Hi Steve, Last I checked, Horse was not a biologist. What I am cautioning Horse about is looking stupid. This is an important forum by the way no matter how many people quote Wiki. As such, I suggest that Horse not enter into things he knows nothing about. Now Stever, I have no idea what you do, but lets say that I start telling you the reality of your job and what you need to read and believe to do it. Would you simply follow my instructions, or would you have something to say about it? I have been a biologist for over 30 years. It pains me to see what passes on this forum as knowledgeable input, and does those who come in to read some of it the wrong impression. .I have read Darwin extensively, I have also read Richard Dawkins extensively. I can quote anything I want from those texts, there are all here at my fingertips. But, that is not important, let's just stick to MoQ, there is plenty to discuss there. For example, Steve, how would you analogize Quality?
By the way, I am going to explain to Horse sometime how to tune his guitar correctly. He does it all wrong! He should follow an adaptation of the method that Robert Fripp uses only I have made it much better. If Horse is willing to listen to me about that, then I will show him how to play the drums like Bill Bruford. If he is still on board, I will show him how to sound like Jaco Pasterius used to on the base, and Miles Davis did on the trumpet. Since Horse is lecturing on Biology, I have every right to do so and I expect to be taken seriously. If Horse has a problem with this, he can tell me so and I will desist. I am not trying to be arrogant or condescending. We each have our own specialties. Yours is coming to the rescue for Horse. I guess this means that you think he needs it. Why do you think so little of Horse that he needs your sympathy and protection? He has demonstrated nothing but integrity and confidence as far as I have read. Perhaps you know something that I don't, like who Horse really is. All the best, Mar On Sun, Aug 28, 2011 at 1:35 PM, Steven Peterson <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Mark, > > Please note that in your post below lambasting Horse for not citing > his sources where you make a bunch of dubious claims, you yourself did > not cite any of _your_ sources. Note also that I did cite _my_ source, > and on that basis you chose not to read the quotes provided from Louis > Menard and Charles Darwin (who I am pretty sure is older than you as > you seem to be concerned with age). > > Best, > Steve > > On Sun, Aug 28, 2011 at 4:01 PM, 118 <[email protected]> wrote: >> Hi Steve, >> >> Thanks for asking, I will discuss some "errors" (of course the notion >> of errors implies there is Truth, and we all know that such a thing >> does not sit well with MoQ): >> >> Horse is right in qualifying the whole thing with "dependent on who >> you read". I prefer peer reviewed articles rather than Wiki in which >> anybody can provide some information. Therefore, I did not read what >> you copied and pasted below. Please remember that the average age of >> Wiki contributors is 26, so for somebody to offset any contribution of >> mine, they cannot have been born yet. Most of what I read concerning >> science, on Wiki, seems to be from a high school paper of some sort. >> With that said: >> >> There is no evidence that humans and apes have a common ancestry, >> anymore than humans and a snail. The homology of DNA (if we want to >> use that metaphysical analogy), is pretty well conserved over most >> mammals and is indeed very similar amongst most living animals. >> Therefore that both apes and man have a common ancestor would be true >> for squirrels and man. As such, a statement of that kind is >> meaningless, and does not add any information to the content of this >> forum, which is about MoQ. If one seeks to create static images and >> represent them as real, then one has fallen into a major trap that MoQ >> cautions against. Besides, it is difficult to point to any dramatic >> evolution occurring right in species. Sure we can coax such a thing >> in a test-tube, but what does that show. And please do not bring up >> the evolution of rodents, that has been disproved. >> >> Now, any species is distinct from another species by definitions. So, >> if we are talking about such a thing we need to keep in mind the >> definition of species as promoted by Scientism. If we want to >> converse using such mutually agreed on concepts, we need to keep >> definitions in mind for-most. Again Horse refers (a second time) to >> "depending on who one reads". What exactly does this mean? to >> support his statement, he should at least tell us who he reads. >> Otherwise it is just drivel of a drunk musician. If I am to explain >> to Horse the correct way to play a slide guitar, I am sure he would >> want to know where I get my information from. The same is true with >> other kinds of science. When Horse states 20-some, I assume that he >> means many, just as Lao Tsu talks about the 10,000 things (or maniacs >> as it were). By stating 20-some, however, he is implying that there >> are approximately 20 such naming of bones found in the ground. Such >> naming is purely subjective, and change every day. At one point man >> is said to have evolved from tree-dwelling monkeys. Now it is a >> different type of ape. Just from this, we can see that nothing can be >> claimed as fact, no matter who one reads. >> >> There is just as much evidence from DNA sequencing that man was >> created through genetic engineering as through some kind of a random >> process. Also, as I stated in a previous post, there is more evidence >> that man evolved from dolphins than from apes, in terms of >> similarities. What kind of evolutionary pressures are there for our >> brains to grow? Evolution is morphology through phenotype display. >> It is the effect of the outside changing the inside. There is no >> pressure for creating a self-destructive species, and such >> self-destruction is not just a by-product of increased intelligence; >> just the opposite: intelligence is a by-product of self-destruction. >> No other species displays such annihilatory tendencies, not even the >> apes. So, where did that come from? Certainly not through any >> evolutionary leap, for such a thing would have died out close to >> inception. So, just to be clear, man evolving from apes is a red >> herring, or straw man (as it is used in this forum). It should not be >> used for MoQ metaphysical discussions, since it brings in something >> total irrelevant. The shape of an ice-cream cone is more relevant. >> >> Horse does provide the crux of the issue in that we need to agree on a >> classification in order to converse about anything in the forum. This >> is one of the weak points of what I read on MoQ. Both Dan and dmb >> provide good support in terms of their classifications. Others not so >> much. We can talk about free-will all we want, but it is meaningless >> unless we provide an example of what we mean. If I say that free will >> is the same as Will, is the same as Intent, and is precisely all of >> our actions from the moment of birth. At least we have something to >> agree or disagree about though rhetoric. >> >> Indeed, rhetoric is what we provide here. In order to remain >> coherent, we need to provide the appropriate background for such >> rhetoric in order for it to be understandable. A dictionary of terms >> in MoQ would be useful, but I am sure that everyone would disagree on >> such definitions, so we are stuck with analogies. Free-will is >> analogous to the wind. It expresses itself by blowing with some >> intensity and with direction. It can have different temperatures and >> different durations. It returns to being still once it is done. It >> is unexpected even though some try to explain it and track hurricanes >> with it. At every moment of a wind-blow, it is statistically >> unpredictable. If the wind does not display free-will, then nothing >> does. And, we know we are free, we cannot just make something like >> that up. There, that is something to discuss. If you disagree, I can >> provide convincing rhetoric to show you how the analogy is apt. >> >> Cheers, >> Mark >> >> On Sat, Aug 27, 2011 at 7:57 PM, Steven Peterson >> <[email protected]> wrote: >>> Hi Mark, >>> >>> Perhaps you can point out any errors in the post by Horse to which you >>> objected: >>> >>> Horse: >>>> According to current theory/evidence (dependent on who you read): >>>> Humans didn't evolve from apes - apes and humans had a common ancestor. >>>> Apes and hominids are thought to have diverged about 7 million years ago. >>>> >>>> And when you say human, do you mean homo sapiens or earlier instances of >>>> humans (Neanderthal, Cro-magnon etc.) because there have been 20-some >>>> different 'species' of 'humans' in the last 7 million years or so - again >>>> dependent on who you read). These species are, apparently, distinct from >>>> apes. >>>> >>>> So not only is it quite reasonable that 'Ape' is a concept, but it is just >>>> as reasonable that 'Human' is a concept too. >>>> It all depends on what you need to achieve through classification. >>> >>> From wikipedia: >>> "The modern theory of evolution depends on a fundamental redefinition >>> of "species". Prior to Darwin, naturalists viewed species as ideal or >>> general types, which could be exemplified by an ideal specimen bearing >>> all the traits general to the species. Darwin's theories shifted >>> attention from uniformity to variation and from the general to the >>> particular. According to intellectual historian Louis Menand, >>> >>> 'Once our attention is redirected to the individual, we need another >>> way of making generalizations. We are no longer interested in the >>> conformity of an individual to an ideal type; we are now interested in >>> the relation of an individual to the other individuals with which it >>> interacts. To generalize about groups of interacting individuals, we >>> need to drop the language of types and essences, which is prescriptive >>> (telling us what finches should be), and adopt the language of >>> statistics and probability, which is predictive (telling us what the >>> average finch, under specified conditions, is likely to do). Relations >>> will be more important than categories; functions, which are variable, >>> will be more important than purposes; transitions will be more >>> important than boundaries; sequences will be more important than >>> hierarchies.' >>> >>> This shift results in a new approach to "species"; >>> >>> Darwin concluded that species are what they appear to be: ideas, which >>> are provisionally useful for naming groups of interacting individuals. >>> "I look at the term species", he wrote, "as one arbitrarily given for >>> the sake of convenience to a set of individuals closely resembling >>> each other ... It does not essentially differ from the word variety, >>> which is given to less distinct and more fluctuating forms. The term >>> variety, again, in comparison with mere individual differences, is >>> also applied arbitrarily, and for convenience sake." > Moq_Discuss mailing list > Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. > http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org > Archives: > http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ > http://moq.org/md/archives.html > Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org/md/archives.html
