From: ian glendinning (psybertron@gmail.com)
Date: Tue Jul 26 2005 - 03:13:21 BST
Mark,
(1) I completely agree. "Darwinian" evolution is much more subtle than
many seem to think. There has been 150 years of evolution of that idea
since Darwin (and Wallace). Anyone who hasn't read neo-Darwinists
Dawkins, Gould, Goodwin, Jones and Dennett to name a few is likely to
be under-informed. But it's not rocket-science and no-one has
exclusive ownership of the ideas, which brings us to (2)
(2) I mentioned in response to Platt, the balance between individual
creativity (genius or accident, or forced natural move) and the
static-latching (creation of a new species of idea) in culture and
shared intellect. Platt made a quip about everyone needing a marketing
man, and I say many a true word spoken in jest. Many ideas may have
near identitical creation in many different brains, but it's the
people who coin the phrases that stick (with or without the help of a
marketing agent) that get remembered in history. Evolution is a
"historical narrative" of reality, (written by the winners, who
therefore deem themselves somehow special) which is why it's hard to
get theists and logicians to take it seriously as predictive, causal
truth. But truth it is.
Ian
On 7/26/05, Mark Steven Heyman <markheyman@infoproconsulting.com> wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I'd like to inject a thought here, not directed at anyone in
> particular.
>
>
> someone said:
> The MOQ sees intellect, like everything else static, as a product,
> and ongoing process of, evolution. Evolutionary advances occur on
> what has gone before. Dynamic advances happen individually but
> static latching requires patterns to spread out amongst others if the
> advancement is to be maintained. Both processes are needed.
>
> msh 7-25-05:
> I see no reason to believe that dynamic advances happen individually.
> Newton and Liebniz "invented" calculus simultaneously. Who knows
> how many others, fiddling with the notion of limits, might have
> worked it out for themselves. Darwin and Wallace arrived at the
> theory of evolution at the same time.
>
> To me, it makes no more sense to say that one "genius" came up with a
> unique idea than to say that one fish was the first to drag himself
> onto land and develop lungs. A belief in such nonsense requires a
> tremendous ignorance about the the way evolution (whether biological
> or cultural) occurs.
>
> Recently, someone on the list said that one guy had to be the first
> to develop language, for god's sake. See, these cavemen we're
> sitting around mutely staring at one another when one of them thought
> to himself, "Gee, we need a way to communicate," so he goes off on
> his own and invents language then comes back and teaches it to the
> others, for a price of course. Ridiculous.
>
> I think this yammering about them "brilliant" individuals is way
> overplayed, and for obvious reasons. It's all about getting a
> proprietary lock on a culturally-developed idea in order to profit
> from it. Just ask the caveman who invented language.
>
> Best to all,
> Mark Steven Heyman (msh)
> --
> InfoPro Consulting - The Professional Information Processors
> Custom Software Solutions for Windows, PDAs, and the Web Since 1983
> Web Site: http://www.infoproconsulting.com
>
>
>
>
>
> MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
> Mail Archives:
> Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
> Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
> MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
>
> To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
> http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
>
>
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Jul 26 2005 - 03:18:56 BST