" my mistake.


Prominent evolutionists and evolutionists like Dawkins and Dennett -- certainly no fans of teleology -- have said that evolution inevitably leads to complexity wherever it is allowed to do so.  Now, saying that complexity is the goal of evolution is to add a teleological dimension to that observation, but one needn't be teleological about it to note that it is in the very nature of evolution to create complexity from simplicity.


See, I don't know if I agree...Let's start a bit back.  Evolution is a system of change, at time that change can be positive (for example a butterfly species finding a certain flower that's red which they feed on gradually becoming more red to bled with that particular flower).  Others can be completely horrible (deformed limbs, or even an offspring which is black and stands out on the red plant who are eaten).  This aspect of it IS chance, it depends on environment in the womb or egg and a hundred other factors we can't really control.  The way complexity works is just species with the beneficial mutations manage to make it through to breed and pass on that gene (coincidentally this is where chance ceases to be a factor).

This however is simply the result of natural selection...to you see these systems?  These aren't moral systems, they're simply events, results of logical happening.  It makes SENSE that mutations whit work better in an environment (hair in arctic climate) will increase survival and reproduction chance...but what is "goal" is the question...

[quote="Dictionary.com"]the result or achievement toward which effort is directed; aim; end.


Since these are natural forces, and effort requires some form of feeling, a push (for most of us emotionally based)...nature doesn't have that, it simply IS...it would have to have an intent by which to desire that end.  This would sort of be like arguing that Vesuvius erupted because it had the goal of destroying Pompeii.


--------------------
*+_Charos_+*

"Be me, for a little while"
--Eli

My Deviantart Page
My Youtube Page


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Evolution [Re: Charos]
    #11243469 -

Some of you might find this helpful/interesting/insightful, an excerpt from Global Brain:

"The instant of creation marked the dawn of sociality. A neutron is a particle filled with need. It is unable to sustain itself for longer then 10.3 minutes. To survive, it must find at least one mate then form a family. The initial three minutes of existence were spent in cosmological courting, as protons paired off with neutrons, then rapidly attracted another couple to wed their embrace, forming a two-proton, two-neutron quartet of a helium nucleus. Those neutrons which managed to do this gain relative immortality. The staying power of helium atoms is so great that roughly 14 billion years later, the [atomic]universe remains 25% helium. Those which stayed single ceased to be. The rule at the heart of the learning machine was already being obeyed:'To he who hath it shall be given. From he who hath not it shall be taken away.'"


--------------------
"Nature is like a sculptor constantly improving upon her work, but to do so she chisels away at living flesh." H.K. Bloom

"Is God willing to prevent evil but not able? Then he is not omnipotent...
Is he able but not willing? Then he is malevolent...
Is he both able, and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him god." Epicurus c. 300 BCE

"When I brought up the fact that 'No drug is good or bad, they're all just A drug, what someone does with them determines the postive or negative outcome. Look at medicine, those are drugs' Reponse was that 'well medicine solves problems' well so does LSD." -Learningtofly

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Evolution [Re: Diploid]
    #11243564 -

Diploid said:
kennedy, stop trying to derail this thread. The topic is evolution, not "Karellen".


Nobody caught the reference I guess. I was joking but this actually is a really good book about the next stage of mankind, I am not betting that what happens in this book will really happen (it is fiction) but the idea is cool. It's about what the final goal of evolution is, to become a part of a universal collective consciousness.

Edited by kennedy (10/14/09 12:37 AM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Evolution [Re: Charos]
    #11244608 -

Charos said:
This however is simply the result of natural selection...


Depends how broadly you define "natural selection."  There is more and more evidence of the different ways that species evolve other than just the brute competition that Darwin hypothesized.  Symbiogenesis, for example.

Quote:
Since these are natural forces, and effort requires some form of feeling, a push (for most of us emotionally based)...nature doesn't have that, it simply IS...it would have to have an intent by which to desire that end.  This would sort of be like arguing that Vesuvius erupted because it had the goal of destroying Pompeii.


How do you know that nature does not have some sort of feeling?


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Evolution [Re: Silversoul]
    #11245193 -

That is just it... we don't know for sure as has been explained time and time again in this thread... why continue down this useless trail? Absolutely no evidence what so ever for nature, the process, having feelings. Anything that gets attributed to nature's "feelings" is either wrong or metaphorical.


--------------------
"Nature is like a sculptor constantly improving upon her work, but to do so she chisels away at living flesh." H.K. Bloom

"Is God willing to prevent evil but not able? Then he is not omnipotent...
Is he able but not willing? Then he is malevolent...
Is he both able, and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him god." Epicurus c. 300 BCE

"When I brought up the fact that 'No drug is good or bad, they're all just A drug, what someone does with them determines the postive or negative outcome. Look at medicine, those are drugs' Reponse was that 'well medicine solves problems' well so does LSD." -Learningtofly

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Evolution [Re: mozhual]
    #11245310 -

mozhual said:
That is just it... we don't know for sure as has been explained time and time again in this thread... why continue down this useless trail? Absolutely no evidence what so ever for nature, the process, having feelings. Anything that gets attributed to nature's "feelings" is either wrong or metaphorical.


But here we get into what in philosophy of mind is known as the "problem of other people."  We can't know for sure that anyone outside of ourselves is conscious(though each subject knows unequivocally that they themselves are conscious).  Thus, to assume anything outside of ourselves is conscious requires a projection on our part.  We assume that people are conscious because they behave like us, but for the same reason, animals were considered unconscious for many years.  Now, people generally agree that animals with nervous systems are conscious, but they don't want to take it down any further than that.  Yet plants have been shown to react differently to different types of music, slime molds have navigated mazes to get to food, and even bacteria seem to react to their environment.  Ok, so now we're down to all life.  But surely "inorganic" matter can't be conscious, right?  Well, we know that subatomic particles behave differently according the observer, so clearly they react to their environment.  Now, does this prove that electrons are conscious?  No, but nothing can prove something is conscious except one's own direct experience of consciousness.

To take everything as mechanistic and then abstract from there is to commit what Whitehead calls the "fallacy of misplaced concreteness" -- you mistake your abstractions from reality.  The proper beginning point of induction is our own awareness, since it is the thing that is always already presupposed in any observation or abstraction you make.  Going from there, what reason do we have to suppose that something else doesn't have phenomenological experience?  The projection unconsciousness onto other objects is therefore a greater assumption than the reverse.


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Evolution [Re: Charos]
    #11245320 -

Charos said:
Quote:
Evolution is not a growth, it is a common misconception that evolution's goal is increased complexity, in fact complexity is just a random byproduct of evolution.


It's a common misconception that evolution HAS some goal, there's no evidence to suggest it's "led" by anything.


That's my understanding of evolution.


--------------------
"Don't believe everything you think". -Anom.

" All that lives was born to die"-Anom.

With much wisdom comes much sorrow,
The more knowledge, the more grief.
Ecclesiastes circa 350 BC

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Evolution [Re: Silversoul]
    #11245438 -

That stems from the fallacious, self defeating argument that conscious has or is some ethereal aspect that can't be observed. But you are getting really off topic.


--------------------
"Nature is like a sculptor constantly improving upon her work, but to do so she chisels away at living flesh." H.K. Bloom

"Is God willing to prevent evil but not able? Then he is not omnipotent...
Is he able but not willing? Then he is malevolent...
Is he both able, and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him god." Epicurus c. 300 BCE

"When I brought up the fact that 'No drug is good or bad, they're all just A drug, what someone does with them determines the postive or negative outcome. Look at medicine, those are drugs' Reponse was that 'well medicine solves problems' well so does LSD." -Learningtofly

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Evolution [Re: mozhual]
    #11245462 -

mozhual said:
That stems from the fallacious, self defeating argument that conscious has or is some ethereal aspect that can't be observed.


Nothing ethereal about it.  I'm saying that consciousness is itself a property of the physical world.


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Evolution [Re: Silversoul]
    #11245514 -

Your entire post implies ethereality, and that one can't observe ones own consciousness. If it corporeal then we, or at the very least others, can observe it...


--------------------
"Nature is like a sculptor constantly improving upon her work, but to do so she chisels away at living flesh." H.K. Bloom

"Is God willing to prevent evil but not able? Then he is not omnipotent...
Is he able but not willing? Then he is malevolent...
Is he both able, and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him god." Epicurus c. 300 BCE

"When I brought up the fact that 'No drug is good or bad, they're all just A drug, what someone does with them determines the postive or negative outcome. Look at medicine, those are drugs' Reponse was that 'well medicine solves problems' well so does LSD." -Learningtofly

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Evolution [Re: Silversoul]
    #11245559 -

Let me put it another way, evolution can (for the sake of argument pretend it is 1900) no be observed directly. Yet we can still heavily support and compound the theory with indirect evidence. The same can be and is done with consciousness.


--------------------
"Nature is like a sculptor constantly improving upon her work, but to do so she chisels away at living flesh." H.K. Bloom

"Is God willing to prevent evil but not able? Then he is not omnipotent...
Is he able but not willing? Then he is malevolent...
Is he both able, and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him god." Epicurus c. 300 BCE

"When I brought up the fact that 'No drug is good or bad, they're all just A drug, what someone does with them determines the postive or negative outcome. Look at medicine, those are drugs' Reponse was that 'well medicine solves problems' well so does LSD." -Learningtofly

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Evolution [Re: mozhual]
    #11245561 -

mozhual said:
Your entire post implies ethereality, and that one can't observe ones own consciousness.


Well, in that sense, I would say it's obvious.  Consciousness is what is known in "Der Unhintergeben" -- "The un-go-behind-able."  Any account you give of reality presupposes your own awareness.  I fail to see how you could argue otherwise.


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Evolution [Re: mozhual]
    #11245572 -

mozhual said:
Let me put it another way, evolution can (for the sake of argument pretend it is 1900) no be observed directly. Yet we can still heavily support and compound the theory with indirect evidence. The same can be and is done with consciousness.


But I'm not the one denying consciousness.  You're the one denying it to other objects, and I'm saying that distinction is rather arbitrary.


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Evolution [Re: Silversoul]
    #11245582 -

Quote:
We can't know for sure that anyone outside of ourselves is conscious(though each subject knows unequivocally that they themselves are conscious).  Thus, to assume anything outside of ourselves is conscious requires a projection on our part.  We assume that people are conscious because they behave like us, but for the same reason, animals were considered unconscious for many years.  Now, people generally agree that animals with nervous systems are conscious, but they don't want to take it down any further than that.  Yet plants have been shown to react differently to different types of music, slime molds have navigated mazes to get to food, and even bacteria seem to react to their environment.  Ok, so now we're down to all life.  But surely "inorganic" matter can't be conscious, right?  Well, we know that subatomic particles behave differently according the observer, so clearly they react to their environment.  Now, does this prove that electrons are conscious?  No, but nothing can prove something is conscious except one's own direct experience of consciousness.

That is what you said and that is what I responded to.

No one is denying consciousness, you are denying its observability, which I just refuted.


--------------------
"Nature is like a sculptor constantly improving upon her work, but to do so she chisels away at living flesh." H.K. Bloom

"Is God willing to prevent evil but not able? Then he is not omnipotent...
Is he able but not willing? Then he is malevolent...
Is he both able, and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him god." Epicurus c. 300 BCE

"When I brought up the fact that 'No drug is good or bad, they're all just A drug, what someone does with them determines the postive or negative outcome. Look at medicine, those are drugs' Reponse was that 'well medicine solves problems' well so does LSD." -Learningtofly

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Evolution [Re: mozhual]
    #11245605 -

mozhual said:
No one is denying consciousness, you are denying its observability, which I just refuted.


What?  No you didn't.


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Evolution [Re: Silversoul]
    #11245630 -

Let me correct:
Quote:
Your entire post implies ethereality, and that one can't observe ones own consciousness.



--------------------
"Nature is like a sculptor constantly improving upon her work, but to do so she chisels away at living flesh." H.K. Bloom

"Is God willing to prevent evil but not able? Then he is not omnipotent...
Is he able but not willing? Then he is malevolent...
Is he both able, and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him god." Epicurus c. 300 BCE

"When I brought up the fact that 'No drug is good or bad, they're all just A drug, what someone does with them determines the postive or negative outcome. Look at medicine, those are drugs' Reponse was that 'well medicine solves problems' well so does LSD." -Learningtofly

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Evolution [Re: mozhual]
    #11245639 -

mozhual said:
Let me correct:
Quote:
Your entire post implies ethereality, and that one can't observe ones own consciousness.



We can infer consciousness in others from the fact of our own consciousness.  We can't directly observe the consciousness of others.


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Evolution [Re: Silversoul]
    #11245670 -

I just explained to you how you infer evolution is a correct theory, the exact same thing is done with consciousness. In its simplest form you find actions that generally reflect consciousness and observe them in other things, some of which you think likely have no consciousness (atoms) and some which you think likely have consciousness (humans). Sure its based on inferring and speculating but there is still indirect evidence to support it. Just like evolution in the 1900s.


--------------------
"Nature is like a sculptor constantly improving upon her work, but to do so she chisels away at living flesh." H.K. Bloom

"Is God willing to prevent evil but not able? Then he is not omnipotent...
Is he able but not willing? Then he is malevolent...
Is he both able, and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him god." Epicurus c. 300 BCE

"When I brought up the fact that 'No drug is good or bad, they're all just A drug, what someone does with them determines the postive or negative outcome. Look at medicine, those are drugs' Reponse was that 'well medicine solves problems' well so does LSD." -Learningtofly

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Evolution [Re: mozhual]
    #11253649 -

like molecules and complex proteins abiding to entropy.  could you say that humans or larger, more complex organisms abide by something comparable to entropy.


--------------------
The best way to live
is to be like water
For water benefits all things
and goes against none of them
It provides for all people
and even cleanses those places
a man is loath to go
In this way it is just like Tao        ~Daodejing

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Evolution [Re: Cracka_X]
    #11283306 -

Quote:
How do you know that nature does not have some sort of feeling?


We don't, but logicizing backwards doesn't get us anywhere either.  Since there's nothing to suggest either, it would be fallacious to fall back on either absolute.  This is also a core aspect of the soft atheists approach to God...I'll try to use an analogy, let's say I approach you and tell you there's an invisible man who lives in my shed, he's intangible but omnipresent and can commune with someone only if he wishes to.

The automatic assumption at a claim like that (well, some may respond with "nut" but that's neither here nor there) would be to ask for some form of evidence to back the claim.  This becomes especially important when questions such as eternal damnation and such come into the picture if an error is made.  When there's no evidence to suggest it, it becomes a non-issue...a purgatorial quagmire.

So from that perspective I'm not saying "nature does not have feeling", I'm saying "I've seen absolutely nothing to suggest that natural occurrences have basis in any elemental emotion"...one can't back such a negative position until the positive proffers something with which to debate.

Quote:
But here we get into what in philosophy of mind is known as the "problem of other people."  We can't know for sure that anyone outside of ourselves is conscious(though each subject knows unequivocally that they themselves are conscious).  Thus, to assume anything outside of ourselves is conscious requires a projection on our part.  We assume that people are conscious because they behave like us, but for the same reason, animals were considered unconscious for many years.  Now, people generally agree that animals with nervous systems are conscious, but they don't want to take it down any further than that.  Yet plants have been shown to react differently to different types of music, slime molds have navigated mazes to get to food, and even bacteria seem to react to their environment.  Ok, so now we're down to all life.  But surely "inorganic" matter can't be conscious, right?  Well, we know that subatomic particles behave differently according the observer, so clearly they react to their environment.  Now, does this prove that electrons are conscious?  No, but nothing can prove something is conscious except one's own direct experience of consciousness.


Those other things are life forms...what I think we're having here is an issue of communication, here's what my dictionary says of Conscious:

–adjective
1. aware of one's own existence, sensations, thoughts, surroundings, etc.
2. fully aware of or sensitive to something (often fol. by of): conscious of one's own faults; He wasn't conscious of the gossip about his past.
3. having the mental faculties fully active: He was conscious during the operation.
4. known to oneself; felt: conscious guilt.
5. aware of what one is doing: a conscious liar.
6. aware of oneself; self-conscious.
7. deliberate; intentional: a conscious insult; a conscious effort.
8. acutely aware of or concerned about: money-conscious; a diet-conscious society.
9. Obsolete. inwardly sensible of wrongdoing.
–noun
10. the conscious, Psychoanalysis. the part of the mind comprising psychic material of which the individual is aware.

Where I think you're using more the first Adjective there as a basis, I'm closer to using it in the Noun sense.  This also ignores that having "consciousness" in various incarnations doesn't mean automatically "feeling", "sentient" or "emotional".  There's reason to believe life forms are, to some extent or another, aware...jellyfish have no nervous system but react to stimuli.  They wouldn't "feel" in the way we understand it...it's another thing entirely to anthropomorphize natural occurrences like typhoons or volcanoes.

Quote:
The proper beginning point of induction is our own awareness, since it is the thing that is always already presupposed in any observation or abstraction you make.


Big Heidegger fan? :laugh:


--------------------
*+_Charos_+*

"Be me, for a little while"
--Eli

My Deviantart Page
My Youtube Page


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Jump to top Pages: 1 | 2 | 3  [ show all ]

Shop: Original Sensible Seeds Autoflowering Cannabis Seeds   MagicBag.co All-In-One Bags That Don't Suck   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   Myyco.com APE Liquid Culture For Sale

General Interest > Philosophy, Sociology & Psychology
Threaded Mode Threaded  Previous topic Previous  View all topics Index  Next topic Next 

Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* Evolutionary changes
( 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 all )		 niteowl 11,577 133 12/28/10 03:53 PM
by falcon
* The History of Evolution
( 1 2 all )		 rizingfire 4,569 26 12/19/09 09:30 PM
by Icelander
* The Idea of Evolution is BS
( 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 all )		 World Spirit 19,550 165 07/21/02 09:44 AM
by whiterastahippie
* Lamarck was MOSTLY right...
( 1 2 all )		 Cracka_X 1,740 20 04/06/08 07:45 PM
by Cracka_X
* Deconstructing evolution.
( 1 2 3 4 all )		 daytripper23 4,748 72 01/13/10 04:22 PM
by andrewss
* Evolution
( 1 2 3 4 all )		 SkorpivoMusterion 9,322 61 12/08/03 03:34 PM
by Anonymous
* Evolution and intelligence?
( 1 2 3 all )		 OrgoneConclusion 5,095 50 12/23/08 01:37 AM
by OrgoneConclusion
* The telescopic nature of the evolutionary paradigm
( 1 2 all )		 exclusive58 5,230 26 02/16/06 04:39 PM
by Annom

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Middleman, DividedQuantum
2,519 topic views. 1 members, 364 guests and 27 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ]
Search this thread:

Copyright 1997-2026 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.044 seconds spending 0.01 seconds on 16 queries.