Re: Misconceptions of Natural Selection and Evolution

[John Mikes]

Sorry, I am superficialin my words. "Your Comp" referred to the idea your
'biological information processors in your skull' handles when you consider
Bruno's "comp".

I missed that Asimov spot. He probably did not consider the neuronal input
on 'running' vs. acknowledging the cliff. I participated for 2 decades in
an enjoyable Wednesday Brownbag Lunch with the Drew Univ. ret. professors
when one of us calculated out for us that it is physically impossible to
play base-ball: the time to process visually the 'throw' is longer than the
travelling time of the ball, so nobody can hit it. What led to 'deep'
philosophical discussions.

My question about 'atomic size' was in consideration of the map of a neuron
and the size avalable in the skull. Dinos did not parade brains of million
times more than ours. Remember the Neandertals? with larger skulls and not
necessarily more sophisticated brain-complexity than the Cro-Magnons? I
always asked how much fat or other irrelevant matter was filling those bone
boxes? Anthropologists do not like such questions.

JM

On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 5:51 PM, meekerdb  wrote:

>  On 2/26/2013 1:46 PM, John Mikes wrote:
>
> Brent: forgive my weak 'brain': in the turmoil of BackAndForces on this
> list it faded what you (really?) mean by
>  quasi classical physics
>
>
> I mean the world model of Newton and Maxwell plus a little randomness from
> QM: consisting of distinct objects in definite locations, not wave
> functions in infinite dimensional Hilbert space.
>
>brains
>
>
> Biological information processors found within skulls.
>
>
>and what 'ideas' is (your) 'comp' based on?
>
>
> ?? My comp?
>
>
>
> I think whatever we 'experience' is a (fortunate?) anthropic accident
> (incident?).
>  you did not refer to it either. >
>
>  Dinos? We know so little about the past of this world - even about
> not-so ancient HUMAN past (Dravidians) so infulential into our present
> world. Or how the Simians straightened up their spine to become human? (I
> am in favor of the 'aequatic ape' dream).  And others.
>
>
> Dinosaurs were just an example.  I wondered what Bruno meant by saying we
> were here from the beginning.  Was he denying there was a pre-human past?
>
>
>
>  I hope you are not talking about TOE derived at Dino-time, or later.
> (BTW: was a *neuron* of a dino bigger than that of today's mouse?
> With what size atoms? I asked this questions from many bio-people over the
> past 50 years - no answer so far.
>
>
> Some of them were certainly longer.
>
> Isaac Asimov once speculated that the size of dinosaurs was limited
> because the larger an animal the faster it can run, but dinosaurs had
> unmylenated neurons (like those in our brains) which are quite slow in
> transmitting signals.  So when a dinosaur got very big he could run off a
> cliff right in front of him because the signal from his eyes to brain to
> feet would propagate more slowly than his forward motion.  :-)
>
> Brent
>
>  Maybe the Savants of this list can answer it?)
>
>  JM
>
> On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 4:03 PM, meekerdb  wrote:
>
>>  On 2/26/2013 4:50 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>
>> That does not work. We belong automatically to an infinity of
>> computations. With comp, the physical reality is unique, and derivable from
>> 0, s, + and * (and the usual axioms). But cosmos or branch of a multiverse
>> can be numerous, but before they differentiated, we are in all of them.
>>
>>
>>  That raises questions like, "Where were we when dinosaurs roamed the
>> Earth?"  Or more generally does the physics of every universe consistent
>> with comp include quasi-classical physics?  It seems that it is necessary
>> for brains to exist and to have the ideas on which comp is based.  Are we
>> to regard this as just a fortunate anthropic accident?
>>
>> Brent
>>   --
>> 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.
>>
>>
>>
>
>  --
> 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.
>
>
>
> No virus found in this message.
>
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> Version: 2013.0.2899 / Virus Database: 2641/6133 - Release Date: 02/25/13
>
>
>  --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everyth

Re: Misconceptions of Natural Selection and Evolution

[Bruno Marchal]

On 26 Feb 2013, at 23:51, meekerdb wrote:


On 2/26/2013 1:46 PM, John Mikes wrote:
Brent: forgive my weak 'brain': in the turmoil of BackAndForces on  
this list it faded what you (really?) mean by

 quasi classical physics


I mean the world model of Newton and Maxwell plus a little  
randomness from QM: consisting of distinct objects in definite  
locations, not wave functions in infinite dimensional Hilbert space.



  brains


Biological information processors found within skulls.


  and what 'ideas' is (your) 'comp' based on?


?? My comp?



I think whatever we 'experience' is a (fortunate?) anthropic  
accident (incident?).
true" - and you did not refer to it either. >


Dinos? We know so little about the past of this world - even about  
not-so ancient HUMAN past (Dravidians) so infulential into our  
present world. Or how the Simians straightened up their spine to  
become human? (I am in favor of the 'aequatic ape' dream).  And  
others.


Dinosaurs were just an example.  I wondered what Bruno meant by  
saying we were here from the beginning.


I am not sure having said that. I might have mean this in the  
arithmetical ontological sense perhaps. If you find the quote I can  
say more.





Was he denying there was a pre-human past?



Certainly not. The prehuman-past is quite plausible, but it is not  
something absolute. It is something relative to many computations,  
which exists out of time and space.








I hope you are not talking about TOE derived at Dino-time, or later.
(BTW: was a neuron of a dino bigger than that of today's mouse?
With what size atoms? I asked this questions from many bio-people  
over the past 50 years - no answer so far.


Some of them were certainly longer.

Isaac Asimov once speculated that the size of dinosaurs was limited  
because the larger an animal the faster it can run, but dinosaurs  
had unmylenated neurons (like those in our brains) which are quite  
slow in transmitting signals.  So when a dinosaur got very big he  
could run off a cliff right in front of him because the signal from  
his eyes to brain to feet would propagate more slowly than his  
forward motion.  :-)


Lol,


Bruno





Brent


Maybe the Savants of this list can answer it?)

JM

On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 4:03 PM, meekerdb   
wrote:

On 2/26/2013 4:50 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
That does not work. We belong automatically to an infinity of  
computations. With comp, the physical reality is unique, and  
derivable from 0, s, + and * (and the usual axioms). But cosmos or  
branch of a multiverse can be numerous, but before they  
differentiated, we are in all of them.


That raises questions like, "Where were we when dinosaurs roamed  
the Earth?"  Or more generally does the physics of every universe  
consistent with comp include quasi-classical physics?  It seems  
that it is necessary for brains to exist and to have the ideas on  
which comp is based.  Are we to regard this as just a fortunate  
anthropic accident?


Brent
--
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- 
l...@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.



--
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- 
l...@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.


No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2013.0.2899 / Virus Database: 2641/6133 - Release Date:  
02/25/13





--
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.




http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/



--
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.

Re: Misconceptions of Natural Selection and Evolution

[Bruno Marchal]

On 26 Feb 2013, at 22:03, meekerdb wrote:


On 2/26/2013 4:50 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
That does not work. We belong automatically to an infinity of  
computations. With comp, the physical reality is unique, and  
derivable from 0, s, + and * (and the usual axioms). But cosmos or  
branch of a multiverse can be numerous, but before they  
differentiated, we are in all of them.


That raises questions like, "Where were we when dinosaurs roamed the  
Earth?"  Or more generally does the physics of every universe  
consistent with comp include quasi-classical physics?


I think so. But to justify this *many* open problem, in arithmetic,  
needs to be solved.




It seems that it is necessary for brains to exist and to have the  
ideas on which comp is based.  Are we to regard this as just a  
fortunate anthropic accident?


I am not sure. Difficult question.

Bruno



http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/



--
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.

Re: Misconceptions of Natural Selection and Evolution

[Bruno Marchal]

Hi,

For reason of sharp time scheduling (I am in a teaching period), I  
will be shorter than usual.


Craig, I still agree with most of your point below, but it contradicts  
the 19th century conception of mechanism, not the 20th century (post  
Turing Church ...) Mechanism.


Bruno

On 26 Feb 2013, at 17:29, Craig Weinberg wrote:




On Tuesday, February 26, 2013 6:30:59 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 25 Feb 2013, at 20:59, Craig Weinberg wrote:




On Monday, February 25, 2013 1:26:49 PM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 25 Feb 2013, at 01:30, Craig Weinberg wrote:




On Sunday, February 24, 2013 3:07:12 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 22 Feb 2013, at 17:45, Craig Weinberg wrote:




On Thursday, February 21, 2013 12:11:36 PM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal  
wrote:


On 21 Feb 2013, at 15:06, Craig Weinberg wrote:




On Thursday, February 21, 2013 5:58:20 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal  
wrote:


On 20 Feb 2013, at 21:15, meekerdb wrote:


On 2/20/2013 8:02 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

Hi John,


On 19 Feb 2013, at 23:28, John Mikes wrote:


Craig, it seems we engaged in a fruitful discussion- thank you.

I want to reflect to a few concepts only from it to clarify  
MY stance.
First my use of a 'model'. There are different models, from  
the sexy young females over the math-etc. descriptions of  
theoretical concepts (some not so sexy). - What I (after  
Robert Rosen?) use by this word is an extract of something,  
we may not know in toto. Close to an 'Occamized' version, but  
"cut" mostly by ignorance of the 'rest of it', not for added  
clarity. Applied to whatever we know TODAY about the world.  
Or: we THINK WE KNOW.



A scientist know nothing. Just nothing, not even his own  
consciousness.


In science we have only beliefs,


But then, according to you, if they happen to be true they are  
knowledge.


Yes, but "we" can't know that.

Can "we" know that we can't know that?


Yes. That something that the machine can prove and know.

How can we know what a machine can prove or know if our own  
knowledge is only belief?


Because some time our beliefs are true.

What does 'true' mean if we can only believe?


We can't define that, but we have a lot of example.

Suppose we meet and that I give you a slap. Then "Bruno gave a slap  
to Craig" would be true. It would not be true, if we meet, or not,  
and don't give you a slap.


How do you know that we met or didn't meet? Maybe it was just a  
dream?


Then it is true, or false, with respect to the dream. I was only  
illustrating a concept, known to de not definable, although  
approximable.


There isn't necessarily a particular condition which is true or  
false in a dream. More often it just 'seems like' someone is your  
old college roommate in one sense, but maybe your brother also. Both  
truth and belief here are a posteriori to the sense experience of  
the dream itself, which is a gestalt and not meaningfully described  
by either-or expectations with respect to either belief or truth. In  
a dream, we don't know what we experience and we don't not-know what  
we experience. This is a truer representation of sense than public  
realism, which is disambiguated by thermodynamic irreversibility  
among the total collection of experiences.








When we believe something, it means that we believe that it is  
true, even when keeping in mind that it is a belief, and that we  
might be wrong, that is not true.


Not necessarily. There may be no objective truth quality.


?

Sense pre-figures truth. Truth is a proportion or qualitative ratio  
of sense agreements against disagreements.






We may be creating belief synthetically by our expectation.


That is called wishful thinking.

No, I'm talking about the idea that we have no beliefs at all until  
we question them. It may be an analytical abstraction that is a  
posteriori. We don't literally 'have a belief' that the sky is blue  
- we participate in a universe in which it seems that the sky is  
blue. It's a bit of sleight of hand to insert this presumption of  
belief where in fact the experience of the sky's color is not  
derived from any proposition or logical relation.



If your criteria is wishful thinking, that might explain your  
question begging type of 'argument'.




If you ask someone whether they believe that eating meat is  
immoral, they may not have had an opinion one way or another about  
it before you asked. There may not be an expectation that their  
spontaneously projected 'belief' reflects something that is 'true',  
but just an expression of what makes sense to them - what feels  
best in their mind or seems appropriate for their idea of their own  
character.


I think it is better to try to see on what we agree, and build from  
that. Statements like "eating meat is immoral" are very complex high  
level statements not well suited for reasoning.


If what I'm saying is true, "eating meat is immoral" is a very  
simple statement on the personal level, and ideal for pointin

Re: Misconceptions of Natural Selection and Evolution

[meekerdb]

On 2/26/2013 1:46 PM, John Mikes wrote:
Brent: forgive my weak 'brain': in the turmoil of BackAndForces on this list it faded 
what you (really?) mean by

 quasi classical physics


I mean the world model of Newton and Maxwell plus a little randomness from QM: consisting 
of distinct objects in definite locations, not wave functions in infinite dimensional 
Hilbert space.



  brains


Biological information processors found within skulls.


  and what 'ideas' is (your) 'comp' based on?


?? My comp?


I think whatever we 'experience' is a (fortunate?) anthropic accident 
(incident?).
refer to it either. >


Dinos? We know so little about the past of this world - even about not-so ancient HUMAN 
past (Dravidians) so infulential into our present world. Or how the Simians straightened 
up their spine to become human? (I am in favor of the 'aequatic ape' dream).  And others.


Dinosaurs were just an example.  I wondered what Bruno meant by saying we were here from 
the beginning.  Was he denying there was a pre-human past?




I hope you are not talking about TOE derived at Dino-time, or later.
(BTW: was a */neuron/* of a dino bigger than that of today's mouse?
With what size atoms? I asked this questions from many bio-people over the past 50 years 
- no answer so far.


Some of them were certainly longer.

Isaac Asimov once speculated that the size of dinosaurs was limited because the larger an 
animal the faster it can run, but dinosaurs had unmylenated neurons (like those in our 
brains) which are quite slow in transmitting signals.  So when a dinosaur got very big he 
could run off a cliff right in front of him because the signal from his eyes to brain to 
feet would propagate more slowly than his forward motion.  :-)


Brent


Maybe the Savants of this list can answer it?)

JM

On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 4:03 PM, meekerdb > wrote:


On 2/26/2013 4:50 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

That does not work. We belong automatically to an infinity of computations. 
With
comp, the physical reality is unique, and derivable from 0, s, + and * (and 
the
usual axioms). But cosmos or branch of a multiverse can be numerous, but 
before
they differentiated, we are in all of them.


That raises questions like, "Where were we when dinosaurs roamed the 
Earth?"  Or
more generally does the physics of every universe consistent with comp 
include
quasi-classical physics?  It seems that it is necessary for brains to exist 
and to
have the ideas on which comp is based.  Are we to regard this as just a 
fortunate
anthropic accident?

Brent
-- 
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.



--
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.


No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com 
Version: 2013.0.2899 / Virus Database: 2641/6133 - Release Date: 02/25/13



--
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.

Re: Misconceptions of Natural Selection and Evolution

[Telmo Menezes]

> I hope you are not talking about TOE derived at Dino-time, or later.
> (BTW: was a neuron of a dino bigger than that of today's mouse?
> With what size atoms? I asked this questions from many bio-people over the
> past 50 years - no answer so far.
> Maybe the Savants of this list can answer it?)

I'm not a savant but I would bet against a correlation between animal
and neuron size. Neurons are computational units and the time it takes
for electrical and chemical messages to propagate through them is
crucial to their function. They come in a variety of sizes precisely
for this reason. Increasing neuron size overall would make the brain
slower with higher energy expenditure, so it's maladaptive.

Not sure what you mean by the size of atoms??

> JM
>
> On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 4:03 PM, meekerdb  wrote:
>>
>> On 2/26/2013 4:50 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>
>> That does not work. We belong automatically to an infinity of
>> computations. With comp, the physical reality is unique, and derivable from
>> 0, s, + and * (and the usual axioms). But cosmos or branch of a multiverse
>> can be numerous, but before they differentiated, we are in all of them.
>>
>>
>> That raises questions like, "Where were we when dinosaurs roamed the
>> Earth?"  Or more generally does the physics of every universe consistent
>> with comp include quasi-classical physics?  It seems that it is necessary
>> for brains to exist and to have the ideas on which comp is based.  Are we to
>> regard this as just a fortunate anthropic accident?
>>
>> Brent
>>
>> --
>> 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.
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> 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.
>
>

-- 
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.

Re: Misconceptions of Natural Selection and Evolution

[John Mikes]

Brent: forgive my weak 'brain': in the turmoil of BackAndForces on this
list it faded what you (really?) mean by
 quasi classical physics
  brains
  and what 'ideas' is (your) 'comp' based on?
I think whatever we 'experience' is a (fortunate?) anthropic accident
(incident?).


Dinos? We know so little about the past of this world - even about not-so
ancient HUMAN past (Dravidians) so infulential into our present world. Or
how the Simians straightened up their spine to become human? (I am in favor
of the 'aequatic ape' dream).  And others.

I hope you are not talking about TOE derived at Dino-time, or later.
(BTW: was a *neuron* of a dino bigger than that of today's mouse?
With what size atoms? I asked this questions from many bio-people over the
past 50 years - no answer so far.
Maybe the Savants of this list can answer it?)

JM

On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 4:03 PM, meekerdb  wrote:

>  On 2/26/2013 4:50 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
> That does not work. We belong automatically to an infinity of
> computations. With comp, the physical reality is unique, and derivable from
> 0, s, + and * (and the usual axioms). But cosmos or branch of a multiverse
> can be numerous, but before they differentiated, we are in all of them.
>
>
> That raises questions like, "Where were we when dinosaurs roamed the
> Earth?"  Or more generally does the physics of every universe consistent
> with comp include quasi-classical physics?  It seems that it is necessary
> for brains to exist and to have the ideas on which comp is based.  Are we
> to regard this as just a fortunate anthropic accident?
>
> Brent
>
> --
> 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.
>
>
>

-- 
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.

Re: Misconceptions of Natural Selection and Evolution

[meekerdb]

On 2/26/2013 4:50 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
That does not work. We belong automatically to an infinity of computations. With comp, 
the physical reality is unique, and derivable from 0, s, + and * (and the usual axioms). 
But cosmos or branch of a multiverse can be numerous, but before they differentiated, we 
are in all of them.


That raises questions like, "Where were we when dinosaurs roamed the Earth?"  Or more 
generally does the physics of every universe consistent with comp include quasi-classical 
physics?  It seems that it is necessary for brains to exist and to have the ideas on which 
comp is based. Are we to regard this as just a fortunate anthropic accident?


Brent

--
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.

Re: Misconceptions of Natural Selection and Evolution

[Craig Weinberg]

On Tuesday, February 26, 2013 6:30:59 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> On 25 Feb 2013, at 20:59, Craig Weinberg wrote:
>
>
>
> On Monday, February 25, 2013 1:26:49 PM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 25 Feb 2013, at 01:30, Craig Weinberg wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sunday, February 24, 2013 3:07:12 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On 22 Feb 2013, at 17:45, Craig Weinberg wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thursday, February 21, 2013 12:11:36 PM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:


 On 21 Feb 2013, at 15:06, Craig Weinberg wrote:



 On Thursday, February 21, 2013 5:58:20 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> On 20 Feb 2013, at 21:15, meekerdb wrote:
>
>  On 2/20/2013 8:02 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>  
> Hi John, 
>
>  
>  On 19 Feb 2013, at 23:28, John Mikes wrote:
>
> Craig, it seems we engaged in a fruitful discussion- thank you.  
>
> I want to reflect to *a few* concepts only from it to clarify MY 
> stance. 
> First my use of *a 'model'.* There are different models, from the 
> sexy young females over the math-etc. descriptions of theoretical 
> concepts 
> (some not so sexy). - What I (after Robert Rosen?) use by this word is an 
> extract of something, we may not know in toto. Close to an 'Occamized' 
> version, but "cut" mostly by ignorance of the 'rest of it', not for added 
> clarity. Applied to whatever we know TODAY about the world. Or: we THINK 
> WE 
> KNOW. 
>  
>
>  
>  A scientist know nothing. Just nothing, not even his own 
> consciousness.
>
>  In science we have only beliefs, 
>  
>
> But then, according to you, if they happen to be true they are 
> knowledge. 
>
>
> Yes, but "we" can't know that. 
>

 Can "we" know that we can't know that?


 Yes. That something that the machine can prove and know.

>>>
>>> How can we know what a machine can prove or know if our own knowledge is 
>>> only belief?
>>>
>>>
>>> Because some time our beliefs are true. 
>>>
>>
>> What does 'true' mean if we can only believe?
>>
>>
>> We can't define that, but we have a lot of example.
>>
>> Suppose we meet and that I give you a slap. Then "Bruno gave a slap to 
>> Craig" would be true. It would not be true, if we meet, or not, and don't 
>> give you a slap.
>>
>
> How do you know that we met or didn't meet? Maybe it was just a dream?
>
>
> Then it is true, or false, with respect to the dream. I was only 
> illustrating a concept, known to de not definable, although approximable.
>

There isn't necessarily a particular condition which is true or false in a 
dream. More often it just 'seems like' someone is your old college roommate 
in one sense, but maybe your brother also. Both truth and belief here are a 
posteriori to the sense experience of the dream itself, which is a gestalt 
and not meaningfully described by either-or expectations with respect to 
either belief or truth. In a dream, we don't know what we experience and we 
don't not-know what we experience. This is a truer representation of sense 
than public realism, which is disambiguated by thermodynamic 
irreversibility among the total collection of experiences. 


>
>
>  
>
>>
>> When we believe something, it means that we believe that it is true, even 
>> when keeping in mind that it is a belief, and that we might be wrong, that 
>> is not true. 
>>
>
> Not necessarily. There may be no objective truth quality. 
>
>
> ?
>

Sense pre-figures truth. Truth is a proportion or qualitative ratio of 
sense agreements against disagreements.


>
>
> We may be creating belief synthetically by our expectation. 
>
>
> That is called wishful thinking.
>

No, I'm talking about the idea that we have no beliefs at all until we 
question them. It may be an analytical abstraction that is a posteriori. We 
don't literally 'have a belief' that the sky is blue - we participate in a 
universe in which it seems that the sky is blue. It's a bit of sleight of 
hand to insert this presumption of belief where in fact the experience of 
the sky's color is not derived from any proposition or logical relation.


> If your criteria is wishful thinking, that might explain your question 
> begging type of 'argument'.
>
>
>
> If you ask someone whether they believe that eating meat is immoral, they 
> may not have had an opinion one way or another about it before you asked. 
> There may not be an expectation that their spontaneously projected 'belief' 
> reflects something that is 'true', but just an expression of what makes 
> sense to them - what feels best in their mind or seems appropriate for 
> their idea of their own character. 
>
>
> I think it is better to try to see on what we agree, and build from that. 
> Statements like "eating meat is immoral" are very complex high level 
> statements not well suited for reasoning.
>

If what I'm saying is true, "eating meat is

Re: Misconceptions of Natural Selection and Evolution

[Bruno Marchal]

On 26 Feb 2013, at 14:53, Richard Ruquist wrote:


That does not work. We belong automatically to an infinity of  
computations.
With comp, the physical reality is unique, and derivable from 0, s,  
+ and *

(and the usual axioms). But cosmos or branch of a multiverse can be
numerous, but before they differentiated, we are in all of them.



Bruno,

I am pleased that you believe that "With comp, the physical reality is
unique" because that is what I conclude in my paper "Dreams of a
Metaverse- Math///Mind -Matter Doubly Dualistic Loop-String Cosmology"
Richard


OK. But keep in mind that the physical reality, although unique and  
equivalent for all universal machine, might still be, and very  
plausibly is, a multiverse à-la Everett, or worst, a multi-multi- 
multiverse, when we assume mechanism.


The physical laws are the same for all observers (indeed they are  
consequence of arithmetic self-reference), but this does not prevent  
many different histories and geographies. "we" are not unique.
You have already such a sort of physical unicity with Everett, through  
the universal wave function, with many different terms on which our  
consciousness differentiate.


Bruno








I conjecture that most of those physical realities would be Boltzmann
brains.


We don't need them, arithmetic is enough. It contains the UD.






Rather than assuming that belief is a logical stick model built up  
from

nothing,


It is not build up for nothing. It is an arithmetical relation  
between a

number, and some universal numbers.


   No, Bruno. The fact that we can construct any number from the  
empty set



I don't assume sets, at the base level.



explicitly demands that we are building up things from nothing.


You refer to one implementation of number in set theory. But we  
don't need

that.




This does not, IMHO, remove the 'reality' from them so long as the  
mutual

agreement actions are possible.


OK.





I think it makes more sense to see it as a local fog which  
interferes with

out larger grounding in the sense of eternity and totality.


Knowledge does that. By linking belief with truth.


   But where does the 'truth' obtain from if not a physical instance?


It comes from arithmetical truth.



It need not be ontological primitive, as a physical world could be  
defined
as merely that which at least 3 observers can agree upon as being  
real.



Not with comp. Physics is more solid than that. Infinities of  
observers can

be wrong.






We say: "Jim believed that Brussels was the capital of the USA, but  
now, he

know better".
We don't say "Jim knew that Brussels was the capital of the USA,  
but now, he

believed better".


   Careful that we don't define a word to have a property and then  
use the

word to show the existence of that property. This is bootstrapping!


This is not done here.



This is something that can easily creep into any immaterialist  
ontology and
ruin it (unless it is accounted for, like what Jon Barwise does in  
his

work).


We can't bootstrap belief from inert conditions - sense and  
participation

are implicit and inherent in any discussion of belief, whether we
acknowledge it or not.


I study the case of machines believing in some limited number of  
sentences
in computer science, with some rules of reasoning, and study what  
they can
believe, known, observe, feel, etc. With precise definition of each  
terms.
It is testable, as comp predicts they will believe in some precise  
physics

that we can compare with nature, and so we can refute
comp+classical-epistemology.
As it is a very weak theory (comp is weak, and classical  
epistemology too),
its refutation would make us learning a lot. If it is not refuted,  
then we
have a much simpler theory of everything, ---simpler than the  
actual one,

which is QM (+general relativity). And the new theory explains the
difference between qualia and quanta, and this is a point where QM   
fails to
address explicitly the question, although with Everett it leans  
toward the

comp theory.

Bruno


   We need to have a long discussion as to how the quanta emerges  
in such a

way as to allow the appearance of a physical world (a 'reality') for
multiple observers. I am assuming that an observer is defined as the
intersection of infinitely many computations as per comp.


See sane04 for a precise rendering on this, based on the first person
statistics in the UD* or arithmetic.

Bruno



--
Onward!

Stephen


--
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- 
l...@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.




http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/



--
You received this mes

Re: Misconceptions of Natural Selection and Evolution

[Richard Ruquist]

On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 7:50 AM, Bruno Marchal  wrote:
>
> On 25 Feb 2013, at 20:10, Stephen P. King wrote:
>
> On 2/25/2013 1:26 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> On 25 Feb 2013, at 01:30, Craig Weinberg wrote:
>
>
>
> On Sunday, February 24, 2013 3:07:12 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Yes. That something that the machine can prove and know.
>>
>>
>> How can we know what a machine can prove or know if our own knowledge is
>> only belief?
>>
>>
>> Because some time our beliefs are true.
>
>
> What does 'true' mean if we can only believe?
>
>
> We can't define that, but we have a lot of example.
>
> Suppose we meet and that I give you a slap. Then "Bruno gave a slap to
> Craig" would be true. It would not be true, if we meet, or not, and don't
> give you a slap.
>
> Dear Bruno and Craig,
>
> The slap is a physical action. How was it defined? Bruno, the physical
> world that we perceive our bodies to be immersed in, is acting in this
> example as the definer of truth. Is this your intention?
>
>
> It was just an illustration. See our preceding conversation for where the
> physical reality emerge from, once we assume computationalism.
>
>
>
>
>
> When we believe something, it means that we believe that it is true, even
> when keeping in mind that it is a belief, and that we might be wrong, that
> is not true.
>
>
> But there could exist a physical world different from the one we are in
>
>
> We are in infinities of computations, and the physical world emerges from
> that.
>
>
>
> that has an entity in it and there is a physical condition that validates
> the belief of that entity, no?
>
>
> That's correct, for the physical truth, which are epistemological in the
> comp setting.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> p is true means that it is the case that p, in the domain where p is
> supposed to be applied.
>
>
> Can the domain be defined recursively?
>
>
> No.
>
>
>
> For example, what if p is the proposition that p' is experienced and p' is
> the proposition that p'' is experienced and ... ?
>
>
> I cannot parse this.
>
>
>
>
>
> If you believe that Obama is the president of the USA, it means that you
> believe that in our local geographico-historical situation, it is a true
> fact, even if you can have a doubt, because you might find conceivable to
> wake up, perhaps younger, and that Ronald Reagan is the president of the US.
> A black pothead being a president of America... that sound like a dream,
> after all.
>
>
> A dream only for some...
>
>
>
>>
>> We can't know that, but we can still have sharable beliefs. By a sort of
>> informal habits, in most informal talk, we use very often the term "know"
>> for the beliefs based on quite common sharable assumption, like "O has a
>> successor", or the laws of addition and multiplication. But when thinking
>> rigorously *about* such kind of beliefs, we have to use the term belief. It
>> is simple: except for the consciousness here and now, we have only beliefs.
>
>
> I don't think it has to be that simple. You are only taking your own word
> for that limitation on your sense. We could have all kinds of intuitive
> influences beneath the threshold of our conscious awareness which are in
> fact true beyond mere belief.
>
>
> True is not opposed to belief. Sometimes some beliefs can be true.
>
>
> ISTM that a belief is contingent on the existence of something that
> contains a representation of that belief,
>
>
> OK.
>
>
>
>
> be it a human mind or a Platonic algorithm or whatever else may satisfy the
> role.
>
>
> No problem.
>
>
>
>
>
> But once a belief concerns a reality different from
> consciousness-here-and-now, I don't see how we can be sure that any
> statement is true, independently of their plausibility.
> We can be failed on all dreamable content, except one (actual
> consciousness).
>
>
> If infinitely many physical worlds exist then there could be a 'reality'
> for each and every belief.
>
>
> That does not work. We belong automatically to an infinity of computations.
> With comp, the physical reality is unique, and derivable from 0, s, + and *
> (and the usual axioms). But cosmos or branch of a multiverse can be
> numerous, but before they differentiated, we are in all of them.
>

Bruno,

I am pleased that you believe that "With comp, the physical reality is
unique" because that is what I conclude in my paper "Dreams of a
Metaverse- Math///Mind -Matter Doubly Dualistic Loop-String Cosmology"
Richard
>
> I conjecture that most of those physical realities would be Boltzmann
> brains.
>
>
> We don't need them, arithmetic is enough. It contains the UD.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Rather than assuming that belief is a logical stick model built up from
> nothing,
>
>
> It is not build up for nothing. It is an arithmetical relation between a
> number, and some universal numbers.
>
>
> No, Bruno. The fact that we can construct any number from the empty set
>
>
> I don't assume sets, at the base level.
>
>
>
> explicitly demands that we are building up thi

Re: Misconceptions of Natural Selection and Evolution

[Bruno Marchal]

On 25 Feb 2013, at 20:10, Stephen P. King wrote:


On 2/25/2013 1:26 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:


On 25 Feb 2013, at 01:30, Craig Weinberg wrote:




On Sunday, February 24, 2013 3:07:12 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:



Yes. That something that the machine can prove and know.

How can we know what a machine can prove or know if our own  
knowledge is only belief?


Because some time our beliefs are true.

What does 'true' mean if we can only believe?


We can't define that, but we have a lot of example.

Suppose we meet and that I give you a slap. Then "Bruno gave a slap  
to Craig" would be true. It would not be true, if we meet, or not,  
and don't give you a slap.

Dear Bruno and Craig,

The slap is a physical action. How was it defined? Bruno, the  
physical world that we perceive our bodies to be immersed in, is  
acting in this example as the definer of truth. Is this your  
intention?


It was just an illustration. See our preceding conversation for where  
the physical reality emerge from, once we assume computationalism.








When we believe something, it means that we believe that it is  
true, even when keeping in mind that it is a belief, and that we  
might be wrong, that is not true.


But there could exist a physical world different from the one we  
are in


We are in infinities of computations, and the physical world emerges  
from that.




that has an entity in it and there is a physical condition that  
validates the belief of that entity, no?


That's correct, for the physical truth, which are epistemological in  
the comp setting.









p is true means that it is the case that p, in the domain where p  
is supposed to be applied.


Can the domain be defined recursively?


No.



For example, what if p is the proposition that p' is experienced and  
p' is the proposition that p'' is experienced and ... ?


I cannot parse this.






If you believe that Obama is the president of the USA, it means  
that you believe that in our local geographico-historical  
situation, it is a true fact, even if you can have a doubt, because  
you might find conceivable to wake up, perhaps younger, and that  
Ronald Reagan is the president of the US. A black pothead being a  
president of  America... that sound like a dream, after all.


A dream only for some...





We can't know that, but we can still have sharable beliefs. By a  
sort of informal habits, in most informal talk, we use very often  
the term "know" for the beliefs based on quite common sharable  
assumption, like "O has a successor", or the laws of addition and  
multiplication. But when thinking rigorously *about* such kind of  
beliefs, we have to use the term belief. It is simple: except for  
the consciousness here and now, we have only beliefs.


I don't think it has to be that simple. You are only taking your  
own word for that limitation on your sense. We could have all  
kinds of intuitive influences beneath the threshold of our  
conscious awareness which are in fact true beyond mere belief.


True is not opposed to belief. Sometimes some beliefs can be true.


ISTM that a belief is contingent on the existence of something  
that contains a representation of that belief,


OK.




be it a human mind or a Platonic algorithm or whatever else may  
satisfy the role.


No problem.






But once a belief concerns a reality different from consciousness- 
here-and-now, I don't see how we can be sure that any statement is  
true, independently of their plausibility.
We can be failed on all dreamable content, except one (actual  
consciousness).


If infinitely many physical worlds exist then there could be a  
'reality' for each and every belief.


That does not work. We belong automatically to an infinity of  
computations. With comp, the physical reality is unique, and derivable  
from 0, s, + and * (and the usual axioms). But cosmos or branch of a  
multiverse can be numerous, but before they differentiated, we are in  
all of them.





I conjecture that most of those physical realities would be  
Boltzmann brains.


We don't need them, arithmetic is enough. It contains the UD.








Rather than assuming that belief is a logical stick model built up  
from nothing,


It is not build up for nothing. It is an arithmetical relation  
between a number, and some universal numbers.


No, Bruno. The fact that we can construct any number from the  
empty set


I don't assume sets, at the base level.




explicitly demands that we are building up things from nothing.


You refer to one implementation of number in set theory. But we don't  
need that.





This does not, IMHO, remove the 'reality' from them so long as the  
mutual agreement actions are possible.


OK.







I think it makes more sense to see it as a local fog which  
interferes with out larger grounding in the sense of eternity and  
totality.


Knowledge does that. By linking belief with truth.


But where does the 'truth' 

Re: Misconceptions of Natural Selection and Evolution

[Bruno Marchal]

On 25 Feb 2013, at 20:59, Craig Weinberg wrote:




On Monday, February 25, 2013 1:26:49 PM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 25 Feb 2013, at 01:30, Craig Weinberg wrote:




On Sunday, February 24, 2013 3:07:12 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 22 Feb 2013, at 17:45, Craig Weinberg wrote:




On Thursday, February 21, 2013 12:11:36 PM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal  
wrote:


On 21 Feb 2013, at 15:06, Craig Weinberg wrote:




On Thursday, February 21, 2013 5:58:20 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal  
wrote:


On 20 Feb 2013, at 21:15, meekerdb wrote:


On 2/20/2013 8:02 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

Hi John,


On 19 Feb 2013, at 23:28, John Mikes wrote:


Craig, it seems we engaged in a fruitful discussion- thank you.

I want to reflect to a few concepts only from it to clarify MY  
stance.
First my use of a 'model'. There are different models, from  
the sexy young females over the math-etc. descriptions of  
theoretical concepts (some not so sexy). - What I (after  
Robert Rosen?) use by this word is an extract of something, we  
may not know in toto. Close to an 'Occamized' version, but  
"cut" mostly by ignorance of the 'rest of it', not for added  
clarity. Applied to whatever we know TODAY about the world.  
Or: we THINK WE KNOW.



A scientist know nothing. Just nothing, not even his own  
consciousness.


In science we have only beliefs,


But then, according to you, if they happen to be true they are  
knowledge.


Yes, but "we" can't know that.

Can "we" know that we can't know that?


Yes. That something that the machine can prove and know.

How can we know what a machine can prove or know if our own  
knowledge is only belief?


Because some time our beliefs are true.

What does 'true' mean if we can only believe?


We can't define that, but we have a lot of example.

Suppose we meet and that I give you a slap. Then "Bruno gave a slap  
to Craig" would be true. It would not be true, if we meet, or not,  
and don't give you a slap.


How do you know that we met or didn't meet? Maybe it was just a dream?


Then it is true, or false, with respect to the dream. I was only  
illustrating a concept, known to de not definable, although  
approximable.







When we believe something, it means that we believe that it is true,  
even when keeping in mind that it is a belief, and that we might be  
wrong, that is not true.


Not necessarily. There may be no objective truth quality.


?




We may be creating belief synthetically by our expectation.


That is called wishful thinking.

If your criteria is wishful thinking, that might explain your question  
begging type of 'argument'.




If you ask someone whether they believe that eating meat is immoral,  
they may not have had an opinion one way or another about it before  
you asked. There may not be an expectation that their spontaneously  
projected 'belief' reflects something that is 'true', but just an  
expression of what makes sense to them - what feels best in their  
mind or seems appropriate for their idea of their own character.


I think it is better to try to see on what we agree, and build from  
that. Statements like "eating meat is immoral" are very complex high  
level statements not well suited for reasoning.








p is true means that it is the case that p, in the domain where p is  
supposed to be applied. If you believe that Obama is the president  
of the USA, it means that you believe that in our local geographico- 
historical situation,


I don't think that one necessarily implies the other. A machine  
could easily associate the string "Obama" with "president of the  
USA" without having any knowledge of what that might mean. In a  
dream, you could believe that the USA is actually the Underground  
Satanic Association.


in which case choose another example. "Obama" was not the main point  
here, neither the USA.






it is a true fact, even if you can have a doubt, because you might  
find conceivable to wake up, perhaps younger, and that Ronald Reagan  
is the president of the US. A black pothead being a president of  
America... that sound like a dream, after all.


But if you sleep too long, he won't be president anymore. Maybe you  
will wake up in 100 years when the historical revisionist party is  
in power and has everyone believing that the Obama presidency was a  
hoax...some kind of early information-media terrorism by the Chinese.


Here you betray that you have a notion of truth. If not you would not  
refer to something like revisionism.













We can't know that, but we can still have sharable beliefs. By a  
sort of informal habits, in most informal talk, we use very often  
the term "know" for the beliefs based on quite common sharable  
assumption, like "O has a successor", or the laws of addition and  
multiplication. But when thinking rigorously *about* such kind of  
beliefs, we have to use the term belief. It is simple: except for  
the consciousness here and now, we have only beliefs.


I don't think it has to be tha

Re: Misconceptions of Natural Selection and Evolution

[Stephen P. King]

On 2/25/2013 1:26 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:


On 25 Feb 2013, at 01:30, Craig Weinberg wrote:




On Sunday, February 24, 2013 3:07:12 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:




Yes. That something that the machine can prove and know.


How can we know what a machine can prove or know if our own
knowledge is only belief?


Because some time our beliefs are true.


What does 'true' mean if we can only believe?


We can't define that, but we have a lot of example.

Suppose we meet and that I give you a slap. Then "Bruno gave a slap to 
Craig" would be true. It would not be true, if we meet, or not, and 
don't give you a slap.

Dear Bruno and Craig,

The slap is a physical action. How was it defined? Bruno, the 
physical world that we perceive our bodies to be immersed in, is acting 
in this example as the definer of truth. Is this your intention?




When we believe something, it means that we believe that it is true, 
even when keeping in mind that it is a belief, and that we might be 
wrong, that is not true.


But there could exist a physical world different from the one we 
are in that has an entity in it and there is a physical condition that 
validates the belief of that entity, no?




p is true means that it is the case that p, in the domain where p is 
supposed to be applied.


Can the domain be defined recursively? For example, what if p is 
the proposition that p' is experienced and p' is the proposition that 
p'' is experienced and ... ?



If you believe that Obama is the president of the USA, it means that 
you believe that in our local geographico-historical situation, it is 
a true fact, even if you can have a doubt, because you might find 
conceivable to wake up, perhaps younger, and that Ronald Reagan is the 
president of the US. A black pothead being a president of America... 
that sound like a dream, after all.


A dream only for some...




We can't know that, but we can still have sharable beliefs. By a
sort of informal habits, in most informal talk, we use very often
the term "know" for the beliefs based on quite common sharable
assumption, like "O has a successor", or the laws of addition and
multiplication. But when thinking rigorously *about* such kind of
beliefs, we have to use the term belief. It is simple: except for
the consciousness here and now, we have only beliefs.


I don't think it has to be that simple. You are only taking your own 
word for that limitation on your sense. We could have all kinds of 
intuitive influences beneath the threshold of our conscious awareness 
which are in fact true beyond mere belief.


True is not opposed to belief. Sometimes some beliefs can be true.


ISTM that a belief is contingent on the existence of something that 
contains a representation of that belief, be it a human mind or a 
Platonic algorithm or whatever else may satisfy the role.



But once a belief concerns a reality different from 
consciousness-here-and-now, I don't see how we can be sure that any 
statement is true, independently of their plausibility.
We can be failed on all dreamable content, except one (actual 
consciousness).


If infinitely many physical worlds exist then there could be a 
'reality' for each and every belief. I conjecture that most of those 
physical realities would be Boltzmann brains.





Rather than assuming that belief is a logical stick model built up 
from nothing,


It is not build up for nothing. It is an arithmetical relation between 
a number, and some universal numbers.


No, Bruno. The fact that we can construct any number from the empty 
set explicitly demands that we are building up things from nothing. This 
does not, IMHO, remove the 'reality' from them so long as the mutual 
agreement actions are possible.




I think it makes more sense to see it as a local fog which interferes 
with out larger grounding in the sense of eternity and totality.


Knowledge does that. By linking belief with truth.


But where does the 'truth' obtain from if not a physical instance? 
It need not be ontological primitive, as a physical world could be 
defined as merely that which at least 3 observers can agree upon as 
being real.




We say: "Jim believed that Brussels was the capital of the USA, but 
now, he know better".
We don't say "Jim knew that Brussels was the capital of the USA, but 
now, he believed better".




Careful that we don't define a word to have a property and then use 
the word to show the existence of that property. This is bootstrapping! 
This is something that can easily creep into any immaterialist ontology 
and ruin it (unless it is accounted for, like what Jon Barwise does in 
his work).




We can't bootstrap belief from inert conditions - sense and 
participation are implicit and inherent in any discussion of belief, 
whether we acknowledge it or not.


I study the case of machines believing in some limited number of 
sentences in computer science, with 

Re: Misconceptions of Natural Selection and Evolution

[Bruno Marchal]

On 25 Feb 2013, at 01:30, Craig Weinberg wrote:




On Sunday, February 24, 2013 3:07:12 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 22 Feb 2013, at 17:45, Craig Weinberg wrote:




On Thursday, February 21, 2013 12:11:36 PM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal  
wrote:


On 21 Feb 2013, at 15:06, Craig Weinberg wrote:




On Thursday, February 21, 2013 5:58:20 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal  
wrote:


On 20 Feb 2013, at 21:15, meekerdb wrote:


On 2/20/2013 8:02 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

Hi John,


On 19 Feb 2013, at 23:28, John Mikes wrote:


Craig, it seems we engaged in a fruitful discussion- thank you.

I want to reflect to a few concepts only from it to clarify MY  
stance.
First my use of a 'model'. There are different models, from the  
sexy young females over the math-etc. descriptions of  
theoretical concepts (some not so sexy). - What I (after Robert  
Rosen?) use by this word is an extract of something, we may not  
know in toto. Close to an 'Occamized' version, but "cut" mostly  
by ignorance of the 'rest of it', not for added clarity.  
Applied to whatever we know TODAY about the world. Or: we THINK  
WE KNOW.



A scientist know nothing. Just nothing, not even his own  
consciousness.


In science we have only beliefs,


But then, according to you, if they happen to be true they are  
knowledge.


Yes, but "we" can't know that.

Can "we" know that we can't know that?


Yes. That something that the machine can prove and know.

How can we know what a machine can prove or know if our own  
knowledge is only belief?


Because some time our beliefs are true.

What does 'true' mean if we can only believe?


We can't define that, but we have a lot of example.

Suppose we meet and that I give you a slap. Then "Bruno gave a slap to  
Craig" would be true. It would not be true, if we meet, or not, and  
don't give you a slap.


When we believe something, it means that we believe that it is true,  
even when keeping in mind that it is a belief, and that we might be  
wrong, that is not true.


p is true means that it is the case that p, in the domain where p is  
supposed to be applied. If you believe that Obama is the president of  
the USA, it means that you believe that in our local geographico- 
historical situation, it is a true fact, even if you can have a doubt,  
because you might find conceivable to wake up, perhaps younger, and  
that Ronald Reagan is the president of the US. A black pothead being a  
president of America... that sound like a dream, after all.








We can't know that, but we can still have sharable beliefs. By a  
sort of informal habits, in most informal talk, we use very often  
the term "know" for the beliefs based on quite common sharable  
assumption, like "O has a successor", or the laws of addition and  
multiplication. But when thinking rigorously *about* such kind of  
beliefs, we have to use the term belief. It is simple: except for  
the consciousness here and now, we have only beliefs.


I don't think it has to be that simple. You are only taking your own  
word for that limitation on your sense. We could have all kinds of  
intuitive influences beneath the threshold of our conscious  
awareness which are in fact true beyond mere belief.


True is not opposed to belief. Sometimes some beliefs can be true. But  
once a belief concerns a reality different from consciousness-here-and- 
now, I don't see how we can be sure that any statement is true,  
independently of their plausibility.
We can be failed on all dreamable content, except one (actual  
consciousness).





Rather than assuming that belief is a logical stick model built up  
from nothing,


It is not build up for nothing. It is an arithmetical relation between  
a number, and some universal numbers.






I think it makes more sense to see it as a local fog which  
interferes with out larger grounding in the sense of eternity and  
totality.


Knowledge does that. By linking belief with truth.

We say: "Jim believed that Brussels was the capital of the USA, but  
now, he know better".
We don't say "Jim knew that Brussels was the capital of the USA, but  
now, he believed better".





We can't bootstrap belief from inert conditions - sense and  
participation are implicit and inherent in any discussion of belief,  
whether we acknowledge it or not.


I study the case of machines believing in some limited number of  
sentences in computer science, with some rules of reasoning, and study  
what they can believe, known, observe, feel, etc. With precise  
definition of each terms. It is testable, as comp predicts they will  
believe in some precise physics that we can compare with nature, and  
so we can refute comp+classical-epistemology.
As it is a very weak theory (comp is weak, and classical epistemology  
too), its refutation would make us learning a lot. If it is not  
refuted, then we have a much simpler theory of everything, ---simpler  
than the actual one, which is QM (+general relativity). And the new  
theory explains the

Re: Misconceptions of Natural Selection and Evolution

[Craig Weinberg]

On Sunday, February 24, 2013 3:07:12 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> On 22 Feb 2013, at 17:45, Craig Weinberg wrote:
>
>
>
> On Thursday, February 21, 2013 12:11:36 PM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 21 Feb 2013, at 15:06, Craig Weinberg wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thursday, February 21, 2013 5:58:20 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On 20 Feb 2013, at 21:15, meekerdb wrote:
>>>
>>>  On 2/20/2013 8:02 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>>  
>>> Hi John, 
>>>
>>>  
>>>  On 19 Feb 2013, at 23:28, John Mikes wrote:
>>>
>>> Craig, it seems we engaged in a fruitful discussion- thank you.  
>>>
>>> I want to reflect to *a few* concepts only from it to clarify MY 
>>> stance. 
>>> First my use of *a 'model'.* There are different models, from the sexy 
>>> young females over the math-etc. descriptions of theoretical concepts (some 
>>> not so sexy). - What I (after Robert Rosen?) use by this word is an extract 
>>> of something, we may not know in toto. Close to an 'Occamized' version, but 
>>> "cut" mostly by ignorance of the 'rest of it', not for added clarity. 
>>> Applied to whatever we know TODAY about the world. Or: we THINK WE KNOW. 
>>>  
>>>
>>>  
>>>  A scientist know nothing. Just nothing, not even his own consciousness.
>>>
>>>  In science we have only beliefs, 
>>>  
>>>
>>> But then, according to you, if they happen to be true they are 
>>> knowledge. 
>>>
>>>
>>> Yes, but "we" can't know that. 
>>>
>>
>> Can "we" know that we can't know that?
>>
>>
>> Yes. That something that the machine can prove and know.
>>
>
> How can we know what a machine can prove or know if our own knowledge is 
> only belief?
>
>
> Because some time our beliefs are true. 
>

What does 'true' mean if we can only believe?
 

> We can't know that, but we can still have sharable beliefs. By a sort of 
> informal habits, in most informal talk, we use very often the term "know" 
> for the beliefs based on quite common sharable assumption, like "O has a 
> successor", or the laws of addition and multiplication. But when thinking 
> rigorously *about* such kind of beliefs, we have to use the term belief. It 
> is simple: except for the consciousness here and now, we have only beliefs. 
>

I don't think it has to be that simple. You are only taking your own word 
for that limitation on your sense. We could have all kinds of intuitive 
influences beneath the threshold of our conscious awareness which are in 
fact true beyond mere belief. Rather than assuming that belief is a logical 
stick model built up from nothing, I think it makes more sense to see it as 
a local fog which interferes with out larger grounding in the sense of 
eternity and totality. We can't bootstrap belief from inert conditions - 
sense and participation are implicit and inherent in any discussion of 
belief, whether we acknowledge it or not.

Craig
 

>
>
>
>
>  
>
>> It is not obvious, and is based on the fact, known already by Gödel, that 
>> machines or formal systems can prove their own incompleteness theorem. The 
>> rest follows from the Theatetus' definition of knowledge, and some work.
>>
>
> Isn't the proof of incompleteness also incomplete? 
>
>
> It would not be a proof. But I see perhaps what you mean. The proof is 
> complete as far as you believe in the multiplication and addition tables.
>
>
>
> i.e. we don't know that what senses we have access to unless our personal 
> range of sense informs us about them. We may in fact have intuitions which 
> are true without being believed or even detected explicitly (hence 
> blindsight).
>
>
> Yes. Our most elementary beliefs are always non justifiable assumptions. 
> Most are plausibly imposed to us by millions of years of evolution. But 
> that very statement presuppose them to make sense.
>
>
>
>  
>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>  
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I'd say it's the other way around, scientists have no beliefs, only 
>>> hypotheses. 
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I define "belief" by "hypothesis" or "derived from hypotheses". That's 
>>> why in the ideally correct case, belief = provable. This works because 
>>> provable does not entail truth.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> If you ask a physicist, for example, if he believes GR he will probably 
>>> give a complicated answer about how it is our best theory of macroscopic 
>>> gravitation and it has proven correct in many experiments and it is our 
>>> best model - BUT it is almost certainly not right because its inconsistent 
>>> with QM.
>>>
>>>
>>> OK. (assuming QM is correct, of course).
>>>
>>>
>> I think that if QM were applied to itself, 
>>
>>
>> QM is an abstract theory about physical objects, not about abstract 
>> theories. If you meant that QM applies to physicists, seen as physical 
>> object, then we get the MWI.
>>
>
> I mean that if the kind of thought processes which have gone into QM were 
> applied to the theories of QM themselves, then it would likely mandate that 
> QM can only be as true as it is false. Every truth in the theory can only 
> exist by borrowi

Re: Misconceptions of Natural Selection and Evolution

[Bruno Marchal]

On 22 Feb 2013, at 17:45, Craig Weinberg wrote:




On Thursday, February 21, 2013 12:11:36 PM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 21 Feb 2013, at 15:06, Craig Weinberg wrote:




On Thursday, February 21, 2013 5:58:20 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 20 Feb 2013, at 21:15, meekerdb wrote:


On 2/20/2013 8:02 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

Hi John,


On 19 Feb 2013, at 23:28, John Mikes wrote:


Craig, it seems we engaged in a fruitful discussion- thank you.

I want to reflect to a few concepts only from it to clarify MY  
stance.
First my use of a 'model'. There are different models, from the  
sexy young females over the math-etc. descriptions of  
theoretical concepts (some not so sexy). - What I (after Robert  
Rosen?) use by this word is an extract of something, we may not  
know in toto. Close to an 'Occamized' version, but "cut" mostly  
by ignorance of the 'rest of it', not for added clarity. Applied  
to whatever we know TODAY about the world. Or: we THINK WE KNOW.



A scientist know nothing. Just nothing, not even his own  
consciousness.


In science we have only beliefs,


But then, according to you, if they happen to be true they are  
knowledge.


Yes, but "we" can't know that.

Can "we" know that we can't know that?


Yes. That something that the machine can prove and know.

How can we know what a machine can prove or know if our own  
knowledge is only belief?


Because some time our beliefs are true. We can't know that, but we can  
still have sharable beliefs. By a sort of informal habits, in most  
informal talk, we use very often the term "know" for the beliefs based  
on quite common sharable assumption, like "O has a successor", or the  
laws of addition and multiplication. But when thinking rigorously  
*about* such kind of beliefs, we have to use the term belief. It is  
simple: except for the consciousness here and now, we have only beliefs.







It is not obvious, and is based on the fact, known already by Gödel,  
that machines or formal systems can prove their own incompleteness  
theorem. The rest follows from the Theatetus' definition of  
knowledge, and some work.


Isn't the proof of incompleteness also incomplete?


It would not be a proof. But I see perhaps what you mean. The proof is  
complete as far as you believe in the multiplication and addition  
tables.




i.e. we don't know that what senses we have access to unless our  
personal range of sense informs us about them. We may in fact have  
intuitions which are true without being believed or even detected  
explicitly (hence blindsight).


Yes. Our most elementary beliefs are always non justifiable  
assumptions. Most are plausibly imposed to us by millions of years of  
evolution. But that very statement presuppose them to make sense.















I'd say it's the other way around, scientists have no beliefs,  
only hypotheses.



I define "belief" by "hypothesis" or "derived from hypotheses".  
That's why in the ideally correct case, belief = provable. This  
works because provable does not entail truth.






If you ask a physicist, for example, if he believes GR he will  
probably give a complicated answer about how it is our best theory  
of macroscopic gravitation and it has proven correct in many  
experiments and it is our best model - BUT it is almost certainly  
not right because its inconsistent with QM.


OK. (assuming QM is correct, of course).


I think that if QM were applied to itself,


QM is an abstract theory about physical objects, not about abstract  
theories. If you meant that QM applies to physicists, seen as  
physical object, then we get the MWI.


I mean that if the kind of thought processes which have gone into QM  
were applied to the theories of QM themselves, then it would likely  
mandate that QM can only be as true as it is false. Every truth in  
the theory can only exist by borrowing from a false condition that  
it creates.


?
QM is inferred through observation and occam razor. It is just a very  
simple theory which explains a lot. but with comp, we have to deduce  
it from arithmetic, if we want to test the comp solution of the mind  
body problem, that is comp theory of qualia, which includes the quanta.










it would likely conclude that it was at once the truest and the  
least true theory to date, and I would agree with that.



see above - QM is true/false just as quantum is particle/wave...


That makes no sense, even as a metaphor.



unless theories are exempt from physics... which would mean that QM  
is just unacknowledged dualism.


Not QM without collapse of the wave. But with the wave collapse, QM is  
indeed a form of dualism.


Bruno





Craig

?

Bruno






Craig





and the best we can hope, is to refute them, by making them clear  
enough.


I insist on this because there is a widespread misconsception in  
popular science, but also among many materialist scientists (=  
many scientists), that we can know something "scientifically",  
but that is prov

Re: Misconceptions of Natural Selection and Evolution

[meekerdb]

On 2/23/2013 7:57 AM, John Mikes wrote:

Brent:
my answer is simple, indeed:
we have only PARTIAL knowledge about anything,


Sure.  But that doesn't prevent true beliefs.  I believe there's a refrigerator in my 
kitchen.  Am I certain - no.  Am I right - yes.


accumulating over millennia (and probably continuing to do so) - consequently ALL we can 
cite as PROOF is based on such partial view, subject to improvement (change?) later on.

This is why I prefer the conditional voice in conclusions.


That's why I said 'depending on the standard of proof'.  There are many propositions which 
are 'proven' enough that I'm willing to act on them.  Mathematical proofs are certain - 
unfortunately they aren't necessarily true because they are only conditional on the axioms.


My essay dissappeared from the WEB when the carrier ISP discontinued it (Prodigy) around 
2003 (without notice). I have a copy I consider a bit obsolete in my ongoing views, I 
will e-mail it to you in a private mail. I hope it goes through.


I'll look forward to it.

Brent



John M

On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 4:57 PM, meekerdb > wrote:


John, you have referred to your essay a few times but I have never seen it. 
 Is it
available on the web somewhere?

I wonder what you mean by "There is no ideally correct case."?  Do you mean 
it is
never the case that a belief is provable (I might agree with that - 
depending on the
standard of proof).  Do you mean it is never the case that a belief is true 
(I
disagree with that).  Or do you mean that neither of these is ideal?

Brent


On 2/21/2013 1:00 PM, John Mikes wrote:

(I THINK: Brent):

But then, according to you, if they happen to be true they are knowledge.

(I THINK: Bruno):
Yes, but "we" can't know that.
(again I THINK Brent:)

I'd say it's the other way around, scientists have no beliefs, only 
hypotheses.
(again I THINK Bruno:) I define "belief" by "hypothesis" or "derived from
hypotheses". That's why in the ideally correct case, belief = provable. 
This works
because provable does not entail truth.

JM: There is NO ideally correct case. I define 'belief' as being possibly 
based on
hearsay as well (religious etc.)
(May I refer to my 2000 essay: Science - Religion, several times quoted on 
these
pages).
JM




-- 
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.



--
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.


No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com 
Version: 2013.0.2899 / Virus Database: 2639/6123 - Release Date: 02/22/13



--
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.

Re: Misconceptions of Natural Selection and Evolution

[Craig Weinberg]

On Thursday, February 21, 2013 12:11:36 PM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> On 21 Feb 2013, at 15:06, Craig Weinberg wrote:
>
>
>
> On Thursday, February 21, 2013 5:58:20 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 20 Feb 2013, at 21:15, meekerdb wrote:
>>
>>  On 2/20/2013 8:02 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>  
>> Hi John, 
>>
>>  
>>  On 19 Feb 2013, at 23:28, John Mikes wrote:
>>
>> Craig, it seems we engaged in a fruitful discussion- thank you.  
>>
>> I want to reflect to *a few* concepts only from it to clarify MY stance. 
>> First my use of *a 'model'.* There are different models, from the sexy 
>> young females over the math-etc. descriptions of theoretical concepts (some 
>> not so sexy). - What I (after Robert Rosen?) use by this word is an extract 
>> of something, we may not know in toto. Close to an 'Occamized' version, but 
>> "cut" mostly by ignorance of the 'rest of it', not for added clarity. 
>> Applied to whatever we know TODAY about the world. Or: we THINK WE KNOW. 
>>  
>>
>>  
>>  A scientist know nothing. Just nothing, not even his own consciousness.
>>
>>  In science we have only beliefs, 
>>  
>>
>> But then, according to you, if they happen to be true they are knowledge. 
>>
>>
>> Yes, but "we" can't know that. 
>>
>
> Can "we" know that we can't know that?
>
>
> Yes. That something that the machine can prove and know.
>

How can we know what a machine can prove or know if our own knowledge is 
only belief?

 

> It is not obvious, and is based on the fact, known already by Gödel, that 
> machines or formal systems can prove their own incompleteness theorem. The 
> rest follows from the Theatetus' definition of knowledge, and some work.
>

Isn't the proof of incompleteness also incomplete? i.e. we don't know that 
what senses we have access to unless our personal range of sense informs us 
about them. We may in fact have intuitions which are true without being 
believed or even detected explicitly (hence blindsight).
 

>
>
>
>
>  
>
>>
>>
>>
>> I'd say it's the other way around, scientists have no beliefs, only 
>> hypotheses. 
>>
>>
>>
>> I define "belief" by "hypothesis" or "derived from hypotheses". That's 
>> why in the ideally correct case, belief = provable. This works because 
>> provable does not entail truth.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> If you ask a physicist, for example, if he believes GR he will probably 
>> give a complicated answer about how it is our best theory of macroscopic 
>> gravitation and it has proven correct in many experiments and it is our 
>> best model - BUT it is almost certainly not right because its inconsistent 
>> with QM.
>>
>>
>> OK. (assuming QM is correct, of course).
>>
>>
> I think that if QM were applied to itself, 
>
>
> QM is an abstract theory about physical objects, not about abstract 
> theories. If you meant that QM applies to physicists, seen as physical 
> object, then we get the MWI.
>

I mean that if the kind of thought processes which have gone into QM were 
applied to the theories of QM themselves, then it would likely mandate that 
QM can only be as true as it is false. Every truth in the theory can only 
exist by borrowing from a false condition that it creates.
 

>
>
>
>
> it would likely conclude that it was at once the truest and the least true 
> theory to date, and I would agree with that.
>
>
see above - QM is true/false just as quantum is particle/wave... unless 
theories are exempt from physics... which would mean that QM is just 
unacknowledged dualism.

Craig 

>
> ?
>
> Bruno
>
>
>
>
>
> Craig
>
>
>>
>>
>>   and the best we can hope, is to refute them, by making them clear 
>> enough.
>>
>>  I insist on this because there is a widespread misconsception in 
>> popular science, but also among many materialist scientists (= many 
>> scientists), that we can know something "scientifically", but that is 
>> provably wrong with comp, and plausiibly wrong with common sense.
>>
>>  A scientist who make public his knowledge is a pseudo-scientist, or a 
>> pseudo-religious person, or is simply mad.
>>  
>>
>> Is that true of logicians too. :-)
>>
>>
>> Yes. Actually logicians made this explicit, where most scientists are 
>> unaware that their "scientific beliefs" are hypotheses. Many believe that 
>> they are just "truth". Well, not all, of course. Some scientists have still 
>> a scientific view, thanks God!
>>
>> :)
>>
>> Bruno
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Brent
>>
>>   
>>  There is always an interrogation mark after any theory. Theories are 
>> beliefs, never public knowledge. Even 1+1=2.
>> But we can (temporally) agree on some theories. We have to do that to 
>> refute them, and learn.
>>
>>  Bruno
>>
>>  
>>  
>>  
>>  *
>> You mention 'statistical' in connection with adaptation. I deny the 
>> validity of statistics (and so: of probability) because it depends on the 
>> borderlines to observe in "counting" the items. 1000 years ago (or maybe 
>> yesterday) such boderlines were different, consequently different 
>> statistics came up with 

Re: Misconceptions of Natural Selection and Evolution

[Bruno Marchal]

John,

What do you mean by "there is no ideally correct case"?

I can understand if you sincerely doubt about elementary arithmetic,  
though. In that case the term research lost his meaning, and we get a  
completely instrumentalist conception of science. We get the type of  
relativism used by my opponents i  Brussels and Paris, that is  
philosophers who asserted that truth = power, and who illustrated it  
by rejecting my thesis while admitting not having seen any flaws. One  
said to me simply: "we have the money". Those are cynical people who  
vindicate corruption, simply.


We don't know the truth, but to make sense of research we need some  
faith in it.


Bruno


On 21 Feb 2013, at 22:00, John Mikes wrote:


(I THINK: Brent):
But then, according to you, if they happen to be true they are  
knowledge.

(I THINK: Bruno):
Yes, but "we" can't know that.
(again I THINK Brent:)
I'd say it's the other way around, scientists have no beliefs, only  
hypotheses.
(again I THINK Bruno:) I define "belief" by "hypothesis" or  
"derived from hypotheses". That's why in the ideally correct case,  
belief = provable. This works because provable does not entail truth.


JM: There is NO ideally correct case. I define 'belief' as being  
possibly based on hearsay as well (religious etc.)
(May I refer to my 2000 essay: Science - Religion, several times  
quoted on these pages).

JM


On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 5:58 AM, Bruno Marchal   
wrote:


On 20 Feb 2013, at 21:15, meekerdb wrote:


On 2/20/2013 8:02 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

Hi John,


On 19 Feb 2013, at 23:28, John Mikes wrote:


Craig, it seems we engaged in a fruitful discussion- thank you.

I want to reflect to a few concepts only from it to clarify MY  
stance.
First my use of a 'model'. There are different models, from the  
sexy young females over the math-etc. descriptions of theoretical  
concepts (some not so sexy). - What I (after Robert Rosen?) use  
by this word is an extract of something, we may not know in toto.  
Close to an 'Occamized' version, but "cut" mostly by ignorance of  
the 'rest of it', not for added clarity. Applied to whatever we  
know TODAY about the world. Or: we THINK WE KNOW.



A scientist know nothing. Just nothing, not even his own  
consciousness.


In science we have only beliefs,


But then, according to you, if they happen to be true they are  
knowledge.


Yes, but "we" can't know that.



I'd say it's the other way around, scientists have no beliefs, only  
hypotheses.



I define "belief" by "hypothesis" or "derived from hypotheses".  
That's why in the ideally correct case, belief = provable. This  
works because provable does not entail truth.






If you ask a physicist, for example, if he believes GR he will  
probably give a complicated answer about how it is our best theory  
of macroscopic gravitation and it has proven correct in many  
experiments and it is our best model - BUT it is almost certainly  
not right because its inconsistent with QM.


OK. (assuming QM is correct, of course).





and the best we can hope, is to refute them, by making them clear  
enough.


I insist on this because there is a widespread misconsception in  
popular science, but also among many materialist scientists (=  
many scientists), that we can know something "scientifically", but  
that is provably wrong with comp, and plausiibly wrong with common  
sense.


A scientist who make public his knowledge is a pseudo-scientist,  
or a pseudo-religious person, or is simply mad.


Is that true of logicians too. :-)


Yes. Actually logicians made this explicit, where most scientists  
are unaware that their "scientific beliefs" are hypotheses. Many  
believe that they are just "truth". Well, not all, of course. Some  
scientists have still a scientific view, thanks God!


:)

Bruno






Brent



There is always an interrogation mark after any theory. Theories  
are beliefs, never public knowledge. Even 1+1=2.
But we can (temporally) agree on some theories. We have to do that  
to refute them, and learn.


Bruno





*
You mention 'statistical' in connection with adaptation. I deny  
the validity of statistics (and so: of probability) because it  
depends on the borderlines to observe in "counting" the items.  
1000 years ago (or maybe yesterday) such boderlines were  
different, consequently different statistics came up with  
different chances of occurrence in them (not even mentioning the  
indifference of WHEN all those chances may materialize).

*
"...within a looped continuum of perceived causality..."
Perceived causality is restricted to the 'model' content, while  
it may be open to be entailed by instigators beyond our present  
knowledge.
Furthermore (in the flimsy concept we have about 'time' I cannot  
see a 'loop' - only a propagating curve as everything changes by  
the time we think to 'close' the loop (like the path of a planet  
as the Sun moves).

*
"...I couldn't agree with you more. That's a big part of what my  
TOE

Re: Misconceptions of Natural Selection and Evolution

[meekerdb]

John, you have referred to your essay a few times but I have never seen it.  Is it 
available on the web somewhere?


I wonder what you mean by "There is no ideally correct case."?  Do you mean it is never 
the case that a belief is provable (I might agree with that - depending on the standard of 
proof).  Do you mean it is never the case that a belief is true (I disagree with that).  
Or do you mean that neither of these is ideal?


Brent

On 2/21/2013 1:00 PM, John Mikes wrote:

(I THINK: Brent):

But then, according to you, if they happen to be true they are knowledge.

(I THINK: Bruno):
Yes, but "we" can't know that.
(again I THINK Brent:)

I'd say it's the other way around, scientists have no beliefs, only hypotheses.
(again I THINK Bruno:) I define "belief" by "hypothesis" or "derived from hypotheses". 
That's why in the ideally correct case, belief = provable. This works because provable 
does not entail truth.


JM: There is NO ideally correct case. I define 'belief' as being possibly based on 
hearsay as well (religious etc.)

(May I refer to my 2000 essay: Science - Religion, several times quoted on 
these pages).
JM




--
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.

Re: Misconceptions of Natural Selection and Evolution

[meekerdb]

On 2/21/2013 2:58 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

I'd say it's the other way around, scientists have no beliefs, only hypotheses.



I define "belief" by "hypothesis" or "derived from hypotheses". That's why in the 
ideally correct case, belief = provable. This works because provable does not entail truth.


I'm not sure what you meant by that last sentence.  Of course some things are provable but 
not true because, even though the proofs are valid, one or more of the axioms are false.  
But that doesn't make "belief=provable" ideal; the ideal is "belief=true".


Brent

--
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.

Re: Misconceptions of Natural Selection and Evolution

[Bruno Marchal]

On 21 Feb 2013, at 15:06, Craig Weinberg wrote:




On Thursday, February 21, 2013 5:58:20 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 20 Feb 2013, at 21:15, meekerdb wrote:


On 2/20/2013 8:02 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

Hi John,


On 19 Feb 2013, at 23:28, John Mikes wrote:


Craig, it seems we engaged in a fruitful discussion- thank you.

I want to reflect to a few concepts only from it to clarify MY  
stance.
First my use of a 'model'. There are different models, from the  
sexy young females over the math-etc. descriptions of theoretical  
concepts (some not so sexy). - What I (after Robert Rosen?) use  
by this word is an extract of something, we may not know in toto.  
Close to an 'Occamized' version, but "cut" mostly by ignorance of  
the 'rest of it', not for added clarity. Applied to whatever we  
know TODAY about the world. Or: we THINK WE KNOW.



A scientist know nothing. Just nothing, not even his own  
consciousness.


In science we have only beliefs,


But then, according to you, if they happen to be true they are  
knowledge.


Yes, but "we" can't know that.

Can "we" know that we can't know that?


Yes. That something that the machine can prove and know. It is not  
obvious, and is based on the fact, known already by Gödel, that  
machines or formal systems can prove their own incompleteness theorem.  
The rest follows from the Theatetus' definition of knowledge, and some  
work.










I'd say it's the other way around, scientists have no beliefs, only  
hypotheses.



I define "belief" by "hypothesis" or "derived from hypotheses".  
That's why in the ideally correct case, belief = provable. This  
works because provable does not entail truth.






If you ask a physicist, for example, if he believes GR he will  
probably give a complicated answer about how it is our best theory  
of macroscopic gravitation and it has proven correct in many  
experiments and it is our best model - BUT it is almost certainly  
not right because its inconsistent with QM.


OK. (assuming QM is correct, of course).


I think that if QM were applied to itself,


QM is an abstract theory about physical objects, not about abstract  
theories. If you meant that QM applies to physicists, seen as physical  
object, then we get the MWI.





it would likely conclude that it was at once the truest and the  
least true theory to date, and I would agree with that.


?

Bruno






Craig





and the best we can hope, is to refute them, by making them clear  
enough.


I insist on this because there is a widespread misconsception in  
popular science, but also among many materialist scientists (=  
many scientists), that we can know something "scientifically", but  
that is provably wrong with comp, and plausiibly wrong with common  
sense.


A scientist who make public his knowledge is a pseudo-scientist,  
or a pseudo-religious person, or is simply mad.


Is that true of logicians too. :-)


Yes. Actually logicians made this explicit, where most scientists  
are unaware that their "scientific beliefs" are hypotheses. Many  
believe that they are just "truth". Well, not all, of course. Some  
scientists have still a scientific view, thanks God!


:)

Bruno






Brent



There is always an interrogation mark after any theory. Theories  
are beliefs, never public knowledge. Even 1+1=2.
But we can (temporally) agree on some theories. We have to do that  
to refute them, and learn.


Bruno





*
You mention 'statistical' in connection with adaptation. I deny  
the validity of statistics (and so: of probability) because it  
depends on the borderlines to observe in "counting" the items.  
1000 years ago (or maybe yesterday) such boderlines were  
different, consequently different statistics came up with  
different chances of occurrence in them (not even mentioning the  
indifference of WHEN all those chances may materialize).

*
"...within a looped continuum of perceived causality..."
Perceived causality is restricted to the 'model' content, while  
it may be open to be entailed by instigators beyond our present  
knowledge.
Furthermore (in the flimsy concept we have about 'time' I cannot  
see a 'loop' - only a propagating curve as everything changes by  
the time we think to 'close' the loop (like the path of a planet  
as the Sun moves).

*
"...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/...";
Your TOE? - MY FOOT. - Agnostically we are so far from even  
speaking about 'everything' that the consecutively observable  
levels of gathering some knowledge (adjusted to our ever evolving  
mental capabilities into some personal 'mini-solipsism' -  
different always for everyone) is a great pretension of the human  
conventional sciences.
(Don't take it personally, please). We LIVE and THINK within (my)  
model. Whatever is beyond is unknowable. But it affects the model  
content.

The URL was an enjoyable reading - with Stephen's addition to it.

B

Re: Misconceptions of Natural Selection and Evolution

[Craig Weinberg]

On Thursday, February 21, 2013 5:58:20 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> On 20 Feb 2013, at 21:15, meekerdb wrote:
>
>  On 2/20/2013 8:02 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>  
> Hi John, 
>
>  
>  On 19 Feb 2013, at 23:28, John Mikes wrote:
>
> Craig, it seems we engaged in a fruitful discussion- thank you.  
>
> I want to reflect to *a few* concepts only from it to clarify MY stance. 
> First my use of *a 'model'.* There are different models, from the sexy 
> young females over the math-etc. descriptions of theoretical concepts (some 
> not so sexy). - What I (after Robert Rosen?) use by this word is an extract 
> of something, we may not know in toto. Close to an 'Occamized' version, but 
> "cut" mostly by ignorance of the 'rest of it', not for added clarity. 
> Applied to whatever we know TODAY about the world. Or: we THINK WE KNOW. 
>  
>
>  
>  A scientist know nothing. Just nothing, not even his own consciousness.
>
>  In science we have only beliefs, 
>  
>
> But then, according to you, if they happen to be true they are knowledge. 
>
>
> Yes, but "we" can't know that. 
>

Can "we" know that we can't know that?
 

>
>
>
> I'd say it's the other way around, scientists have no beliefs, only 
> hypotheses. 
>
>
>
> I define "belief" by "hypothesis" or "derived from hypotheses". That's why 
> in the ideally correct case, belief = provable. This works because provable 
> does not entail truth.
>
>
>
>
>
> If you ask a physicist, for example, if he believes GR he will probably 
> give a complicated answer about how it is our best theory of macroscopic 
> gravitation and it has proven correct in many experiments and it is our 
> best model - BUT it is almost certainly not right because its inconsistent 
> with QM.
>
>
> OK. (assuming QM is correct, of course).
>
>
I think that if QM were applied to itself, it would likely conclude that it 
was at once the truest and the least true theory to date, and I would agree 
with that.


Craig


>
>
>   and the best we can hope, is to refute them, by making them clear 
> enough.
>
>  I insist on this because there is a widespread misconsception in popular 
> science, but also among many materialist scientists (= many scientists), 
> that we can know something "scientifically", but that is provably wrong 
> with comp, and plausiibly wrong with common sense.
>
>  A scientist who make public his knowledge is a pseudo-scientist, or a 
> pseudo-religious person, or is simply mad.
>  
>
> Is that true of logicians too. :-)
>
>
> Yes. Actually logicians made this explicit, where most scientists are 
> unaware that their "scientific beliefs" are hypotheses. Many believe that 
> they are just "truth". Well, not all, of course. Some scientists have still 
> a scientific view, thanks God!
>
> :)
>
> Bruno
>
>
>
>
>
> Brent
>
>   
>  There is always an interrogation mark after any theory. Theories are 
> beliefs, never public knowledge. Even 1+1=2.
> But we can (temporally) agree on some theories. We have to do that to 
> refute them, and learn.
>
>  Bruno
>
>  
>  
>  
>  *
> You mention 'statistical' in connection with adaptation. I deny the 
> validity of statistics (and so: of probability) because it depends on the 
> borderlines to observe in "counting" the items. 1000 years ago (or maybe 
> yesterday) such boderlines were different, consequently different 
> statistics came up with different chances of occurrence in them (not even 
> mentioning the indifference of WHEN all those chances may materialize). 
> *
> *"...within a looped continuum of perceived causality..."  *
> Perceived causality is restricted to the 'model' content, while it may be 
> open to be entailed by instigators beyond our present knowledge. 
> Furthermore (in the flimsy concept we have about 'time' I cannot see a 
> 'loop' - only a propagating curve as everything changes by the time we 
> think to 'close' the loop (like the path of a planet as the Sun moves). 
> *
> *"...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/..."*
> Your TOE? - MY FOOT. - Agnostically we are so far from even speaking about
> * 'everything'* that the consecutively observable levels of gathering 
> some knowledge (adjusted to our ever evolving mental capabilities into some 
> personal 'mini-solipsism' - different always for everyone) is a great 
> pretension of the human conventional sciences. 
> (Don't take it personally, please). We LIVE and THINK within (my) model. 
> Whatever is beyond is unknowable. But it affects the model content. 
> The URL was an enjoyable reading - with Stephen's addition to it. 
>
>  Best regards
> John Mikes
> *
> *
> *
> *
> On Sun, Jan 27, 2013 at 9:47 PM, Craig Weinberg 
> 
> > 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.

Re: Misconceptions of Natural Selection and Evolution

[Bruno Marchal]

On 20 Feb 2013, at 21:41, John Mikes wrote:


Bruno, I have no argument with you.
Let me insert a remark into your text below
(in  large font bold italics)
John

On Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 11:02 AM, Bruno Marchal   
wrote:

Hi John,


On 19 Feb 2013, at 23:28, John Mikes wrote:


Craig, it seems we engaged in a fruitful discussion- thank you.

I want to reflect to a few concepts only from it to clarify MY  
stance.
First my use of a 'model'. There are different models, from the  
sexy young females over the math-etc. descriptions of theoretical  
concepts (some not so sexy). - What I (after Robert Rosen?) use by  
this word is an extract of something, we may not know in toto.  
Close to an 'Occamized' version, but "cut" mostly by ignorance of  
the 'rest of it', not for added clarity. Applied to whatever we  
know TODAY about the world. Or: we THINK WE KNOW.



A scientist know nothing. Just nothing, not even his own  
consciousness.


In science we have only beliefs, and the best we can hope, is to  
refute them, by making them clear enough.


I insist on this because there is a widespread misconsception in  
popular science, but also among many materialist scientists (= many  
scientists), that we can know something "scientifically", but that  
is provably wrong with comp, and plausiibly wrong with common sense.


A scientist who make public his knowledge is a pseudo-scientist, or  
a pseudo-religious person, or is simply mad.

Or a Nobel Prize winner.


I am afraid you are right. But there might be some exceptions, I hope.






There is always an interrogation mark after any theory. Theories are  
beliefs, never public knowledge. Even 1+1=2.
But we can (temporally) agree on some theories. We have to do that  
to refute them, and learn.


Bruno
(And I wrote: "We THINK we know")


OK. But of course "we think we know" does not entail that we know, and  
even if we know, we can't say it publicly.


That's probably why in natural language, when we say "I think that p",  
it means usually "p but I am not sure".


Bruno









*
You mention 'statistical' in connection with adaptation. I deny the  
validity of statistics (and so: of probability) because it depends  
on the borderlines to observe in "counting" the items. 1000 years  
ago (or maybe yesterday) such boderlines were different,  
consequently different statistics came up with different chances of  
occurrence in them (not even mentioning the indifference of WHEN  
all those chances may materialize).

*
"...within a looped continuum of perceived causality..."
Perceived causality is restricted to the 'model' content, while it  
may be open to be entailed by instigators beyond our present  
knowledge.
Furthermore (in the flimsy concept we have about 'time' I cannot  
see a 'loop' - only a propagating curve as everything changes by  
the time we think to 'close' the loop (like the path of a planet as  
the Sun moves).

*
"...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/...";
Your TOE? - MY FOOT. - Agnostically we are so far from even  
speaking about 'everything' that the consecutively observable  
levels of gathering some knowledge (adjusted to our ever evolving  
mental capabilities into some personal 'mini-solipsism' - different  
always for everyone) is a great pretension of the human  
conventional sciences.
(Don't take it personally, please). We LIVE and THINK within (my)  
model. Whatever is beyond is unknowable. But it affects the model  
content.

The URL was an enjoyable reading - with Stephen's addition to it.

Best regards
John Mikes



On Sun, Jan 27, 2013 at 9:47 PM, Craig Weinberg > 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 everything- 
l...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@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.




--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google  
Gr

Re: Misconceptions of Natural Selection and Evolution

[Bruno Marchal]

On 20 Feb 2013, at 21:15, meekerdb wrote:


On 2/20/2013 8:02 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

Hi John,


On 19 Feb 2013, at 23:28, John Mikes wrote:


Craig, it seems we engaged in a fruitful discussion- thank you.

I want to reflect to a few concepts only from it to clarify MY  
stance.
First my use of a 'model'. There are different models, from the  
sexy young females over the math-etc. descriptions of theoretical  
concepts (some not so sexy). - What I (after Robert Rosen?) use by  
this word is an extract of something, we may not know in toto.  
Close to an 'Occamized' version, but "cut" mostly by ignorance of  
the 'rest of it', not for added clarity. Applied to whatever we  
know TODAY about the world. Or: we THINK WE KNOW.



A scientist know nothing. Just nothing, not even his own  
consciousness.


In science we have only beliefs,


But then, according to you, if they happen to be true they are  
knowledge.


Yes, but "we" can't know that.



I'd say it's the other way around, scientists have no beliefs, only  
hypotheses.



I define "belief" by "hypothesis" or "derived from hypotheses". That's  
why in the ideally correct case, belief = provable. This works because  
provable does not entail truth.






If you ask a physicist, for example, if he believes GR he will  
probably give a complicated answer about how it is our best theory  
of macroscopic gravitation and it has proven correct in many  
experiments and it is our best model - BUT it is almost certainly  
not right because its inconsistent with QM.


OK. (assuming QM is correct, of course).





and the best we can hope, is to refute them, by making them clear  
enough.


I insist on this because there is a widespread misconsception in  
popular science, but also among many materialist scientists (= many  
scientists), that we can know something "scientifically", but that  
is provably wrong with comp, and plausiibly wrong with common sense.


A scientist who make public his knowledge is a pseudo-scientist, or  
a pseudo-religious person, or is simply mad.


Is that true of logicians too. :-)


Yes. Actually logicians made this explicit, where most scientists are  
unaware that their "scientific beliefs" are hypotheses. Many believe  
that they are just "truth". Well, not all, of course. Some scientists  
have still a scientific view, thanks God!


:)

Bruno






Brent



There is always an interrogation mark after any theory. Theories  
are beliefs, never public knowledge. Even 1+1=2.
But we can (temporally) agree on some theories. We have to do that  
to refute them, and learn.


Bruno





*
You mention 'statistical' in connection with adaptation. I deny  
the validity of statistics (and so: of probability) because it  
depends on the borderlines to observe in "counting" the items.  
1000 years ago (or maybe yesterday) such boderlines were  
different, consequently different statistics came up with  
different chances of occurrence in them (not even mentioning the  
indifference of WHEN all those chances may materialize).

*
"...within a looped continuum of perceived causality..."
Perceived causality is restricted to the 'model' content, while it  
may be open to be entailed by instigators beyond our present  
knowledge.
Furthermore (in the flimsy concept we have about 'time' I cannot  
see a 'loop' - only a propagating curve as everything changes by  
the time we think to 'close' the loop (like the path of a planet  
as the Sun moves).

*
"...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/...";
Your TOE? - MY FOOT. - Agnostically we are so far from even  
speaking about 'everything' that the consecutively observable  
levels of gathering some knowledge (adjusted to our ever evolving  
mental capabilities into some personal 'mini-solipsism' -  
different always for everyone) is a great pretension of the human  
conventional sciences.
(Don't take it personally, please). We LIVE and THINK within (my)  
model. Whatever is beyond is unknowable. But it affects the model  
content.

The URL was an enjoyable reading - with Stephen's addition to it.

Best regards
John Mikes



On Sun, Jan 27, 2013 at 9:47 PM, Craig Weinberg > 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

Re: Misconceptions of Natural Selection and Evolution

[Craig Weinberg]

On Tuesday, February 19, 2013 5:28:03 PM UTC-5, JohnM wrote:
>
> Craig, it seems we engaged in a fruitful discussion- thank you. 


> I want to reflect to *a few* concepts only from it to clarify MY stance. 
> First my use of *a 'model'.* There are different models, from the sexy 
> young females over the math-etc. descriptions of theoretical concepts (some 
> not so sexy). - What I (after Robert Rosen?) use by this word is an extract 
> of something, we may not know in toto. Close to an 'Occamized' version, but 
> "cut" mostly by ignorance of the 'rest of it', not for added clarity. 
> Applied to whatever we know TODAY about the world. Or: we THINK WE KNOW. 
> *
> You mention 'statistical' in connection with adaptation. I deny the 
> validity of statistics (and so: of probability) because it depends on the 
> borderlines to observe in "counting" the items. 1000 years ago (or maybe 
> yesterday) such boderlines were different, consequently different 
> statistics came up with different chances of occurrence in them (not even 
> mentioning the indifference of WHEN all those chances may materialize). 
> *
> *"...within a looped continuum of perceived causality..."  *
> Perceived causality is restricted to the 'model' content, while it may be 
> open to be entailed by instigators beyond our present knowledge. 
> Furthermore (in the flimsy concept we have about 'time' I cannot see a 
> 'loop' - only a propagating curve as everything changes by the time we 
> think to 'close' the loop (like the path of a planet as the Sun moves). 
> *
> *"...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/..."*
> Your TOE? - MY FOOT. - Agnostically we are so far from even speaking about
> * 'everything'* that the consecutively observable levels of gathering 
> some knowledge (adjusted to our ever evolving mental capabilities into some 
> personal 'mini-solipsism' - different always for everyone) is a great 
> pretension of the human conventional sciences. 
> (Don't take it personally, please). We LIVE and THINK within (my) model. 
> Whatever is beyond is unknowable. But it affects the model content. 
> The URL was an enjoyable reading - with Stephen's addition to it. 
>

Thanks John, 

I agree, my TOE pretensions are more tongue in cheek than literal. What I'm 
claiming is that I think I have a plausible (the only plausible, IMO) 
concept of how mind and body (and by extension physics and experience) 
relate. The rest is extrapolated from that and I think suggests that it can 
work and opens up some new possibilities for understanding time and 
significance, qualia, etc.

Thanks,
Craig


> Best regards
> John Mikes
> *
> *
> *
> *
> On Sun, Jan 27, 2013 at 9:47 PM, Craig Weinberg 
> 
> > 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
>> .
>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
>> everything-li...@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.
>>  
>>  
>>
>
>

-- 
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.

Re: Misconceptions of Natural Selection and Evolution

[John Mikes]

Bruno, I have no argument with you.
Let me insert a remark into your text below
(in  *large font bold italics*)
John

On Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 11:02 AM, Bruno Marchal  wrote:

> Hi John,
>
>
> On 19 Feb 2013, at 23:28, John Mikes wrote:
>
> Craig, it seems we engaged in a fruitful discussion- thank you.
>
> I want to reflect to *a few* concepts only from it to clarify MY stance.
> First my use of *a 'model'.* There are different models, from the sexy
> young females over the math-etc. descriptions of theoretical concepts (some
> not so sexy). - What I (after Robert Rosen?) use by this word is an extract
> of something, we may not know in toto. Close to an 'Occamized' version, but
> "cut" mostly by ignorance of the 'rest of it', not for added clarity.
> Applied to whatever we know TODAY about the world. Or: we THINK WE KNOW.
>
>
>
> A scientist know nothing. Just nothing, not even his own consciousness.
>
> In science we have only beliefs, and the best we can hope, is to refute
> them, by making them clear enough.
>
> I insist on this because there is a widespread misconsception in popular
> science, but also among many materialist scientists (= many scientists),
> that we can know something "scientifically", but that is provably wrong
> with comp, and plausiibly wrong with common sense.
>
> A scientist who make public his knowledge is a pseudo-scientist, or a
> pseudo-religious person, or is simply mad.
>
*Or a Nobel Prize winner.*

>
> There is always an interrogation mark after any theory. Theories are
> beliefs, never public knowledge. Even 1+1=2.
> But we can (temporally) agree on some theories. We have to do that to
> refute them, and learn.
>
> Bruno
> *(And I wrote: "We THINK we know")*
>


>
>
>
> *
> You mention 'statistical' in connection with adaptation. I deny the
> validity of statistics (and so: of probability) because it depends on the
> borderlines to observe in "counting" the items. 1000 years ago (or maybe
> yesterday) such boderlines were different, consequently different
> statistics came up with different chances of occurrence in them (not even
> mentioning the indifference of WHEN all those chances may materialize).
> *
> *"...within a looped continuum of perceived causality..."  *
> Perceived causality is restricted to the 'model' content, while it may be
> open to be entailed by instigators beyond our present knowledge.
> Furthermore (in the flimsy concept we have about 'time' I cannot see a
> 'loop' - only a propagating curve as everything changes by the time we
> think to 'close' the loop (like the path of a planet as the Sun moves).
> *
> *"...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/..."*
> Your TOE? - MY FOOT. - Agnostically we are so far from even speaking about
> * 'everything'* that the consecutively observable levels of gathering
> some knowledge (adjusted to our ever evolving mental capabilities into some
> personal 'mini-solipsism' - different always for everyone) is a great
> pretension of the human conventional sciences.
> (Don't take it personally, please). We LIVE and THINK within (my) model.
> Whatever is beyond is unknowable. But it affects the model content.
> The URL was an enjoyable reading - with Stephen's addition to it.
>
> Best regards
> John Mikes
> *
> *
> *
> *
> On Sun, Jan 27, 2013 at 9:47 PM, Craig Weinberg 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 everything-list@googlegroups.com.
>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
>> everything-list+unsubscr...@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.
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> 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 t

Re: Misconceptions of Natural Selection and Evolution

[meekerdb]

On 2/20/2013 8:02 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

Hi John,


On 19 Feb 2013, at 23:28, John Mikes wrote:


Craig, it seems we engaged in a fruitful discussion- thank you.

I want to reflect to *a few* concepts only from it to clarify MY stance.
First my use of */_a 'model'._/* There are different models, from the sexy young 
females over the math-etc. descriptions of theoretical concepts (some not so sexy). - 
What I (after Robert Rosen?) use by this word is an extract of something, we may not 
know in toto. Close to an 'Occamized' version, but "cut" mostly by ignorance of the 
'rest of it', not for added clarity. Applied to whatever we know TODAY about the world. 
Or: we THINK WE KNOW.



A scientist know nothing. Just nothing, not even his own consciousness.

In science we have only beliefs,


But then, according to you, if they happen to be true they are knowledge.  I'd say it's 
the other way around, scientists have no beliefs, only hypotheses.  If you ask a 
physicist, for example, if he believes GR he will probably give a complicated answer about 
how it is our best theory of macroscopic gravitation and it has proven correct in many 
experiments and it is our best model - BUT it is almost certainly not right because its 
inconsistent with QM.



and the best we can hope, is to refute them, by making them clear enough.

I insist on this because there is a widespread misconsception in popular science, but 
also among many materialist scientists (= many scientists), that we can know something 
"scientifically", but that is provably wrong with comp, and plausiibly wrong with common 
sense.


A scientist who make public his knowledge is a pseudo-scientist, or a pseudo-religious 
person, or is simply mad.


Is that true of logicians too. :-)

Brent



There is always an interrogation mark after any theory. Theories are beliefs, never 
public knowledge. Even 1+1=2.
But we can (temporally) agree on some theories. We have to do that to refute them, and 
learn.


Bruno





*
You mention 'statistical' in connection with adaptation. I deny the validity of 
statistics (and so: of probability) because it depends on the borderlines to observe in 
"counting" the items. 1000 years ago (or maybe yesterday) such boderlines were 
different, consequently different statistics came up with different chances of 
occurrence in them (not even mentioning the indifference of WHEN all those chances may 
materialize).

*
*/"...within a looped continuum of perceived causality..." /*
Perceived causality is restricted to the 'model' content, while it may be open to be 
entailed by instigators beyond our present knowledge.
Furthermore (in the flimsy concept we have about 'time' I cannot see a 'loop' - only a 
propagating curve as everything changes by the time we think to 'close' the loop (like 
the path of a planet as the Sun moves).

*
*/"...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/..."/*
Your TOE? - MY FOOT. - Agnostically we are so far from even speaking 
about*'everything'* that the consecutively observable levels of gathering some 
knowledge (adjusted to our ever evolving mental capabilities into some personal 
'mini-solipsism' - different always for everyone) is a great pretension of the human 
conventional sciences.
(Don't take it personally, please). We LIVE and THINK within (my) model. Whatever is 
beyond is unknowable. But it affects the model content.

The URL was an enjoyable reading - with Stephen's addition to it.

Best regards
John Mikes
*/
/*
*/
/*
On Sun, Jan 27, 2013 at 9:47 PM, Craig Weinberg > 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 everything-list@googlegroups.com
.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
.
Visit this group at http://groups.goo

Re: Misconceptions of Natural Selection and Evolution

[Bruno Marchal]

Hi John,


On 19 Feb 2013, at 23:28, John Mikes wrote:


Craig, it seems we engaged in a fruitful discussion- thank you.

I want to reflect to a few concepts only from it to clarify MY stance.
First my use of a 'model'. There are different models, from the sexy  
young females over the math-etc. descriptions of theoretical  
concepts (some not so sexy). - What I (after Robert Rosen?) use by  
this word is an extract of something, we may not know in toto. Close  
to an 'Occamized' version, but "cut" mostly by ignorance of the  
'rest of it', not for added clarity. Applied to whatever we know  
TODAY about the world. Or: we THINK WE KNOW.



A scientist know nothing. Just nothing, not even his own consciousness.

In science we have only beliefs, and the best we can hope, is to  
refute them, by making them clear enough.


I insist on this because there is a widespread misconsception in  
popular science, but also among many materialist scientists (= many  
scientists), that we can know something "scientifically", but that is  
provably wrong with comp, and plausiibly wrong with common sense.


A scientist who make public his knowledge is a pseudo-scientist, or a  
pseudo-religious person, or is simply mad.


There is always an interrogation mark after any theory. Theories are  
beliefs, never public knowledge. Even 1+1=2.
But we can (temporally) agree on some theories. We have to do that to  
refute them, and learn.


Bruno





*
You mention 'statistical' in connection with adaptation. I deny the  
validity of statistics (and so: of probability) because it depends  
on the borderlines to observe in "counting" the items. 1000 years  
ago (or maybe yesterday) such boderlines were different,  
consequently different statistics came up with different chances of  
occurrence in them (not even mentioning the indifference of WHEN all  
those chances may materialize).

*
"...within a looped continuum of perceived causality..."
Perceived causality is restricted to the 'model' content, while it  
may be open to be entailed by instigators beyond our present  
knowledge.
Furthermore (in the flimsy concept we have about 'time' I cannot see  
a 'loop' - only a propagating curve as everything changes by the  
time we think to 'close' the loop (like the path of a planet as the  
Sun moves).

*
"...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/...";
Your TOE? - MY FOOT. - Agnostically we are so far from even speaking  
about 'everything' that the consecutively observable levels of  
gathering some knowledge (adjusted to our ever evolving mental  
capabilities into some personal 'mini-solipsism' - different always  
for everyone) is a great pretension of the human conventional  
sciences.
(Don't take it personally, please). We LIVE and THINK within (my)  
model. Whatever is beyond is unknowable. But it affects the model  
content.

The URL was an enjoyable reading - with Stephen's addition to it.

Best regards
John Mikes



On Sun, Jan 27, 2013 at 9:47 PM, Craig Weinberg  
 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 everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@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.




--
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.




http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/



--
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 every

Re: Misconceptions of Natural Selection and Evolution

[Craig Weinberg]

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 concre

Re: Misconceptions of Natural Selection and Evolution

[John Mikes]

Craig:
beautiful series. Mostly agreeable terms.
I used some of it in a slightly different sense, but not oppositional;

*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).

*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.

*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.

*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".

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

*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. 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!

John Mikes




On Sun, Jan 27, 2013 at 9:47 PM, Craig Weinberg 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 everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> everything-list+unsubscr...@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.
>
>
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@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.

Re: Misconceptions of Natural Selection and Evolution

[Craig Weinberg]

On Monday, January 28, 2013 12:33:23 PM UTC-5, John Clark wrote:
>
>
>
> On Sun, Jan 27, 2013 at 9:47 PM, Craig Weinberg 
> 
> > wrote:
>
>
>> *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.*
>>
>
> I agree that all those things are misconceptions, except for "survival of 
> the fittest" which is certainly not a misconception but is without a doubt 
> true, just like all tautologies. By the way, for some reason that term is 
> always associated with Darwin but he is not the one who coined it, Herbert 
> Spencer was the first to used the phrase in a book of his that came out 5 
> years after Darwin wrote Origins of Species.  
>

The phrase 'survival of the fittest' is only a tautology if you conflate 
fitness with idealized universal qualities like strength or power.

The page I linked is good because it reveals that this is not at all 
supported by the science, and that in fact, any trait or lack of a trait 
can turn out to provide an individual replicator with the 'best fit' to a 
specific niche, at a specific time. There is no universal 'fitness' which 
says that being good at cracking open nuts or storing water in a hump are 
going to make you 'the fittest'.

Really 'fittest' is not true. As the link explains:

CORRECTION: Though "survival of the fittest" is the catchphrase of natural 
selection, "survival of the fit enough" is more accurate. In most 
populations, organisms with many different genetic variations survive, 
reproduce, and leave offspring carrying their genes in the next generation. 
It is not simply the one or two "best" individuals in the population that 
pass their genes on to the next generation. This is apparent in the 
populations around us: for example, a plant may not have the genes to 
flourish in a drought, or a predator may not be quite fast enough to catch 
her prey every time she is hungry. These individuals may not be the 
"fittest" in the population, but they are "fit enough" to reproduce and 
pass their genes on to the next generation.


Craig 

 


>   John K Clark
>
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@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.

Re: Misconceptions of Natural Selection and Evolution

[John Clark]

On Sun, Jan 27, 2013 at 9:47 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:


> *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.*
>

I agree that all those things are misconceptions, except for "survival of
the fittest" which is certainly not a misconception but is without a doubt
true, just like all tautologies. By the way, for some reason that term is
always associated with Darwin but he is not the one who coined it, Herbert
Spencer was the first to used the phrase in a book of his that came out 5
years after Darwin wrote Origins of Species.

  John K Clark

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@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.