On Mon, Sep 9, 2013 at 12:34 PM, Alberto G. Corona <[email protected]> wrote: > Telmo: > > I don´t know if that process of emergence of levels is the sole effect of a > darwinian process. We can't know it. what is clear is that Darwinism has a > explanation for it. And this applies too to the social level.
I agree that it does. > http://www.cogsci.msu.edu/DSS/2006-2007/Wilson/Rethinking_July_20.pdf > > However a darwinian process is a natural process. In a block universe, there > is no such darwinian process (because there is no process of any kind at > all). Not sure I understand why there is no process of any kind in a block universe. > Simply some paths in the block universe maintain the entropy constant > against the surroundings. These paths are living beings along their lines of > time. I'm not sure I can agree that, for example, a program in the Tierra environment maintains a constant entropy against the environment. Could you describe more precisely what you mean? > Usually the computational models, like any other programs are predictable: > they work with your assumptions and produce the results that you expect. > real evolution is pervasive . It does not work with limited assumptions and > resources and levels. But biological darwinism relies on random mutations the same way the computational models do, no? > This paper is very interesting. How the evolutionary pressures make stable > or unstable the aggregation of individuals to create higher level > individuals and what are the mechanisms of cohesion: > > http://web.pdx.edu/~jeff/group_sel_workshop/michod_roze.pdf Thanks! Will have a read. Telmo. > > 2013/9/9 Telmo Menezes <[email protected]> >> >> Hi Alberto, >> >> On Mon, Sep 9, 2013 at 10:55 AM, Alberto G. Corona <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> > I think that there are real progress that can be even measured in terms >> > of >> > entropic order. That a man embodies more structure and organization than >> > a >> > bacteria is objective and measurable, and it is a product of more >> > emergent >> > levels of evolution. In concrete the human being includes the eucariotic >> > level, the multicelularity level and human society level, that are >> > aggregations of coordinated individuals to achieve an individuality of >> > an >> > higher level. These levels are absent in bacteria . >> >> Ok, there's an arrow of complexification, that's undeniable. I'm not >> convinced that Darwinism alone explains that. One of the reasons for >> my scepticism is the failure of ALife models to replicate unbounded >> complexification. My favourite attempt in this domain is the Echo >> model by John Holland -- which is beautiful but didn't work in this >> sense. There's also Tierra/Avida, where you get a lot of interesting >> stuff but no unbounded complexification. >> >> One idea I heard but don't know whom to attribute to is this: >> evolutionary complexification is just an artefact of the simplicity of >> the initial state. The idea being that the laws of physics inherently >> contain a "pressure" towards a certain level of complexity and that >> evolution is just following the path of least resitance, in a way. It >> is then conceivable that there is a state of equilibrium that we >> haven't reached yet and that complexification will halt at some point. >> This is wild speculation, of course, but I like to ponder on this >> hypothesis. >> >> > What is not true is that human beings are more "adapted" than bacteria. >> > That >> > is not true. Because there is no objective and absolute measure of >> > adaptation. It ever depends on the concrete environment, and varies a >> > lot. >> >> Humm... I think ecologists are able to estimate the likelihood of a >> species going extinct. I'd argue that this could be taken as a measure >> of adaption. >> >> Telmo. >> >> > >> > 2013/9/9 Telmo Menezes <[email protected]> >> >> >> >> On Mon, Sep 9, 2013 at 5:52 AM, Craig Weinberg <[email protected]> >> >> wrote: >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > On Sunday, September 8, 2013 4:42:02 PM UTC-4, telmo_menezes wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Sent from my iPad >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On Sun, Sep 8, 2013 chris peck <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >>>> >> "Darwinism is not a testable scientific theory, but a >> >> >>>> >> metaphysical >> >> >>>> >> research program". >> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> >>> > I don't have any problem with Popper's comments here. I see no >> >> >>> > reason >> >> >>> > whatsoever for 'Popper fans or fans of philosophers of science' >> >> >>> > to >> >> >>> > be >> >> >>> > concerned in the slightest. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On 08.09.2013, at 22:28, John Clark <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> >> Yes I know, fans of Popper are not concerned in the slightest with >> >> >> their >> >> >> hero making that moronic statement, and Popper called himself a >> >> >> philosopher; >> >> >> and that is exactly how philosophy gets a bad name. >> >> >> >> >> >>> > People misunderstand Popper here. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Apparently even Popper misunderstood Popper because, to his credit, >> >> >> he >> >> >> admitted he was wrong about Darwin; most other philosophers would >> >> >> rather eat >> >> >> ground glass than admit they were wrong. It's just a pity that it >> >> >> took >> >> >> this >> >> >> great philosopher of science 119 years after the publication of "The >> >> >> Origin >> >> >> Of Species" to figure out that Darwin was a scientist. I guess >> >> >> philosophers >> >> >> are just slow learners >> >> >> >> >> >>> > Furthermore, in regarding natural selection as untestable he >> >> >>> > followed >> >> >>> > in the footsteps of many Darwinists. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Should a good philosopher be following in somebody's footsteps or >> >> >> should >> >> >> he tell him he's going in the wrong direction? >> >> >> >> >> >>> > It was quite common to think that the concept of 'survival of the >> >> >>> > fittest' involved circular reasoning and was therefore >> >> >>> > tautological. >> >> >>> > ie. >> >> >>> > 'fittest' is defined as 'those that survive' and so 'survival of >> >> >>> > the >> >> >>> > fittest' amounts to saying 'the survivors survive'. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Darwin gave a new meaning to the word, "fittest" means passing on >> >> >> more >> >> >> genes that endure (survive) to the next generation than somebody who >> >> >> is >> >> >> less >> >> >> fit. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Darwin knew nothing about genes. >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > Yes, and evolutionary fitness has nothing do with the quantity of >> >> > winning >> >> > genes - this is a Eugenicist misinterpretation of evolution. Fitness >> >> > is >> >> > about the circumstantial appropriateness of mutations, not about >> >> > hereditary >> >> > supremacy. A sudden climate change makes entire classes of 'more fit' >> >> > genes >> >> > 'less fit' over night. Evolution is not a race or striving for >> >> > success >> >> > through superior engineering - that is utter horseshit. >> >> >> >> Yes. A common error is to equate evolution with progress -- one sees >> >> that a lot in mainstream use of the terms. I believe that >> >> neo-Darwinism is a great scientific theory, and that it does explain >> >> the origin of biological complexity, namely humans. But it is easy to >> >> misinterpret it or take it too far. For example, by saying things like >> >> "human beings are more evolved than bacteria" which is nonsense. >> >> >> >> Telmo. >> >> >> >> > Thanks, >> >> > Craig >> >> > >> >> > -- >> >> > 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 [email protected]. >> >> > To post to this group, send email to >> >> > [email protected]. >> >> > Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. >> >> > 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 [email protected]. >> >> To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. >> >> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. >> >> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > -- >> > Alberto. >> > >> > -- >> > 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 [email protected]. >> > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. >> > Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. >> > 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 [email protected]. >> To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. >> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. >> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. > > > > > -- > Alberto. > > -- > 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 [email protected]. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. > 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 [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
