HI Platt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Quoting Horse <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > >>>> There are plenty of examples of self-organization and not a single one >>>> has anything to do with god or ghosts or some mysterious self. >>>> Self-organization simply means that there is no central system which >>>> plans the organizing from the top down. >>> Right. Not only is there no central system organizing from the top down >>> but there's no known organizing system of any kind that can be identified. >>> Where I come from, that's called "Oops." >> Where I come from this is called complex systems theory and is a growing >> body of work. It has nothing to do with "Oops" or "Aha" or anything of a >> similar nature. Because you don't personally understand it Platt doesn't >> make it wrong. > > I guess Wilber doesn't understand complex systems theory either. Oh, well.
Maybe not if he uses the term 'Oops!' in that way. Or maybe it doesn't fit in with his world view so he dismisses it. Agenda's can cause severe limitations. > The fact that you and others do doesn't make it right either. Probably a greater chance of being correct though. > >>>> You know, like those nasty >>>> socialist systems you purport to not like very much, but here you are >>>> saying that this is how the world works. Oy Ve!!! >>> Socialist systems with their planned economies are self-organizing? Yeah, >> right. >> >> Planned economies are explicitly not examples of self-organising bottom >> up systems. They are exactly the opposite - top down and planned. This >> is a case of you understanding neither what I have said or the ideas of >> self-organization. > > Your right about not understanding what you said. > >>>> It can be observed in >>>> biological and social systems all over the place and the causes are well >>>> known. >>> What are the causes of self-organizing systems? If there was a cause they >>> wouldn't be self-organizing. They would be organized by a cause, not a >>> "self." >> It depends upon what self-organizing system you're looking at. There are >> far too many to generalize upon. The whole point here is that the cause >> is not pre-planned or top down. Slime-mould, ant-nests, bee-hives, >> termites and a free-market economy are some examples of self-organizing >> systems. > > Please tell us what causes slime-mold. ant nests, bee hives, termites and a > free market economy. Pheromones in the first 4 (no. 4 should have read termite colonies) and buyers and sellers in the last. > >>>> So well known that computer simulations can model self-organizing >>>> structures. The system within which I work at my place of employment >>>> utilizes a form of self-organization and it works a whole lot better >>>> than having a top-down structure imposed upon it. In general, >>>> self-organization works from the bottom up following simple rules. It >>>> really isn't rocket science. >>> Last time I looked computer simulations modeling self-organizing systems >>> are caused by a human programmer who turns out to the be the "self." >> Most of the software that runs on your computer works as you suppose but >> cellular automata is an example of computer modeled self-organization. > > If computer modeled, the cause is the modeler (programmer). The rules are set by the programmer but what emerges is not planned. The interaction of the rules produces unpredictable results. > >>>> And what's all this about chance and Darwinians? Have you been reading >>>> the creationist literature again? Many in the fundamentalist god-squad >>>> try and pass of this sort of garbage but this is because they either >>>> don't understand the first thing about natural selection of they are >>>> deliberately trying to confuse those with little or no idea about it. >>>> Natural selection in Darwinian evolution has as much to do with chance >>>> as sexual activity has to do with plate tectonics. Natural selection has >>>> nothing to do with chance and any advocate of Darwinist or neo-Darwinist >>>> theory would not seriously entertain such a notion. You really pick the >>>> most outrageous things to say sometimes Platt - it's almost as if you >>>> want to start an argument! >>> What an outrageous thing to say yourself, Horse. Of course Darwinian >>> evolution >>> depends on chance mutations. Are you suggesting perhaps that mutations do >>> not >>> occur by chance but are directed by a designer? >> Your original statement was "Or "chance," the favorite of Darwinians." >> Nothing said about chance mutations and this is certainly not a >> favourite of the Darwinians as the majority of mutations cause death. >> Why would a process that will almost certainly cause death and thus >> prevent evolution be favoured by Darwinians? Your statement was straight >> out of the creationists handbook. > > Are you saying chance, as in chance mutations, plays no role in Darwinian > evolution? Without it, the whole theory collapses. Your original statement was not about mutation, it was the creationist slur that evolution by natural selection is no more than chance or 'Oops' as you like to say. This is a total and deliberate misinterpretation of evolution by natural selection. Cheers Platt Horse 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.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
