|
DividedQuantum
Outer Head


Registered: 12/06/13
Posts: 9,819
|
Evolution
#23614844 - 09/05/16 01:35 PM (7 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
I just finished reading Tom Wolfe's new book, Kingdom of Speech, in which, to put it briefly, he outlines the disconnect between the Theory of Evolution and human language, noting that after over a hundred years of study, we still know jack about the origins and true nature of language.
Anyway, he makes the following statement about Darwin's theory. I found it very interesting and was hoping to get some opinions on it here, as I think they would also be quite interesting.
Here's the quote:
Quote:
"There were five standard tests for a scientific hypothesis. Had anyone observed the phenomenon -- in this case, Evolution -- as it occurred and recorded it? Could other scientists replicate it? Could any of them come up with a set of facts that, if true, would contradict the theory (Karl Popper's "falsifiability" test)? Could scientists make predictions based on it? Did it illuminate hitherto unknown or baffling areas of science? In the case of Evolution...well...no...no...no...no...and no."
It seems obvious to anyone but a fool that biological evolution is taking place, through the avenue of heritable genetics. But what's untrue about Wolfe's statement? Personally, I feel the bare bones of the theory are correct, but that neo-Darwinian theory as it stands is incomplete. I wonder what y'all think.
-------------------- Vi Veri Universum Vivus Vici
|
Dim ethyl
As below so above



Registered: 09/23/15
Posts: 90
Loc: The Other Side
Last seen: 9 days, 21 hours
|
|
Personally I think sience finds it hard to study or replecate metaphysical phenomena.
-------------------- “Today a young man on acid realized that all matter is merely energy condensed to a slow vibration, that we are all one consciousness experiencing itself subjectively, there is no such thing as death, life is only a dream, and we are the imagination of ourselves. Heres Tom with the Weather.” -Bill Hicks
 
|
OrgoneConclusion
Blue Fish Group



Registered: 04/01/07
Posts: 45,414
Loc: Under the C
|
|
Tom Wolfe is not a biologist. Full stop.
Rather than doing a point by point rebuttal, I only need to refute one point. No predictive power? Um... flu vaccines.
--------------------
|
redgreenvines
irregular verb


Registered: 04/08/04
Posts: 37,539
|
|
Quote:
DividedQuantum said: ...
Quote:
"There were five standard tests for a scientific hypothesis. Had anyone observed the phenomenon -- in this case, Evolution -- as it occurred and recorded it? Could other scientists replicate it? Could any of them come up with a set of facts that, if true, would contradict the theory (Karl Popper's "falsifiability" test)? Could scientists make predictions based on it? Did it illuminate hitherto unknown or baffling areas of science? In the case of Evolution...well...no...no...no...no...and no."
,,,
wrong:
Had anyone observed the phenomenon -- in this case, Evolution -- as it occurred and recorded it?
observations of speciation and observations of a fossil record combined with observations of isolated locations with different life forms such as australia and galapagos. also mutations in most species had been observed.
Could other scientists replicate it?
many already had observed mutations, the fossils, and the species in variance in different locations.
Could any of them come up with a set of facts that, if true, would contradict the theory (Karl Popper's "falsifiability" test)?
No facts exist that contradict evolution
Could scientists make predictions based on it?
they can predict extinctions, and they can predict that new life forms will manifest when inheritable mutations are successful
Did it illuminate hitherto unknown or baffling areas of science?
clearly people (not scientists) are still baffled
--------------------
_ 🧠 _
|
DividedQuantum
Outer Head


Registered: 12/06/13
Posts: 9,819
|
|
Good stuff from you two.^^
-------------------- Vi Veri Universum Vivus Vici
|
psychobla
Stranger

Registered: 09/18/15
Posts: 223
Last seen: 5 years, 10 months
|
|
Post deleted by psychobla
Reason for deletion: hax
-------------------- A bunch of jokes, with a grain of truth in each. The early bird gets the worm, but the second mouse gets the cheese. What will be, will be.
|
OrgoneConclusion
Blue Fish Group



Registered: 04/01/07
Posts: 45,414
Loc: Under the C
|
|
Quote:
However, it certainly seems to paint an incomplete picture.
No scientific discipline claims such, so how is this even a point?
--------------------
|
DividedQuantum
Outer Head


Registered: 12/06/13
Posts: 9,819
|
|
Quote:
psychobla said: I'll be the last guy in the room to argue against evolution, but I absolutely agree that Darwinian evolution is just the tip of the iceberg.
Life didn't even always exist in our universe according to a modern scientific view of history. From atoms evolved chemicals. From chemistry evolved life and biology. From biology we now have language, psychology, comedy, music, art, consciousness, economics, politics, etc. I can't argue against survival of the fittest. However, it certainly seems to paint an incomplete picture.
That's my thinking as well, and that's exactly what Wolfe argues in his book vis-a-vis language. After over 100 years of trying, we still don't have a Darwinian explanation for language. Here's another fun quote from his book:
Quote:
"...speech, language, is not something that had evolved in Homo sapiens, the way the breed's unique small-motor-skilled hands had...or its next-to-hairless body. Speech is man-made. It is an artifact...and it explains man's power over all other creatures in a way Evolution all by itself can't begin to."
He argues that language is not comparable to, for example, birdsong, but is an artifact in much the same way as man's other tools are, and which did not directly evolve from anything. It's an interesting book.
-------------------- Vi Veri Universum Vivus Vici
|
redgreenvines
irregular verb


Registered: 04/08/04
Posts: 37,539
|
|
well we still don't have a way to put knowledge directly into people's heads somehow they have to thirst for it. strange.
--------------------
_ 🧠 _
|
OrgoneConclusion
Blue Fish Group



Registered: 04/01/07
Posts: 45,414
Loc: Under the C
|
|
If science was for realz we would be able to teleport to Hawaii for lunch.
--------------------
|
nuentoter
conduit



Registered: 09/17/08
Posts: 2,721
Last seen: 7 years, 21 days
|
|
But we can observe and recreate these effects. It's called experimental evolution. We have been doing it to yeasts, bacteria, viruses, flies, foxes, rodents, guppies, and probably more. Altering their environment and seeing what happens to the offspring and their genetics.
30 years of research into a single population of flies resulting in the book Methuselah Flies by Michael Rose.
--------------------
The geometry of us is no chance. We are antennae, we are tuning forks, we are receiver and transmitters of all energy. We are more than we know. - @entheolove "I found I could say things with color and shapes that I couldn't say any other way - things I had no words for" - Georgia O'Keefe I think the word is vagina
|
redgreenvines
irregular verb


Registered: 04/08/04
Posts: 37,539
|
|
survivable mutation in offspring is key, especially if it has a competitive advantage.
--------------------
_ 🧠 _
|
Kickle
Wanderer


Registered: 12/16/06
Posts: 17,856
Last seen: 4 hours, 24 minutes
|
|
In case you guys missed this interesting find from 2015:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_naledi
I was listening to a talk by one of the cavers who uncovered these bones. Her view? That we have no effing clue what is going on in the human timeline. They have been unable to properly date the bones so far and give estimates anywhere from 950,000 to 2 million years old. Very precise
But more-over this speaker describes how it messes with all the knowledge that is out there currently. How it requires a re-assessment of our view because we have been taking large speculative leaps to create an evolutionary timeline. And with these bones that timeline largely goes out the window. She suspects that these bones will end up requiring a re-assessment of all prior bones to recreate a new timeline, which in turn will still be highly speculative.
Kind of interesting IMO that we really have no idea what the human timeline looks like and pretty much make it up as we go along with the incomplete information we have.
Edit: Found the talk http://video.nationalgeographic.com/video/ng-live/160829-sciex-nglive-elliott-homo-naledi-lecture
-------------------- Why shouldn't the truth be stranger than fiction? Fiction, after all, has to make sense. -- Mark Twain
|
DividedQuantum
Outer Head


Registered: 12/06/13
Posts: 9,819
|
Re: Evolution [Re: Kickle]
#23617545 - 09/06/16 09:27 AM (7 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
Very interesting, Kickle. 
Yeah, it's an interesting branch of anthropology. The imprecision of the science is extremely frustrating, though. We know a bit less than we think, to put it mildly.
-------------------- Vi Veri Universum Vivus Vici
Edited by DividedQuantum (09/06/16 09:28 AM)
|
OrgoneConclusion
Blue Fish Group



Registered: 04/01/07
Posts: 45,414
Loc: Under the C
|
Re: Evolution [Re: Kickle]
#23617606 - 09/06/16 09:47 AM (7 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
Too many people seem surprised that scientific knowledge is not all-encompassing and omniscient.
It is like getting 12 pieces of a 1,000 piece puzzle and trying to extrapolate a clear and finished picture. Can't be done, but each piece gets us closer.
--------------------
|
nuentoter
conduit



Registered: 09/17/08
Posts: 2,721
Last seen: 7 years, 21 days
|
Re: Evolution [Re: Kickle]
#23617797 - 09/06/16 11:05 AM (7 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
Awesome article. Makes me contemplate clans and tribes of that era, the travel responsible to mingle and crossbreed. The climate and landscape and biomes of those tribes. Would a generic difference of a few handful of tribal members be shunned or revered into a separate tribe? What would that do to genetics?
These are all questions on such a grand timeline it is almost unsettling in a certain way, like the first time you went past where you could touch bottom in a lake or ocean. A humbling feeling of our place here and the thin thread on lineage on the tapestry of all life.
I selfishly would love to see our history as a species to be fully revealed in my lifetime. Such things may never be known. Reading foundation series by Asimov earlier this year made me think about that slot too. The longer take us to develop technology to date our past, the further and more obscure it becomes.
--------------------
The geometry of us is no chance. We are antennae, we are tuning forks, we are receiver and transmitters of all energy. We are more than we know. - @entheolove "I found I could say things with color and shapes that I couldn't say any other way - things I had no words for" - Georgia O'Keefe I think the word is vagina
|
Kickle
Wanderer


Registered: 12/16/06
Posts: 17,856
Last seen: 4 hours, 24 minutes
|
|
Quote:
OrgoneConclusion said: Too many people seem surprised that scientific knowledge is not all-encompassing and omniscient.
It is like getting 12 pieces of a 1,000 piece puzzle and trying to extrapolate a clear and finished picture. Can't be done, but each piece gets us closer.
I think the problem is in calling it knowledge then. It isn't/wasn't knowledge if it describes/described a falsity.
-------------------- Why shouldn't the truth be stranger than fiction? Fiction, after all, has to make sense. -- Mark Twain
|
sudly
Darwin's stagger


Registered: 01/05/15
Posts: 10,812
|
|
I think perceptual influences lead to the development of languages so it'd be more important to figure out how perceptions and new perspectives evolved rather than how language evolved.
-------------------- I am whatever Darwin needs me to be.
|
redgreenvines
irregular verb


Registered: 04/08/04
Posts: 37,539
|
Re: Evolution [Re: sudly]
#23618891 - 09/06/16 04:41 PM (7 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
Basically we know that our species has direct and similar ancestors that could be as old as 2 million or as young as 600,000 years. The humanity of our ancestors would be stone age and probably tribal in either case. In view of the total timeline of the planet we are still way shy of twentieth of 1% of the age of earth. This is the perspective we need to use.
--------------------
_ 🧠 _
|
sudly
Darwin's stagger


Registered: 01/05/15
Posts: 10,812
|
|
Or we should focus on hominids from the last 30,000 years wherein the volume of our brains has increased substantially.
-------------------- I am whatever Darwin needs me to be.
|
quinn
some kinda love


Registered: 01/02/10
Posts: 6,799
|
|
Quote:
"...speech, language, is not something that had evolved in Homo sapiens, the way the breed's unique small-motor-skilled hands had...or its next-to-hairless body. Speech is man-made. It is an artifact...and it explains man's power over all other creatures in a way Evolution all by itself can't begin to."
i do not think this is quite correct. Noam Chomsky who is highly respected in mainstream linguistics made the breakthrough discovery of universal grammar, that is that underlying the superficial differences between languages are more fundamental common rules and structures, implying our capacity for language is wired into the brain.
Stephen Pinker popularizes this idea and links it to evolutionary theory in his book 'the language instinct', which argues language is not like other human inventions such as railroads, but innate and common to all cultures.
along this line of reasoning language is not some artifact that humans one day just made up
-------------------- dripping with fantasy
Edited by quinn (09/06/16 05:23 PM)
|
nuentoter
conduit



Registered: 09/17/08
Posts: 2,721
Last seen: 7 years, 21 days
|
Re: Evolution [Re: quinn] 1
#23619121 - 09/06/16 05:56 PM (7 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
I think the terminology we are using muddies up the conversation. Intricate verbal communication is the "instinct" where as language is the man made flavors of this communication. Out physical ability to create complex sounds and manipulate their inflections, and the obvious avatar of distance with auditory communication are things that lean on us heavily.
Language goes far far beyond this. Poetry, novels, music and so much more have added to the enigma of language.
--------------------
The geometry of us is no chance. We are antennae, we are tuning forks, we are receiver and transmitters of all energy. We are more than we know. - @entheolove "I found I could say things with color and shapes that I couldn't say any other way - things I had no words for" - Georgia O'Keefe I think the word is vagina
|
DividedQuantum
Outer Head


Registered: 12/06/13
Posts: 9,819
|
Re: Evolution [Re: quinn] 1
#23619238 - 09/06/16 06:32 PM (7 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
quinn said:
Quote:
"...speech, language, is not something that had evolved in Homo sapiens, the way the breed's unique small-motor-skilled hands had...or its next-to-hairless body. Speech is man-made. It is an artifact...and it explains man's power over all other creatures in a way Evolution all by itself can't begin to."
i do not think this is quite correct. Noam Chomsky who is highly respected in mainstream linguistics made the breakthrough discovery of universal grammar, that is that underlying the superficial differences between languages are more fundamental common rules and structures, implying our capacity for language is wired into the brain.
Stephen Pinker popularizes this idea and links it to evolutionary theory in his book 'the language instinct', which argues language is not like other human inventions such as railroads, but innate and common to all cultures.
along this line of reasoning language is not some artifact that humans one day just made up
Yes, well this is heartily addressed and the author rejects both Chomsky and Pinker due to lack of compelling evidence. I personally agree with Wolfe on Chomsky and am underwhelmed by and ambivalent about Pinker, both of whom I have read on this subject. Chomsky's biggest breakthrough was with recursion, the folding of phrases and clauses into each other that creates meanings in language. It so happens that certain linguistic anthropologists, namely Daniel L. Everett, and others, found Amazonian hunter-gatherer tribes that use languages that have no recursion. This is a very major blow to the whole Chomsky paradigm, and incidentally I have never myself thought Chomsky to be correct in his linguistic theories. He's no kook, but no visionary, either.
-------------------- Vi Veri Universum Vivus Vici
|
redgreenvines
irregular verb


Registered: 04/08/04
Posts: 37,539
|
|
what if poetry were the beginning - not an adjunct rhythm rhyme onomatopoeia.
we are descended from poetry apes
--------------------
_ 🧠 _
|
OrgoneConclusion
Blue Fish Group



Registered: 04/01/07
Posts: 45,414
Loc: Under the C
|
|
Quote:
onomatopoeia.
The need to constantly have to urinate?
--------------------
|
redgreenvines
irregular verb


Registered: 04/08/04
Posts: 37,539
|
|
some one wants to pee on ya
--------------------
_ 🧠 _
|
BrendanFlock
Stranger


Registered: 06/01/13
Posts: 4,216
Last seen: 1 day, 8 hours
|
|
Hmm the power of evolution has to be plane in that we can see and understand it..in the coming time Causm..we may have a choice to decentralize our selfs and identities...putting them into wave format..which in quantum mechanics can be called certainty..like uploading consciousness on the internet..and then remainding..there liek a remainder..for a certain amount of time..the lucid understanding of knowledge and intelligence..is likely at helm of Evolution..indeed it is a rite in Freemasonry to know what exactly evolution is..?
22nd degree - Knight Royal Axe, Prince of Libanus: This degree teaches, "if a job is worth doing its worth doing well". By doing good work we improve character and become better citizens. The apron is white, bordered in purple, and contains a three-headed serpent and a table with instruments and plans on it. The jewel is an axe and handle of gold. On the top of the handle are the initials of Noah and Solomon. In the middle of the handle are the initials of Libanus and Tsidun. On the blade are the initials of Adoniram, Cyrus, Darius, Zerubbabel, Nehemiah, Ezra (on one side), and Shem, Kham, Yapheth, Moses, Ahaliab, Betselal (on the other).
This shows the rites we have passed down through the ages..which is a story in Human Evolution..and indeed how we interact with nature grows and develops into more and more complicated things..like technology and buildings and art for example..
|
sudly
Darwin's stagger


Registered: 01/05/15
Posts: 10,812
|
|
Quote:
DividedQuantum said: Yes, well this is heartily addressed and the author rejects both Chomsky and Pinker due to lack of compelling evidence. I personally agree with Wolfe on Chomsky and am underwhelmed by and ambivalent about Pinker, both of whom I have read on this subject. Chomsky's biggest breakthrough was with recursion, the folding of phrases and clauses into each other that creates meanings in language. It so happens that certain linguistic anthropologists, namely Daniel L. Everett, and others, found Amazonian hunter-gatherer tribes that use languages that have no recursion. This is a very major blow to the whole Chomsky paradigm, and incidentally I have never myself thought Chomsky to be correct in his linguistic theories. He's no kook, but no visionary, either.
If Amazonian tribes people use language that isn't recursive then it seems only rational that body language, gesturing and hunting communications arose before the development of sophisticated, recursive language.
Simply it indicates there was 'pre-language' communication.
-------------------- I am whatever Darwin needs me to be.
|
Hippocampus



Registered: 04/01/15
Posts: 753
Last seen: 6 years, 10 months
|
Re: Evolution [Re: sudly] 1
#23620540 - 09/07/16 01:15 AM (7 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
I think the first post by redgreenvines sums up the evolution thing from my perspective.
Fucking fruit flies, man. Anyone can observe evolution if they can stand those buzzy little insects. Or just read about the thousands of others who have witnessed it.
Falsifiability? That's basically the null hypothesis of any science experiment. So.. if fruit flies don't evolve in your experiment, then evolution is false. Just one example. There's a null hypothesis for every decent experiment.
Sometimes Tom Wolfe writes some real crap. Don't get me wrong. I can totally respect that. There is some collateral damage when artistic license is taken in social satire. A genre which I love. Biting witticism, sharp commentary, and black humor are great, but not always valid.
A bit tangential. But how does the new book you read stack up to his others? I liked The Electric Koolaid Acid Test. Vanities was ok but not really my style. Never read Right Stuff. Does he return to brilliant satire, or has he made the complete transformation to old rambling philosopreacher? I'm more about criticizing the establishment than offering up my own half-baked solutions that are just as bad or worse. And I'm happy to lampoon the lampooner too. heheheh, pooner.
|
DividedQuantum
Outer Head


Registered: 12/06/13
Posts: 9,819
|
|
Quote:
Hippocampus said: I think the first post by redgreenvines sums up the evolution thing from my perspective.
Fucking fruit flies, man. Anyone can observe evolution if they can stand those buzzy little insects. Or just read about the thousands of others who have witnessed it.
Falsifiability? That's basically the null hypothesis of any science experiment. So.. if fruit flies don't evolve in your experiment, then evolution is false. Just one example. There's a null hypothesis for every decent experiment.
Sometimes Tom Wolfe writes some real crap. Don't get me wrong. I can totally respect that. There is some collateral damage when artistic license is taken in social satire. A genre which I love. Biting witticism, sharp commentary, and black humor are great, but not always valid.
A bit tangential. But how does the new book you read stack up to his others? I liked The Electric Koolaid Acid Test. Vanities was ok but not really my style. Never read Right Stuff. Does he return to brilliant satire, or has he made the complete transformation to old rambling philosopreacher? I'm more about criticizing the establishment than offering up my own half-baked solutions that are just as bad or worse. And I'm happy to lampoon the lampooner too. heheheh, pooner. 
More like old rambling philosopreacher. It's an okay read, but it's nothing like his bigger books.
-------------------- Vi Veri Universum Vivus Vici
|
clock_of_omens
razzle them dazzle them


Registered: 04/10/14
Posts: 4,097
Last seen: 1 year, 1 month
|
|
This is a such a ridiculous collection of silly replies to evolutionary theory that come from people who don't understand it that I feel like it has to be a parody.
Quote:
"There were five standard tests for a scientific hypothesis. Had anyone observed the phenomenon -- in this case, Evolution -- as it occurred and recorded it?
People observe evolution all the time, as others have pointed out. Not witnessing one supposed 'kind' of animal transform into another doesn't invalidate evolution because that's not even really what happens and evolutionary processes take long periods of time. We can all witness water eroding rock in our lifetimes, but no one can witness water forming the Grand Canyon. Does that mean water erosion isn't real? No.
Quote:
Could other scientists replicate it?
This is just plain silly. What is it he expects scientists to replicate? The entire history of life on the planet? Evolutionary biology is a field unto itself. Many replicable experiments are done within this field every day. Once again, we don't have to replicate the formation of the Grand Canyon to know water erosion was the culprit.
Quote:
Could any of them come up with a set of facts that, if true, would contradict the theory (Karl Popper's "falsifiability" test)?
Creationists are constantly coming out with things that were they facts would invalidate evolution. Sadly for them, they are not facts.
Quote:
Could scientists make predictions based on it?
He's obviously never heard of population genetics.
Quote:
Did it illuminate hitherto unknown or baffling areas of science?
Come on, this must be a joke. It's just too absurd. You can't get anywhere near biology without evolution slapping you in the face. I'd seriously like to ask Wolfe just what the fuck he was thinking when he put pen to paper to immortalize this nonsense.
Quote:
In the case of Evolution...well...no...no...no...no...and no."
Sorry Wolfe, it's actually yes...yes...yes...yes...and yes; maybe next time you are going to spout off about something, do a little research.
|
DividedQuantum
Outer Head


Registered: 12/06/13
Posts: 9,819
|
|
I appreciate your understanding that it was Wolfe and not I making those claims. 
I just wanted to get some commentary on it, and I have. Thanks everyone for your insights.
-------------------- Vi Veri Universum Vivus Vici
|
zzripz
Stranger


Registered: 12/23/08
Posts: 8,292
Loc: Manchester, UK
Last seen: 4 years, 7 months
|
|
One thing I know, most people who believe in the theory of evolution believe that evolution happens by random chance. They do not accept that nature and/or matter-energy is conscious, aware, intelligence/intelligent. They will rather scapegoat or red herring---the biblical myth of a creator 'God',and absurd theories that Earth is just a few thousand years old etc etc
IE instead of exploring the possibility of nature being intelligent, they slag off a creator-god myth which is their 'Creationist' antagonist
Another thing I know is that the Darwinian theory of evolution suits the power elite to a T, because they believe that certain groups of people -especially themselves- are more highly EVOLVED than other groups of people! And in their grander delusions they literally believe they are gods. This is the myth of apotheosis. So see how the theory of evolution suits their belief system and action. it is a myth:
Quote:
…”Although racism of course did not begin with Charles Darwin, he did more than any other person to popularize it. After he “proved” that all humans descended from apes, it was natural to conclude that some races had descended further than others.
In his opinion, some races (namely the white ones) left the others far behind, while other races hardly matured at all.”
And the same you hear from the leading founders and figures of Theosophy and the New Age Movment like Helena Blavatsky, and Alice Baily who had very racist views, and even claimed they 'channeled' 'ascended masters' (ie the 'evolved' theme again) telling them this is 'the truth'.
So I am really warning about seeing through dangerous myths.
|
redgreenvines
irregular verb


Registered: 04/08/04
Posts: 37,539
|
Re: Evolution [Re: zzripz] 1
#23622770 - 09/07/16 05:15 PM (7 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
anybody believe that a power elite is a different species? i.e. unable to mate with the rest of us and bear viable fertile offspring?
if so
then they are not more evolved.
zzripz, I am astonished how the facts of evolution so completely elude you, allowing instead a crackpot conspiracy theory.
Power elites certainly exist as they ever have, but not by being more evolved, only by dominating and keeping their status. This is not done through scientific theory, instead, a subtle combination of Law and Money and Real Estate suffices to ensure entitlements.
--------------------
_ 🧠 _
|
clock_of_omens
razzle them dazzle them


Registered: 04/10/14
Posts: 4,097
Last seen: 1 year, 1 month
|
Re: Evolution [Re: zzripz]
#23622817 - 09/07/16 05:25 PM (7 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
zzripz said: They do not accept that nature and/or matter-energy is conscious, aware, intelligence/intelligent.
How about you design an experiment and prove this. The acceptance will follow.
Quote:
Another thing I know is that the Darwinian theory of evolution suits the power elite to a T, because they believe that certain groups of people -especially themselves- are more highly EVOLVED than other groups of people! And in their grander delusions they literally believe they are gods. This is the myth of apotheosis. So see how the theory of evolution suits their belief system and action. it is a myth:
So I am really warning about seeing through dangerous myths.
What exactly does that have to do with the theory itself? Bogus interpretations of a theory do not invalidate that theory.
|
Crumist
Stranger


Registered: 11/02/13
Posts: 781
Last seen: 7 years, 1 month
|
Re: Evolution [Re: zzripz]
#23622861 - 09/07/16 05:35 PM (7 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
zzripz said:Another thing I know is that the Darwinian theory of evolution suits the power elite to a T, because they believe that certain groups of people -especially themselves- are more highly EVOLVED than other groups of people! And in their grander delusions they literally believe they are gods. This is the myth of apotheosis. So see how the theory of evolution suits their belief system and action. it is a myth:
Social Darwinism is a load of horseshit that came into vogue many years after Darwins death. Don't you remember Darwins last words were "All I know is, I am not a Darwinist!"
-------------------- 'I am all for resources being allocated to the widowed single mother of 3, lost husband over seas fighting for our country. I am for vets getting mental health access and resources following war. I am not for free money cause a woman can't close her legs or some chump with low testosterone no going to work cause "i'm sad."' -finalexplosion Nice knowin ya'll! https://www.shroomery.org/forums/showflat.php/Number/23904704/vc/1#23904704
Edited by Crumist (09/07/16 05:36 PM)
|
blingbling
what you chicken stew?

Registered: 09/04/10
Posts: 2,987
Last seen: 3 years, 2 months
|
|
After over 100 years of trying, we still don't have a Darwinian explanation for language.
This statement is painfully wrong. Think of all the advantages that language gives us. Think about how hard your life would be if you couldn't communicate. The development of language among ancient hominids would have clearly produced benefits that natural selection would favour.
As for this statement: Speech is man-made
This is in some sense true, but I think this guy is confusing biology with culture. Its a tricky subject because the two can't really be separated, but it doesn't follow that because we speak, have different languages etc. that there is no evolutionary mechanism involved. There are particular regions in the brain that are necessary for language development, so language clearly has a biological basis that is shaped by culture.
-------------------- Kupo said: let's fuel the robots with psilocybin. cez said: everyone should smoke dmt for religion. dustinthewind13 said: euthanasia and prostitution should be legal and located in the same building. White Beard said: if you see the buddha on the road, rape him, then kill him. then rape him again.
|
DividedQuantum
Outer Head


Registered: 12/06/13
Posts: 9,819
|
|
You're right, clearly, but I think the criticism comes in where we have all these people, biologists, anthropologists, linguists, and after over a hundred years of very intense study, they still don't know how language formed. We know the why (obvious survival benefit), but not the how.
And you say there are circuits in the brain devoted to language, yes, but are they special? Is there a set of pathways that you could call a language "organ"? Some people think so, but as yet there is no firm science to show us one way or the other.
-------------------- Vi Veri Universum Vivus Vici
|
Crumist
Stranger


Registered: 11/02/13
Posts: 781
Last seen: 7 years, 1 month
|
|
There are regions of the brain, like Broccas area, that have been identified as key to language. The human brain may well be the most complex entity we are aware of, there are philosophical questions as to whether any system can understand our comprehend anything as complex as itself.
There are theories that consciousness is a emergent property of language. If this is so, I'd cut the linguists a break as the field isn't truly that big or that old and I don't think humanity is quite ready to crack the secrets of consciousness
-------------------- 'I am all for resources being allocated to the widowed single mother of 3, lost husband over seas fighting for our country. I am for vets getting mental health access and resources following war. I am not for free money cause a woman can't close her legs or some chump with low testosterone no going to work cause "i'm sad."' -finalexplosion Nice knowin ya'll! https://www.shroomery.org/forums/showflat.php/Number/23904704/vc/1#23904704
|
nuentoter
conduit



Registered: 09/17/08
Posts: 2,721
Last seen: 7 years, 21 days
|
|
How language is formed is seen every day with infants. We agree upon a sound and a thing. We repeat and reinforce the association of this sound with this thing. Go forward from there, after you "name" the things, you describe them and their actions. My personal curiosity lies in the inherent need for language to be so verbose. The art of language, and what certain phrases and tones and meters do to the brain.
"Anatomists today would be hard put to identify the brain of a visual artist, a writer or a mathematician - but they would recognize the brain of a professional musician without moment's "
"Given her deafness, the auditory part of the brain, deprived of its usual input, had started to generate a spontaneous activist of its own, and this took the form of musical hallucinations, mostly musical memories from her earlier life. The brain needed to stay incessantly active, and if it was not getting its usual stimulation..., it would create its own stimulation in the form of hallucinations"
-Oliver Sachs
--------------------
The geometry of us is no chance. We are antennae, we are tuning forks, we are receiver and transmitters of all energy. We are more than we know. - @entheolove "I found I could say things with color and shapes that I couldn't say any other way - things I had no words for" - Georgia O'Keefe I think the word is vagina
|
redgreenvines
irregular verb


Registered: 04/08/04
Posts: 37,539
|
|
in the beginning was the word
--------------------
_ 🧠 _
|
DividedQuantum
Outer Head


Registered: 12/06/13
Posts: 9,819
|
|
and the word was God
-------------------- Vi Veri Universum Vivus Vici
|
redgreenvines
irregular verb


Registered: 04/08/04
Posts: 37,539
|
|
more like gubbagoofy in the beginning
--------------------
_ 🧠 _
|
zzripz
Stranger


Registered: 12/23/08
Posts: 8,292
Loc: Manchester, UK
Last seen: 4 years, 7 months
|
|
Quote:
redgreenvines said: anybody believe that a power elite is a different species? i.e. unable to mate with the rest of us and bear viable fertile offspring?
if so
then they are not more evolved.
zzripz, I am astonished how the facts of evolution so completely elude you, allowing instead a crackpot conspiracy theory.
Power elites certainly exist as they ever have, but not by being more evolved, only by dominating and keeping their status. This is not done through scientific theory, instead, a subtle combination of Law and Money and Real Estate suffices to ensure entitlements.
your not even wrong
(not sure if you will get that)
|
laughingdog
Stranger

Registered: 03/14/04
Posts: 4,828
|
|
Quote:
DividedQuantum said: Could other scientists replicate it?
E. coli long-term evolution experiment From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia The 12 E. coli LTEE populations on June 25, 2008.[1]
The E. coli long-term evolution experiment (LTEE) is an ongoing study in experimental evolution led by Richard Lenski that has been tracking genetic changes in 12 initially identical populations of asexual Escherichia coli bacteria since 24 February 1988.[2] The populations reached the milestone of 50,000 generations in February 2010 and 65,000 in June 2016.[3]
Over the course of the experiment, Lenski and his colleagues have reported a wide array of phenotypic and genotypic changes in the evolving populations. These have included changes that have occurred in all 12 populations and others that have only appeared in one or a few populations. For example, all 12 populations showed a similar pattern of rapid improvement in fitness that decelerated over time, more rapid growth rates, an increased cell size. Half of the populations have evolved defects in DNA repair that have caused mutator phenotypes marked by elevated mutation rates. The most striking adaptation reported so far is the evolution of aerobic growth on citrate, which is unusual in E. coli, in one population at some point between generations 31,000 and 31,500.[4][5]
|
laughingdog
Stranger

Registered: 03/14/04
Posts: 4,828
|
Re: Evolution [Re: zzripz]
#23627339 - 09/08/16 09:46 PM (7 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
zzripz said: One thing I know, most people who believe in the theory of evolution believe that evolution happens by random chance. They do not accept that nature and/or matter-energy is conscious, aware, intelligence/intelligent.
Not sure what you were thinking awareness / intelligence ‘is’.
They mean different ‘things’, don’t they?
Does ‘running exist? is your hand a fist? No - neither ‘fist’ or ‘running’ are objects. they are dependent on present time action.
‘Awareness’ is likewise not an object, and has no properties. It is even more abstract than numbers of which it is very hard to say whether they exist or not. Awareness is certainly devoid of purpose. Awareness does not discriminate between pain and pleasure. It couldn’t care less about anything & everything.
‘intelligence’, on the other hand, implies a goal and purpose, what is intelligent for the zebra (that gets eaten), is not intelligent for the lion (which does the eating, and causes zebras great pain). The majority of species are parasitic, and thousands of species lay eggs in others that are kept alive as the larva eat them from the inside out. This is one example of what is routine in nature. The idea that there is one wonderful ‘something’ out there guiding everything to some great conclusion, would seem very naive. It might be nice to imagine the world would be perfect if it weren’t for the devils of conspiracies and evil rich people, but most living organisms consume or parasitize one another. And many of those that aren’t predators or parasites get eaten, or die, and suffer during that process. Suffering sure seems to have been an inherent part of what it means to be alive from the ‘beginning’.
Also for nature or awareness or ‘cosmic intelligence’ to have purpose, would imply it is presently imperfect, hence not so powerful and perfect. Why else bother with all the work of purpose?
‘purpose’ and ‘meaning’ really seem like very heavy handed puritan concepts to shackle the beautiful flowers of life with. And ‘intelligence’ and ‘awareness’ as these terms are often used just seem like dressed up versions of ‘purpose’ and ‘meaning’ … such sad heavy somber stuff to wear around our necks like an albatross or ‘all-too-heavy-cross’.
|
zzripz
Stranger


Registered: 12/23/08
Posts: 8,292
Loc: Manchester, UK
Last seen: 4 years, 7 months
|
|
I would just add to Alan Watts' mention of there being two major paradigms, the 'God/Father' one and then the mechanistic one. What is also crucial to know is the antagonists/'rebels to the God myth are the Freemason/Gnostic/Luciferian power elite. In their myth they are against the idea of a supernatural God creating humans and rather see humans (ie their sort) as being 'god'. IE., humanitarian. And it is they who wholly embrace the mechanistic myth, because they idealize a dream of creating 'heavan' on earth via their 'order' and technology. But really these three paradigms share the same solar-mythical roots, and the results of following any or all of them suit the ones in power now! They all reject the understanding that nature is intelligence:
Edited by zzripz (09/09/16 05:07 AM)
|
akira_akuma
Φύσις κρύπτεσθαι ὕψιστος φιλεῖ


Registered: 08/28/09
Posts: 82,455
Loc: Onypeirophóros
Last seen: 4 years, 1 month
|
|
Quote:
redgreenvines said: what if poetry were the beginning - not an adjunct rhythm rhyme onomatopoeia.
we are descended from poetry apes
that's also my theory.
ie: "whilst thou help me with thine path of stone, to cover the mossy grove, to make a road."
|
BrendanFlock
Stranger


Registered: 06/01/13
Posts: 4,216
Last seen: 1 day, 8 hours
|
|
The Beginning is like a Great Giant Star..which was the Soul..in a Moon Made Land..inside and out is the degree a true sequitur..into the out of the crazy soul itself..and that is the common logic in and out..which is without awareness or arousal..
|
BrendanFlock
Stranger


Registered: 06/01/13
Posts: 4,216
Last seen: 1 day, 8 hours
|
|
Parting the Red Sea is Half the Truth..indeed is the Causm..more Morose..than the questions of logic..inside and out..inside and out..Common causes for concern// are like a peeping tom..who always comes out on top..without killing another human being..we could really evolve..in the correct and formal way..so all arguments..about serial killers should end right now..because they are not trust worthy souls...of the motives of the future..in and of itself..is a Great Degree.. towards the common Toldem..and Totem of the Future...we have Brain Barf, and an Ivey League Scan!
|
akira_akuma
Φύσις κρύπτεσθαι ὕψιστος φιλεῖ


Registered: 08/28/09
Posts: 82,455
Loc: Onypeirophóros
Last seen: 4 years, 1 month
|
|
man hasn't evolved. man is more stupid then ever. some men deserve death for their insolence. that's how impertinent and unevolved they are. at the very least, a smack would do. just SMACK, sftu, and if they don't then up the measure. this is how man talks.
|
blingbling
what you chicken stew?

Registered: 09/04/10
Posts: 2,987
Last seen: 3 years, 2 months
|
|
And you say there are circuits in the brain devoted to language, yes, but are they special?
Yes, there are a number of areas in the brain that are specialised to deal with language. In fact, they are so specialised that if someone receives brain damage to a particular area of the brain they may be left with a specialised disability like for example word salad (not the official name), which is a condition where they understand what some one says to them but when they speak the words in their sentence are not in order. So instead of saying "the cat is in the hat" they might say "hat cat the in the."
I once met someone with this condition. I spoke with her for about 15 minutes and in all that time i understood one sentence about where she went on holiday which made her very pleased.
-------------------- Kupo said: let's fuel the robots with psilocybin. cez said: everyone should smoke dmt for religion. dustinthewind13 said: euthanasia and prostitution should be legal and located in the same building. White Beard said: if you see the buddha on the road, rape him, then kill him. then rape him again.
|
akira_akuma
Φύσις κρύπτεσθαι ὕψιστος φιλεῖ


Registered: 08/28/09
Posts: 82,455
Loc: Onypeirophóros
Last seen: 4 years, 1 month
|
|
nominal aphasia is very interesting.
|
DividedQuantum
Outer Head


Registered: 12/06/13
Posts: 9,819
|
|
Quote:
blingbling said: And you say there are circuits in the brain devoted to language, yes, but are they special?
Yes, there are a number of areas in the brain that are specialised to deal with language. In fact, they are so specialised that if someone receives brain damage to a particular area of the brain they may be left with a specialised disability like for example word salad (not the official name), which is a condition where they understand what some one says to them but when they speak the words in their sentence are not in order. So instead of saying "the cat is in the hat" they might say "hat cat the in the."
I once met someone with this condition. I spoke with her for about 15 minutes and in all that time i understood one sentence about where she went on holiday which made her very pleased.
I do not doubt that we can identify parts of the brain associated with language processing. You have to realize that that is a very far cry from understanding what is going on. You haven't really said anything.
-------------------- Vi Veri Universum Vivus Vici
|
akira_akuma
Φύσις κρύπτεσθαι ὕψιστος φιλεῖ


Registered: 08/28/09
Posts: 82,455
Loc: Onypeirophóros
Last seen: 4 years, 1 month
|
|
it's like a single conduit in a massive super highway, but it's solely responsible for specific things, working in tandem with the rest of the brain. that goes, your language goes, until your brain can recover, if it can; which it does by "re-wiring" neuronal "passways".
how can anyone really say anything about something no one knows anything about, unless someone says something? or, that is to say, how can anyone be looking for answer if he hasn't spurred on a question?
|
DividedQuantum
Outer Head


Registered: 12/06/13
Posts: 9,819
|
|
Well you raise an interesting point. The Chomsky camp believes that we each possess a language "organ," that is a specific genetic system devoted to language. So, in principle, if part of that organ is damaged, speech cannot recover fully. On the other hand, if language is distributed across the brain in a way unlike an organ, and if a part that is normally used gets damaged, a plastic re-wiring can take place. So you see, right there is fragmentation and confusion, because we can't even identify what is happening on this level. Half the academics believe it's an organ; the other half believe the brain deals with language in a more general way. If we don't even know the difference here, what do we know? That's one of the first questions.
-------------------- Vi Veri Universum Vivus Vici
|
nuentoter
conduit



Registered: 09/17/08
Posts: 2,721
Last seen: 7 years, 21 days
|
|
either way, language lives in the brain. The brain can rewire itself in amazing ways.
half a brain, and it simply rewired itself half brain removed
how malleable is that grey matter?
could either be right or wrong or both?
--------------------
The geometry of us is no chance. We are antennae, we are tuning forks, we are receiver and transmitters of all energy. We are more than we know. - @entheolove "I found I could say things with color and shapes that I couldn't say any other way - things I had no words for" - Georgia O'Keefe I think the word is vagina
|
beforethedawn
Registered: 06/19/16
Posts: 1,859
Last seen: 4 years, 5 months
|
|
Don't want to derail but I'd like to contribute that no teleology is an insane position. Smoke DMT. This place is obviously made.
-------------------- Hostile humankind Can't you see you're fucking blind?
|
akira_akuma
Φύσις κρύπτεσθαι ὕψιστος φιλεῖ


Registered: 08/28/09
Posts: 82,455
Loc: Onypeirophóros
Last seen: 4 years, 1 month
|
|
all i have is notions, DQ. unfortunately, i haven't studied anything at all about evolution, i understand the bear minimum in the subject. natural selection, that's it.
could there be a component in that?
personally, i think it makes sense. i don't think language just popped into existence, i think it was invented, like cave paintings were "invented", or 'created', and then worked on from there; and by worked on, i mean things 'evolved' due to the use of certain grammar and words from other people's in communication that are so prevalent (enough so that they 'catch on' or become heavily relied upon), making said language grow in terms of it's lexicon, and develop into it's own unique communication for the (what i'd call) early travellers of the world.
|
DividedQuantum
Outer Head


Registered: 12/06/13
Posts: 9,819
|
|
Interesting points, guys.
-------------------- Vi Veri Universum Vivus Vici
|
blingbling
what you chicken stew?

Registered: 09/04/10
Posts: 2,987
Last seen: 3 years, 2 months
|
|
Quote:
DividedQuantum said:
Quote:
blingbling said: And you say there are circuits in the brain devoted to language, yes, but are they special?
Yes, there are a number of areas in the brain that are specialised to deal with language. In fact, they are so specialised that if someone receives brain damage to a particular area of the brain they may be left with a specialised disability like for example word salad (not the official name), which is a condition where they understand what some one says to them but when they speak the words in their sentence are not in order. So instead of saying "the cat is in the hat" they might say "hat cat the in the."
I once met someone with this condition. I spoke with her for about 15 minutes and in all that time i understood one sentence about where she went on holiday which made her very pleased.
I do not doubt that we can identify parts of the brain associated with language processing. You have to realize that that is a very far cry from understanding what is going on. You haven't really said anything.
Exactly what kind of evidence do you require to get a sense of what is going on? The point I was trying to make is that language is built up in the brain by small pieces of consciousness and that we know this because we can see what happens when one piece fails.
-------------------- Kupo said: let's fuel the robots with psilocybin. cez said: everyone should smoke dmt for religion. dustinthewind13 said: euthanasia and prostitution should be legal and located in the same building. White Beard said: if you see the buddha on the road, rape him, then kill him. then rape him again.
|
nuentoter
conduit



Registered: 09/17/08
Posts: 2,721
Last seen: 7 years, 21 days
|
|
I think what he might be getting at, or at least my questioning, is not that that exists, but more of what sets us apart, why did we decide this was important enough on a large biological scale across multiple populations across cultures that were all separate. How did this develop? Biological predisposition? Cultural push? A combination of so many things may never really know?
Saying we have a spleen does not explain it's why or how. The spleen is an easier example than something as elusive as language.
--------------------
The geometry of us is no chance. We are antennae, we are tuning forks, we are receiver and transmitters of all energy. We are more than we know. - @entheolove "I found I could say things with color and shapes that I couldn't say any other way - things I had no words for" - Georgia O'Keefe I think the word is vagina
|
DividedQuantum
Outer Head


Registered: 12/06/13
Posts: 9,819
|
|
Quote:
nuentoter said: I think what he might be getting at, or at least my questioning, is not that that exists, but more of what sets us apart, why did we decide this was important enough on a large biological scale across multiple populations across cultures that were all separate. How did this develop? Biological predisposition? Cultural push? A combination of so many things may never really know?
Saying we have a spleen does not explain it's why or how. The spleen is an easier example than something as elusive as language.
That's just it.
-------------------- Vi Veri Universum Vivus Vici
|
klhouse



Registered: 12/12/15
Posts: 671
Loc: SE Virginia
Last seen: 4 years, 1 month
|
|
I am in agreement with most of the posts here: I believe, but I do see flaws.
One thing that helped me understand this is that humans can't really understand the concept of huge numbers. For example, in a billion years, a snail could crawl around the equator ten million times. Google it. It is on many sites and some give the math. They say the earth is 4.5 billion years old... Imagine how much could happen while waiting for a snail to crawl around the earth 45 million times...
-------------------- Shroomery mycologist definitely know their shit. Knowledge talks. Wisdom listens.
|
laughingdog
Stranger

Registered: 03/14/04
Posts: 4,828
|
Re: Evolution [Re: klhouse]
#23644210 - 09/14/16 09:47 AM (7 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
one could say humans are not the inventors of language why? well what about DNA?
like wise the nervous system handles multiple sensory data streams, and processes all this data, mostly without confusion.
And both pre-verbal human infants and animals dream. And dreams involve simulations of the past, future, and use symbols, and are unconscious.
So the questions arise, what are the differences between thought, language, data processing, and the physical laws of the universe which constrain these processes.
|
akira_akuma
Φύσις κρύπτεσθαι ὕψιστος φιλεῖ


Registered: 08/28/09
Posts: 82,455
Loc: Onypeirophóros
Last seen: 4 years, 1 month
|
|
all language is a structure. no language has ever just been "made" or just "happened", evolution or no. it is all an early construction job, for humanity. only this construction was with sounds to communicate. it is no different than a wolf or howl...only it's been constructed, more so, than say an owls hoot. nothing really special about it, beyond the fact that we can endeavor to make more structural sense out of your communicative skills.
|
nuentoter
conduit



Registered: 09/17/08
Posts: 2,721
Last seen: 7 years, 21 days
|
|
Quote:
akira_akuma said: all language is a structure. no language has ever just been "made" or just "happened", evolution or no. it is all an early construction job, for humanity. only this construction was with sounds to communicate. it is no different than a wolf or howl...only it's been constructed, more so, than say an owls hoot. nothing really special about it, beyond the fact that we can endeavor to make more structural sense out of your communicative skills.
they only point I would disagree with is the "nothing special" part. Especially from someone who enjoys reading, I would be hard pressed to find another animal that uses language for simply aesthetic reasons. Poetry, Singing, Literature. All special in my book.
--------------------
The geometry of us is no chance. We are antennae, we are tuning forks, we are receiver and transmitters of all energy. We are more than we know. - @entheolove "I found I could say things with color and shapes that I couldn't say any other way - things I had no words for" - Georgia O'Keefe I think the word is vagina
|
akira_akuma
Φύσις κρύπτεσθαι ὕψιστος φιλεῖ


Registered: 08/28/09
Posts: 82,455
Loc: Onypeirophóros
Last seen: 4 years, 1 month
|
|
i don't think most animals have brains large enough to comprehend much aesthetics in their environment, let alone emotions for said environment. i'm sure the preservation of their children is as important to them as procreation itself, but it's hardwired.
they communicate though, just the same, with each other, like we do, only in less complex terms. considering that, i think "nothing special" is quite fitting. consider also where this discussion kinda engendered itself, and kinda has gotten to...in my opinion, it's not that special, but also very unique of an indicator of complex system, ie, the language acquisition in humans -- but it's very akin to how animals communicate, only we can use logic and reason to map out more complex forms of communication, like anything else we can do better because of said rational mind.
so by "not special" i just mean the actual communication part...not the acquisition and the constructive parts. that's what more what i meant.
|
blingbling
what you chicken stew?

Registered: 09/04/10
Posts: 2,987
Last seen: 3 years, 2 months
|
|
Quote:
nuentoter said: I think what he might be getting at, or at least my questioning, is not that that exists, but more of what sets us apart, why did we decide this was important enough on a large biological scale across multiple populations across cultures that were all separate. How did this develop? Biological predisposition? Cultural push? A combination of so many things may never really know?
Saying we have a spleen does not explain it's why or how. The spleen is an easier example than something as elusive as language.
OK, well my best guess is that language evolved the same way everything else evolved. Namely, in very small pieces, each piece being an adaptive modulation over the standard anatomy of the species. Given enough time and selection pressures we could go from primitive grunts and gestures to me talking to you through our computers.
-------------------- Kupo said: let's fuel the robots with psilocybin. cez said: everyone should smoke dmt for religion. dustinthewind13 said: euthanasia and prostitution should be legal and located in the same building. White Beard said: if you see the buddha on the road, rape him, then kill him. then rape him again.
|
sudly
Darwin's stagger


Registered: 01/05/15
Posts: 10,812
|
|
Quote:
blingbling said:
Quote:
nuentoter said: I think what he might be getting at, or at least my questioning, is not that that exists, but more of what sets us apart, why did we decide this was important enough on a large biological scale across multiple populations across cultures that were all separate. How did this develop? Biological predisposition? Cultural push? A combination of so many things may never really know?
Saying we have a spleen does not explain it's why or how. The spleen is an easier example than something as elusive as language.
OK, well my best guess is that language evolved the same way everything else evolved. Namely, in very small pieces, each piece being an adaptive modulation over the standard anatomy of the species. Given enough time and selection pressures we could go from primitive grunts and gestures to me talking to you through our computers.
Well described  I'd say language developed from the ancestral body language and gesturing used in hunting.
-------------------- I am whatever Darwin needs me to be.
|
hTx
(:



Registered: 03/27/13
Posts: 5,724
Loc: Space-time
|
Re: Evolution [Re: sudly]
#23649348 - 09/16/16 01:31 AM (7 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
http://phys.org/news/2015-12-evolution-intelligent-thought.html
"this research shows that it is possible for evolution to exhibit some of the same intelligent behaviours as learning systems (including neural networks)."
-------------------- zen by age ten times six hundred lifetimes Light up the darkness.
|
akira_akuma
Φύσις κρύπτεσθαι ὕψιστος φιλεῖ


Registered: 08/28/09
Posts: 82,455
Loc: Onypeirophóros
Last seen: 4 years, 1 month
|
Re: Evolution [Re: hTx]
#23649355 - 09/16/16 01:33 AM (7 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
before we had the concept of architecture, where did the architecture of the mind endeavor to?
|
redgreenvines
irregular verb


Registered: 04/08/04
Posts: 37,539
|
Re: Evolution [Re: hTx]
#23649554 - 09/16/16 04:48 AM (7 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
hTx said: http://phys.org/news/2015-12-evolution-intelligent-thought.html
"this research shows that it is possible for evolution to exhibit some of the same intelligent behaviours as learning systems (including neural networks)."
this research and the facility from which it harks is not scientific in the least. (from an intellectual institute doing research by asking questions in flowery language - those that make the effort to understand the questions think they have already done enough work - so that's the research - a bunch of "what if" statements, no methods, and no results.)
--------------------
_ 🧠 _
|
clock_of_omens
razzle them dazzle them


Registered: 04/10/14
Posts: 4,097
Last seen: 1 year, 1 month
|
Re: Evolution [Re: hTx]
#23649802 - 09/16/16 07:56 AM (7 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
By unifying the theory of evolution (which shows how random variation and selection is sufficient to provide incremental adaptation) with learning theories (which show how incremental adaptation is sufficient for a system to exhibit intelligent behaviour),
I'll read the journal article later, but from the first part of the sentence you quoted, it seems they are just playing semantics. Random variation and selection provide incremental adaptation and incremental adaptation shows intelligent behavior. They are just defining intelligent behavior in a way that will include evolution.
|
redgreenvines
irregular verb


Registered: 04/08/04
Posts: 37,539
|
|
it's lazy thinking with evil results, I hate research institutes that call anything they do research (because it's in the description of the institute).
Going on a trip to Singapore to attend a wedding can be called a research expense if the "researcher" is working on a "research" paper summarizing their ideas on Intelligence among the planets based upon historical analysis of alchemists, and the father of the bride knows astrology.
research for his book, validly included as a cost as regards annotated tax receipts, and therefore seriously to be considered as "peer reviewed science at the shroomery"
--------------------
_ 🧠 _
|
clock_of_omens
razzle them dazzle them


Registered: 04/10/14
Posts: 4,097
Last seen: 1 year, 1 month
|
Re: Evolution [Re: hTx]
#23650808 - 09/16/16 03:39 PM (7 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
Really what they are saying in the article is that models used in learning theory can be usefully transferred to evolutionary theory. This does not imply that evolution is itself somehow learning. That doesn't even make philosophical sense. In order for learning to happen, there has to be something there doing the learning. What is doing the learning in evolution?
One example they give is an analogy between evolvability in evolution and generalization in learning models. The specific type of learning model they talk about is built using a training set. The model is then subjected to a test set which has features that were not present in the training set, and the model is able to generalize to this new test set. They say that the training set is analogous to a past selective environment and the test set is analogous to a new selective environment. So a population is subjected to a 'training set' and random variation in the genome is selected for and allele frequencies change. The alleles that conferred advantage in the 'training set' are more frequent in the population, so of course when the population is subjected to a 'test set' with some similar selective pressures, the population will be able to adapt more quickly. This is because the alleles that will confer some advantage are still more prevalent in the population, not because the population somehow literally evolutionarily 'learned' from the 'training set' and is generalizing to the 'test set'. That is just taking a useful analogy literally.
|
redgreenvines
irregular verb


Registered: 04/08/04
Posts: 37,539
|
|
so, having followed the breadcrumbs, do you see research or wank?
--------------------
_ 🧠 _
|
clock_of_omens
razzle them dazzle them


Registered: 04/10/14
Posts: 4,097
Last seen: 1 year, 1 month
|
|
I only followed a few crumbs. The article phys org wrote about was just an opinion piece letter to a journal. They quote a bunch of other studies where people apparently applied learning theory models to problems in evolutionary theory, but I didn't go into any of them. Just based on what they say in the opinion piece, there seem to be useful analogies between learning theory models and evolutionary theory that could lead to legitimate research, but the article itself isn't a research article. However, any claims that evolution itself literally learns or is intelligent are wank as far as I'm concerned. They don't exactly flat out state that in the opinion piece, but they start out with a paragraph basically about how analogies can sometimes be more than just analogies, and they make statements that could be interpreted as saying evolution literally learns. So the article itself I would say is semi-wank.
|
redgreenvines
irregular verb


Registered: 04/08/04
Posts: 37,539
|
|
thanks for the in depth smell test.
--------------------
_ 🧠 _
|
clock_of_omens
razzle them dazzle them


Registered: 04/10/14
Posts: 4,097
Last seen: 1 year, 1 month
|
|
|
nuentoter
conduit



Registered: 09/17/08
Posts: 2,721
Last seen: 7 years, 21 days
|
|
After reading the article and a handful of links. I can see the value of it as a "what are the possibilities? What are the potentials? What questions should we be pursuing?", But stand alone, is pretty useless. It is incredibly misleading that this comes from a "research" facility. Should be called an inquiry institute.
Interesting stuff though. Makes me think, why wouldn't nature use the same blueprint for different things of this nature. Simplicity and efficiency.
--------------------
The geometry of us is no chance. We are antennae, we are tuning forks, we are receiver and transmitters of all energy. We are more than we know. - @entheolove "I found I could say things with color and shapes that I couldn't say any other way - things I had no words for" - Georgia O'Keefe I think the word is vagina
|
laughingdog
Stranger

Registered: 03/14/04
Posts: 4,828
|
|
Quote:
DividedQuantum said: I just finished reading Tom Wolfe's new book, ... Here's the quote:
Quote:
"There were five standard tests for a scientific hypothesis. Had anyone observed the phenomenon -- in this case, Evolution --
as it occurred and recorded it?
Could other scientists replicate it? Could any of them come up with a set of facts that, if true, would contradict the theory (Karl Popper's "falsifiability" test)? Could scientists make predictions based on it? Did it illuminate hitherto unknown or baffling areas of science? In the case of Evolution...well...no...no...no...no...and no."
"... as it occurred and recorded it? ..."
YES
and you can watch it here:
http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2016/09/a-cinematic-approach-to-drug-resistance/
"In a creative stroke inspired by Hollywood wizardry, scientists from Harvard Medical School and Technion-Israel Institute of Technology have designed a simple way to observe how bacteria move as they become impervious to drugs.
The experiments, described in the Sept. 9 issue of Science, are thought to provide the first large-scale glimpse of the maneuvers of bacteria as they encounter increasingly higher doses of antibiotics and adapt to survive — and thrive — in them.
To do so, the team constructed a 2-by-4 foot petri dish and filled it with 14 liters of agar, a seaweed-derived jellylike substance commonly used in labs to nourish organisms as they grow. ... The invention was borne out of the pedagogical necessity to teach evolution in a visually captivating way to students in a graduate course at HMS. The researchers adapted an idea from, of all places, Hollywood. ...."
video and rest of article at link above
|
BrendanFlock
Stranger


Registered: 06/01/13
Posts: 4,216
Last seen: 1 day, 8 hours
|
|
Depends how you define evolution..:
If you mean change than obviously evolution is going on..
If you mean adaptation then likely its going on..
So like its pretty simple depending on the category that you consider evolution as:
Learning, and creating technology...like as in matter like computers and the internet...for example..
Also creating things that are a substance in the mind..like words and memes for example..
The total chaos of evolution is that we cant or dont have the understanding yet to define it completely..so we must say that evolution exists as a category in the mind obviously..that we can talk about it demonstrates this..
Other than that..the idea of order coming out of chaos..is likely novel..and thats a rate of change recorded by evolution it self..!!
|
nuentoter
conduit



Registered: 09/17/08
Posts: 2,721
Last seen: 7 years, 21 days
|
|
Evolution seems inevitable in terms of entropy. As things increase their disorder, survival requires adaptability or simplicity. Either your requirements are basic enough to increase survivability in harsh times, or you are adaptable either individually, like humans and dolphins, or as a species, like the blow fly, and adapting through replication and generations, each generation being conditioned by its ever changing environment.
Either way though, environment is the antagonist. Which as stated is ever increasing its chaos. Our brains have definitely evolved into being more "clever" allowing us to create buildings and jobs and homes and allowing ourselves to, in a way, create snapshots of time, and repeatable rhythms that don't change. A means of controlling our environment and on a certain scale, decrease the rate of entropy in our lives by creating and clutching to stability. This I see as and evolution of the brain through generations because physically we're to squishy to endure, and we are to complex to just easily cope with the changes.
--------------------
The geometry of us is no chance. We are antennae, we are tuning forks, we are receiver and transmitters of all energy. We are more than we know. - @entheolove "I found I could say things with color and shapes that I couldn't say any other way - things I had no words for" - Georgia O'Keefe I think the word is vagina
|
|