On Monday, January 28, 2013 4:10:48 PM UTC-5, JohnM wrote:
> Craig:
> beautiful series. Mostly agreeable terms.
> I used some of it in a slightly different sense, but not oppositional;

Thanks John,

I like your comments a lot as well and I think they add to the discussion...

> *Organisms do not adapt. *We have to realize the diversity of ALL 
> existence and "similarly looking" groups show differences, observed. or 
> beyond our capability of detection. Those with closer details to fit into 
> the existing (also unlimited?) variety of nature will survive, giving to 
> the scientist the view of 'adaptation. 
> A good example is the activity of antibiotics: no microbe will adapt (or 
> decide a change in offspring development!) upon REALIZING the danger of an 
> antibiotic, so whichever kinds are receptive, will die. The different 
> variations (undetected by our ongoing measuring capabilities) will survive 
> and 'fill up' the empty niche fast, giving the impression upon the 
> identically identified (but different) species to have become immune. 
> Indeed it is a 'natural selection' (see below). 

A great point. The term adaptation is:

1. Literal only when it is applied to the (figurative) statistical 'trends' 
of the (figurative) 'body' of the species.
2. Figurative when applied to all other literal, ('public physics') bodies 
of individual organisms.

Adaptation makes a leap of inference which can be misleading, as you say, 
and I like your example, that it isn't even that a whole aggregate group of 
bacteria or their offspring's offspring has 'adapted' to anything, they 
have simply not died in the face of some local condition. Likewise the 
non-resistant bacteria did not (literally) 'fail to survive', as there was 
nothing to fail at, since survival is the default mode of any organism. You 
could say that it failed figuratively, since the end result is that some 
survive and some did not, but it is dangerous to literalize that into a 
Social Darwinist assumption that survival is a game in which you can win if 
you better learn the rules.

With a human being, it is possible that we could improve our chances 
technologically if we better learn the rules, but the rules could also 
change, or our technology could have unforeseen consequences which nullify 
their benefit at some point anyhow. Overpopulation presents a scary 
proposition in that we are in the unique position of having our own 
biological purpose possibly be the greatest obstacle to fulfilling our 
human desires for high quality of life. What does an organism do if it can 
reproduce so much that it makes itself into a pestilence for itself?

> *Natural selection *(see above) comes back to diversity. 
> *The Fittest and their survival *refers to the circumstances and their 
> change: Dinosaurs were the 'fittest' when they got extinct, because of 2ary 
> changes in the environment. John is right to eliminate the superlative. Fit 
> fir survival is sufficient.

I didn't see where John eliminated the superlative, but I agree that it 
should be. 

> *Adaptation *would imply evaluation of what's wrong and how's it better 
> and THEN direct changes in achieving such. A social group MAY do that (not 
> many to be found) but 'species'? especially ONE member in its lifetime? not 
> likely.

I didn't read this one until after I did my long comment above, but yes, I 
agree. You said it a lot more concisely than I did. 

> *Random? * I deny the term since it's application would negate the 
> possibility of prediction of 'the next step" in natural sciences. There may 
> be applicable circumstances among which we don't know how to select the 
> most likely one, as I recall Russell's "relatively random" case, but once 
> we can 'generate' randomity, it is not "random".

I am increasingly suspicious of 'random' myself. What if there is no 
'random'? Yes, I like "relatively" or "practically random" better.

> * Chance? * coinciding with more than we know of at present. 

Sure, yes, my view is that chance and choice are like two adjacent regions 
within a looped continuum of perceived causality. The difference has to do 
with the scope of the view that we can have of the context from our limited 
and highly idiosyncratic human perceptual capacities (even with their 
instrumental extension). 

> *Evolution *IMO and in the sense of Craig's word of misconception hides 
> some teleological content. If the 'end' (goal?) is fixed, Why EVOLUTION? 
> why did the Creator(???) make it perfect to begin with? 
> In my (agnostic) view there is an infinite complexity "out there" of which 
> only some proportion infiltrates our knowable world in a steadily enriching 
> fashion - adjusted to the mental capabilities we carry. This is our "MODEL" 
> of the world. 

Here's where I think what I was saying earlier about Literal and Figurative 
applies to MODEL:

We can be said to have a 'MODEL':

1. Only figuratively, when applied to our concretely real sensory-motor 
interactions ('private physics').
2. Only literally when when applied to the (figurative) aggregate of 
logical functions which can be identified publicly.

Our experience is the real thing, the model is a convenient turn of phrase 
to help us work with what I suggest is an as-yet-unexamined-by-science 
reality of private physics (I propose this reality can be better modeled 
with concepts like perceptual inertial frames, significance, and 
solitropy.). Private physics does indeed model public physics, and it 
models itself, and it models its own modeling of itself (ad infinitum), but 
I argue with confidence that *the capacity to model is not a logical model 
itself*, and it is not the mechanisms of public physics. Rather, I suspect 
that the capacity to model is a root primitive - *the* root primitive of 
all physics, a sensory-motor participation within a more limited subset of 
sensory-motor participation.


> There are relations we may (not?) know about and effects unknown upon 
> cases we think we (may) know about. I like the Flat Earth as an example, 
> Brent wrote the other day an appreciable list of such. I would add the case 
> of 'electricity' observed in certain fashion, described and calculated 
> (used?) as we presently understand it. It may be more, different from what 
> we think today. Volta and Faraday captured one aspect only. And we feel 
> SOOO smart!

I couldn't agree with you more. That's a big part of what my TOE is all 
about  http://multisenserealism.com/8-matter-energy/

Not just electricity, but all forms of 'energy' are actually the 
sensory-motor interactions of some set of time-narrative experiences on 
some scale. Space is a thin cross-section that cuts the universe into a 
meaningless flat topology. It is only through time, which 'begins' with 
perpetually expanding 'now', and (my conjecture obviously) subdivides into 
countless nested 'nows' within. It works in the exact opposite way that 
space works, where objects are nested literally inside of each other by 
position. *With time, subjects are nested figuratively inside of themselves 
by disposition*.


> John Mikes
> On Sun, Jan 27, 2013 at 9:47 PM, Craig Weinberg 
> <whats...@gmail.com<javascript:>
> > wrote:
>> I was so impressed with this page 
>> http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/misconceptions_faq.php#a1 
>> that I thought it was worth listing a few here:
>> *MISCONCEPTION: Natural selection involves organisms trying to adapt.*
>> *MISCONCEPTION: Natural selection acts for the good of the species.*
>> *MISCONCEPTION: The fittest organisms in a population are those that are 
>> strongest, healthiest, fastest, and/or largest.*
>> *MISCONCEPTION: Natural selection is about survival of the very fittest 
>> individuals in a population.*
>> *MISCONCEPTION: All traits of organisms are adaptations.*
>> *MISCONCEPTION: Evolutionary theory implies that life evolved (and 
>> continues to evolve) randomly, or by chance.
>> **MISCONCEPTION: Evolution results in progress; organisms are always 
>> getting better through evolution.*
>> **
>> *
>> *
>> *
>> *
>> -- 
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
>> "Everything List" group.
>> To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com<javascript:>
>> .
>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
>> everything-li...@googlegroups.com <javascript:>.
>> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Reply via email to