From: David MOREY (us@divadeus.freeserve.co.uk)
Date: Sat Sep 06 2003 - 16:30:10 BST
Hi
The Darwin chapters are of course nearer the end
becasue there are a lot of theorists that laid the ground
for Darwin,
and I am fairly sure about the history of science
as that's what I did at uni. All science is provisional,
Darwin will be replaced one day, if you can't imagine that
you are not trying very hard. I am probably not arguing with
you accept for the strange absolutist language you use.
You could say we would have no Darwin without Malthus.
I am in the evolution is obvious, & Darwin is a very unconvincing
explanation for the complexity of life forms, camp, if you're
not, never mind, but keep reading the science journals to
see where we are going.
DM
----- Original Message -----
From: <abahn@comcast.net>
To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
Sent: Saturday, September 06, 2003 2:31 PM
Subject: Re: Sheldrake (MD economics of want and greed 4)
> Hi David,
>
> I am aware of A.R. Wallace. But, I will stand by my statement that there
would
> be no evolution w/o Darwin. Darwinism is much bigger than the works of
Charles
> and i would inlude in there the works of Wallace, even though he created
his
> theory independent of Darwin. The history of Science has awarded the
prize to
> Darwin. It does no good to quibble about it now. Now we have a theory of
> evolution and this is synonymous with Darwinism. Giving Darwin only a
couple of
> chapters is fine by me is long as those chapters are the preface,
Introduction
> and Chapters 1-3. THe only cause of stagnations in thinking are stagnated
> thinkers. :) Getting rid of Darwinism will not help in the least. In
fact, I
> don't even know if it would be possible to do that.
>
> Regards,
> Andy
> > Hi
> >
> > No evolution without Darwin this is just bad information,
> > check your history of
> > science, e.g. A.R.Wallace. There have also been many
> > other evolutionary theorists. See Peter Bowler's
> > book on the history of evolution. Darwin is only a few
> > chapters. Sure Darwin is almost the only game in towm now, and this is
> > causing a great stagnation in thinking.
> >
> > Regards
> > DM
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: <abahn@comcast.net>
> > To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
> > Sent: Saturday, September 06, 2003 1:23 PM
> > Subject: Re: Sheldrake (MD economics of want and greed 4)
> >
> >
> > > Hi Scott,
> > >
> > > Yes, It think we are back at dueling dogmas again (but, I havn't
walked my
> > dog
> > > yet). For one we each mean something different when we say Darwinism.
> > But that
> > > is okay. You recognize what I am saying, by catagorizing it as
evolution.
> > I
> > > don't think we would have evolution without Darwin. But, what is the
> > point in
> > > arguing about this.
> > >
> > > My point about computers, if I understand your position correctly, is
that
> > you
> > > were reducing it to a mechanism of bits (1 and 0's). Then calling
this
> > > mechanism a perfectly spation-temporal mechanism. Neurons work
something
> > like
> > > this, if this is what we want to reduce brain activity to (although, I
> > think
> > > there is more going on here, not sure...?), but you don't want to
reduce
> > brains
> > > to neurons (if I understand you correctly). You want to reduce it all
the
> > way
> > > down to atoms (or photons). What if there is no all the way down?
What
> > if it
> > > just keeps going? OR what if it is a Perfect continuum? THe point
is, I
> > think,
> > > we know exactly where to stop going down (reducing) when trying to
figure
> > out
> > > the mechanism of a computer--at bits. We don't know the same thing
with
> > the
> > > brain. Although, for all practical purposes, the nueron works just
fine.
> > >
> > > My point about self-consciousness was that it depends on language. I
am
> > happy
> > > to throw episodic memory in there also. I conceded consciousness to
you a
> > long
> > > time ago. We will never know. So, if you want to assume it as
> > omnipresent,
> > > with no need for explanation, that is fine by me. So, yes we don't
know
> > what
> > > makes a nueron (nerve cell) conscious. But, we have some pretty good
> > ideas
> > > about how we think. Not that there is no mystery there, but you have
> > given a
> > > pretty good description (for me) of how self-consciousness works.
Well,
> > it
> > > seems pointless to assume self-consiousness after we have already
assumed
> > > consciousness (is that what you are doing?). In other words, after
the
> > species
> > > homo sapiens are extinct, is there still self-consciousness in the
> > > universe--like consciousness? Is there still intelligence? What we
> > (humans) do
> > > which makes us different from all other organisms is reflect on the
fact
> > that we
> > > are conscious beings. We share episodic memory with many (perhaps
all?)
> > > organisms (or, using Holland again, complex adaptive systems). But,
we
> > are the
> > > only organism or species to develop a complex language. This tool
> > (internal
> > > model, evolutionary adaptation) has made possible self-consciousness
and
> > thus
> > > the intellectual level. I don't see the *purpose* in there in that
the
> > > emergence of this tool was a random event, selected for its local
> > advantages.
> > > The evolutionary jury is still out on whether this will be a globally
> > succesful
> > > strategy.
> > >
> > > I'll leave it at that for now,
> > > Andy
> > >
> > >
> > > MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
> > > Mail Archives:
> > > Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
> > > Nov '02 Onward -
> > http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
> > > MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
> > >
> > > To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
> > > http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
> > Mail Archives:
> > Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
> > Nov '02 Onward -
http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
> > MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
> >
> > To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
> > http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
> >
>
>
> MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
> Mail Archives:
> Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
> Nov '02 Onward -
http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
> MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
>
> To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
> http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
>
>
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Sep 06 2003 - 16:34:18 BST