Re: Re: the tribal self
It is explained by Donald Symons in the evolutioon of human sexuality : if everithing is cultural. Any mutant line of humans with some inmunity to social imprinted things will refine their innate self , generation after generation, to manipulate others for its own benefit by subverting the social norms. At the end no blank slate individual would remain. We try to manipulate and not being manipulated. There are norms that we may accept an even enforce for others but not for ourselves in a sinncere and effective way. Even we may intellectually accept that certain norms are good for ourselves too but out egoistic innate self force us to act otherwise. It would be no differencee between is and ought otherwise. El 16/08/2012 16:08, Roger rclo...@verizon.net escribió: Hi Alberto G. Corona Not if you select the best friends, the best woman, the best job, the best stocks and the best doctor to help you get rich, stay healthy, enjoy life, and raise a family. Or they select you. These would help in getting an upscale woman. And perhaps she has the social skills to seduce you. Maybe she reads Cosmoplitan magazine. Roger , rclo...@verizon.net 8/16/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything could function. - Receiving the following content - *From:* Alberto G. Corona agocor...@gmail.com *Receiver:* everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com *Time:* 2012-08-15, 09:16:41 *Subject:* Re: the tribal self Social construction of the self is incompatible with natural selection. 2012/8/15 Roger rclo...@verizon.net Hi Bruno Marchal � I燿isagree about the self not being a social contruct. � It must燼t least be partly so, for to my mind, the self is your memory, and that includes to some extent the world. � And the self includes what your think your role is. At home a policeman may just be a father, but when he puts on his uniform and stops a car for speeding, he's a different person.� � � Roger , rclo...@verizon.net 8/15/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything could function. - Receiving the following content - *From:* Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be *Receiver:* everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com *Time:* 2012-08-14, 11:03:48 *Subject:* Re: on tribes On 14 Aug 2012, at 14:42, Roger wrote: Hi Bruno Marchal � I think that your soul is your identity in the form of point of view.� I agree. I use almost that exact definition. As we grow up we begin to define or find ourselves not out of any great insight but pragmatically, out of choosing what tribe we belong to. We define ourselves socially and culturally. We wear their indian feathers or display their tattoes and are only friendly to our own tribe or gang. So a liberal won't listen to a conservative and vice versa. It greatly simplifies thinking and speaking, and is a dispeller of doubt and tells us with some apparent certainty on who we are. OK, but that is not the root of the first person self, which can still exist even when completely amnesic. If not you make the first person I a social construct, which it is not. Bruno � So Roger , rclo...@verizon.net 8/14/2012 - Receiving the following content - *From:* Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be *Receiver:* everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com *Time:* 2012-08-12, 10:47:23 *Subject:* Re: the unitary mind vs the modular brain On 12 Aug 2012, at 14:28, Roger wrote: Hi Bruno Marchal � As before, there is the natural, undeniable dualism between brain and mind: � brain牋 objective燼nd modular mind牋爏ubjective and unitary OK. You can even say: brain/body: � objective and doubtable soul/consciousness: subjective and undoubtable � The brain can be discussed, the mind can only be experienced. Exactly. I would say the soul, as the mind can be discussed in theories, but the soul is much more complex. We can discuss it through strong assumption like mechanism. � I� believe that the only subjective and unitary item in爐he universe is the monad.� It is the爀ye of the universe, although for us we can only perceive indirectly. I am open to this. The monad would be the center of the wheel, or the fixed point of the doubting consciousness.� The machines already agree with you on this : ) (to prove this you need to accept the most classical axiomatic (modal) definition of belief, knowledge, etc.) See my paper here for an introduction to the theology of the ideally correct machine: http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/publications/SANE2004MARCHALAbstract.html Bruno � � Roger , rclo...@verizon.net 8/12/2012 - Receiving the following content - *From:* Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be *Receiver:* everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com *Time:* 2012-08-11, 09:52:29 *Subject:* Re: Libet's experimental result re-evaluated! On 10 Aug 2012, at 14:04, Russell
Re: Re: Re: the tribal self
Hi Alberto G. Corona Sorery, again I oversimplified things. I don't know about a blank slate, but we are products bioth of heredity and society. Roger , rclo...@verizon.net 8/17/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything could function. - Receiving the following content - From: Alberto G. Corona Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-08-17, 13:28:34 Subject: Re: Re: the tribal self It is explained by Donald Symons in the evolutioon of human sexuality : if everithing is cultural. Any mutant line of humans with some inmunity to social imprinted things will refine their innate self , generation after generation, to manipulate others for its own benefit by subverting the social norms. At the end no blank slate individual would remain. We try to manipulate and not being manipulated. There are norms that we may accept an even enforce for others but not for ourselves in a sinncere and effective way. Even we may intellectually accept that certain norms are good for ourselves too but out egoistic innate self force us to act otherwise. It would be no differencee between is and ought otherwise. El 16/08/2012 16:08, Roger rclo...@verizon.net escribió: Hi Alberto G. Corona Not if you select the best friends, the best woman, the best job, the best stocks and the best doctor to help you get rich, stay healthy, enjoy life, and raise a family. Or they select you. These would help in getting an upscale woman. And perhaps she has the social skills to seduce you. Maybe she reads Cosmoplitan magazine. Roger , rclo...@verizon.net 8/16/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything could function. - Receiving the following content - From: Alberto G. Corona Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-08-15, 09:16:41 Subject: Re: the tribal self Social construction of the self is incompatible with natural selection. 2012/8/15 Roger rclo...@verizon.net Hi Bruno Marchal I?isagree about the self not being a social contruct. It must?t least be partly so, for to my mind, the self is your memory, and that includes to some extent the world. And the self includes what your think your role is. At home a policeman may just be a father, but when he puts on his uniform and stops a car for speeding, he's a different person. Roger , rclo...@verizon.net 8/15/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything could function. - Receiving the following content - From: Bruno Marchal Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-08-14, 11:03:48 Subject: Re: on tribes On 14 Aug 2012, at 14:42, Roger wrote: Hi Bruno Marchal I think that your soul is your identity in the form of point of view. I agree. I use almost that exact definition. As we grow up we begin to define or find ourselves not out of any great insight but pragmatically, out of choosing what tribe we belong to. We define ourselves socially and culturally. We wear their indian feathers or display their tattoes and are only friendly to our own tribe or gang. So a liberal won't listen to a conservative and vice versa. It greatly simplifies thinking and speaking, and is a dispeller of doubt and tells us with some apparent certainty on who we are. OK, but that is not the root of the first person self, which can still exist even when completely amnesic. If not you make the first person I a social construct, which it is not. Bruno So Roger , rclo...@verizon.net 8/14/2012 - Receiving the following content - From: Bruno Marchal Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-08-12, 10:47:23 Subject: Re: the unitary mind vs the modular brain On 12 Aug 2012, at 14:28, Roger wrote: Hi Bruno Marchal As before, there is the natural, undeniable dualism between brain and mind: brain? objective?nd modular mind??ubjective and unitary OK. You can even say: brain/body: objective and doubtable soul/consciousness: subjective and undoubtable The brain can be discussed, the mind can only be experienced. Exactly. I would say the soul, as the mind can be discussed in theories, but the soul is much more complex. We can discuss it through strong assumption like mechanism. I believe that the only subjective and unitary item in?he universe is the monad. It is the?ye of the universe, although for us we can only perceive indirectly. I am open to this. The monad would be the center of the wheel, or the fixed point of the doubting consciousness. The machines already agree with you on this : ) (to prove this you need to accept the most classical axiomatic (modal) definition of belief, knowledge, etc.) See my paper here for an introduction to the theology of the ideally correct machine: http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/publications/SANE2004MARCHALAbstract.html Bruno Roger , rclo...@verizon.net 8/12/2012 - Receiving the following content - From: Bruno Marchal Receiver: everything-list
Re: the tribal self
On 15 Aug 2012, at 14:10, Roger wrote: Hi Bruno Marchal I disagree about the self not being a social contruct. When I talk about the self, I am not talking about you. I think more to the control structure making it possible to have a self. I explain it from time to time, but it is a bit technical. basically it is just a duplicating program in front of itself, like the DNA strands. If Dx gives xx (first intensional diagonalization), then DD gives DD (second intensional diagonalization). We share that self with all living creature from virus to us. It must at least be partly so, for to my mind, the self is your memory, and that includes to some extent the world. Memory is not part of that self, only in a conventional way. You own your memory and brain, you are not your memory and brain. And the self includes what your think your role is. At home a policeman may just be a father, but when he puts on his uniform and stops a car for speeding, he's a different person. Not in the technical sense of person that I use. I see what you mean, but it is not relevant for the question of how and why numbers dream. Bruno Roger , rclo...@verizon.net 8/15/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything could function. - Receiving the following content - From: Bruno Marchal Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-08-14, 11:03:48 Subject: Re: on tribes On 14 Aug 2012, at 14:42, Roger wrote: Hi Bruno Marchal I think that your soul is your identity in the form of point of view. I agree. I use almost that exact definition. As we grow up we begin to define or find ourselves not out of any great insight but pragmatically, out of choosing what tribe we belong to. We define ourselves socially and culturally. We wear their indian feathers or display their tattoes and are only friendly to our own tribe or gang. So a liberal won't listen to a conservative and vice versa. It greatly simplifies thinking and speaking, and is a dispeller of doubt and tells us with some apparent certainty on who we are. OK, but that is not the root of the first person self, which can still exist even when completely amnesic. If not you make the first person I a social construct, which it is not. Bruno So Roger , rclo...@verizon.net 8/14/2012 - Receiving the following content - From: Bruno Marchal Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-08-12, 10:47:23 Subject: Re: the unitary mind vs the modular brain On 12 Aug 2012, at 14:28, Roger wrote: Hi Bruno Marchal As before, there is the natural, undeniable dualism between brain and mind: brain objective and modular mind subjective and unitary OK. You can even say: brain/body: objective and doubtable soul/consciousness: subjective and undoubtable The brain can be discussed, the mind can only be experienced. Exactly. I would say the soul, as the mind can be discussed in theories, but the soul is much more complex. We can discuss it through strong assumption like mechanism. I believe that the only subjective and unitary item in the universe is the monad. It is the eye of the universe, although for us we can only perceive indirectly. I am open to this. The monad would be the center of the wheel, or the fixed point of the doubting consciousness. The machines already agree with you on this : ) (to prove this you need to accept the most classical axiomatic (modal) definition of belief, knowledge, etc.) See my paper here for an introduction to the theology of the ideally correct machine: http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/publications/SANE2004MARCHALAbstract.html Bruno Roger , rclo...@verizon.net 8/12/2012 - Receiving the following content - From: Bruno Marchal Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-08-11, 09:52:29 Subject: Re: Libet's experimental result re-evaluated! On 10 Aug 2012, at 14:04, Russell Standish wrote: On Fri, Aug 10, 2012 at 12:10:43PM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 10 Aug 2012, at 00:23, Russell Standish wrote: It is plain to me that thoughts can be either conscious or unconscious, and the conscious component is a strict minority of the total. This is not obvious for me, and I have to say that it is a point which is put in doubt by the salvia divinorum reports (including mine). When you dissociate the brain in parts, perhaps many parts, you realise that they might all be conscious. In fact the very idea of non-consciousness might be a construct of consciousness, and be realized by partial amnesia. I dunno. For the same reason I have stopped to believe that we can be unconscious during sleep. I think that we can only be amnesic-of-'previous-consciousness'. With due respect to your salvia experiences, which I dare not follow, I'm still more presuaded by the likes of Daniel Dennett, and his pandemonia theory of the mind. In that idea, many subconscious process, working disparately, solve
Re: Re: the tribal self
Hi Alberto G. Corona Not if you select the best friends, the best woman, the best job, the best stocks and the best doctor to help you get rich, stay healthy, enjoy life, and raise a family. Or they select you. These would help in getting an upscale woman. And perhaps she has the social skills to seduce you. Maybe she reads Cosmoplitan magazine. Roger , rclo...@verizon.net 8/16/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything could function. - Receiving the following content - From: Alberto G. Corona Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-08-15, 09:16:41 Subject: Re: the tribal self Social construction of the self is incompatible with natural selection. 2012/8/15 Roger rclo...@verizon.net Hi Bruno Marchal ? I?isagree about the self not being a social contruct. ? It must?t least be partly so, for to my mind, the self is your memory, and that includes to some extent the world. ? And the self includes what your think your role is. At home a policeman may just be a father, but when he puts on his uniform and stops a car for speeding, he's a different person.? ? ? Roger , rclo...@verizon.net 8/15/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything could function. - Receiving the following content - From: Bruno Marchal Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-08-14, 11:03:48 Subject: Re: on tribes On 14 Aug 2012, at 14:42, Roger wrote: Hi Bruno Marchal ? I think that your soul is your identity in the form of point of view.? I agree. I use almost that exact definition. As we grow up we begin to define or find ourselves not out of any great insight but pragmatically, out of choosing what tribe we belong to. We define ourselves socially and culturally. We wear their indian feathers or display their tattoes and are only friendly to our own tribe or gang. So a liberal won't listen to a conservative and vice versa. It greatly simplifies thinking and speaking, and is a dispeller of doubt and tells us with some apparent certainty on who we are. OK, but that is not the root of the first person self, which can still exist even when completely amnesic. If not you make the first person I a social construct, which it is not. Bruno ? So Roger , rclo...@verizon.net 8/14/2012 - Receiving the following content - From: Bruno Marchal Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-08-12, 10:47:23 Subject: Re: the unitary mind vs the modular brain On 12 Aug 2012, at 14:28, Roger wrote: Hi Bruno Marchal ? As before, there is the natural, undeniable dualism between brain and mind: ? brain? objective?nd modular mind??ubjective and unitary OK. You can even say: brain/body: ? objective and doubtable soul/consciousness: subjective and undoubtable ? The brain can be discussed, the mind can only be experienced. Exactly. I would say the soul, as the mind can be discussed in theories, but the soul is much more complex. We can discuss it through strong assumption like mechanism. ? I? believe that the only subjective and unitary item in?he universe is the monad.? It is the?ye of the universe, although for us we can only perceive indirectly. I am open to this. The monad would be the center of the wheel, or the fixed point of the doubting consciousness.? The machines already agree with you on this : ) (to prove this you need to accept the most classical axiomatic (modal) definition of belief, knowledge, etc.) See my paper here for an introduction to the theology of the ideally correct machine: http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/publications/SANE2004MARCHALAbstract.html Bruno ? ? Roger , rclo...@verizon.net 8/12/2012 - Receiving the following content - From: Bruno Marchal Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-08-11, 09:52:29 Subject: Re: Libet's experimental result re-evaluated! On 10 Aug 2012, at 14:04, Russell Standish wrote: On Fri, Aug 10, 2012 at 12:10:43PM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 10 Aug 2012, at 00:23, Russell Standish wrote: It is plain to me that thoughts can be either conscious or unconscious, and the conscious component is a strict minority of the total. This is not obvious for me, and I have to say that it is a point which is put in doubt by the salvia divinorum reports (including mine). When you dissociate the brain in parts, perhaps many parts, you realise that they might all be conscious. In fact the very idea of non-consciousness might be a construct of consciousness, and be realized by partial amnesia. I dunno. For the same reason I have stopped to believe that we can be unconscious during sleep. I think that we can only be amnesic-of-'previous-consciousness'. With due respect to your salvia experiences, which I dare not follow, I'm still more presuaded by the likes of Daniel Dennett, and his pandemonia theory of the mind. In that idea, many subconscious process, working disparately, solve different aspects of the problems at hand
the tribal self
Hi Bruno Marchal I disagree about the self not being a social contruct. It must at least be partly so, for to my mind, the self is your memory, and that includes to some extent the world. And the self includes what your think your role is. At home a policeman may just be a father, but when he puts on his uniform and stops a car for speeding, he's a different person. Roger , rclo...@verizon.net 8/15/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything could function. - Receiving the following content - From: Bruno Marchal Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-08-14, 11:03:48 Subject: Re: on tribes On 14 Aug 2012, at 14:42, Roger wrote: Hi Bruno Marchal I think that your soul is your identity in the form of point of view. I agree. I use almost that exact definition. As we grow up we begin to define or find ourselves not out of any great insight but pragmatically, out of choosing what tribe we belong to. We define ourselves socially and culturally. We wear their indian feathers or display their tattoes and are only friendly to our own tribe or gang. So a liberal won't listen to a conservative and vice versa. It greatly simplifies thinking and speaking, and is a dispeller of doubt and tells us with some apparent certainty on who we are. OK, but that is not the root of the first person self, which can still exist even when completely amnesic. If not you make the first person I a social construct, which it is not. Bruno So Roger , rclo...@verizon.net 8/14/2012 - Receiving the following content - From: Bruno Marchal Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-08-12, 10:47:23 Subject: Re: the unitary mind vs the modular brain On 12 Aug 2012, at 14:28, Roger wrote: Hi Bruno Marchal As before, there is the natural, undeniable dualism between brain and mind: brain objective and modular mind subjective and unitary OK. You can even say: brain/body: objective and doubtable soul/consciousness: subjective and undoubtable The brain can be discussed, the mind can only be experienced. Exactly. I would say the soul, as the mind can be discussed in theories, but the soul is much more complex. We can discuss it through strong assumption like mechanism. I believe that the only subjective and unitary item in the universe is the monad. It is the eye of the universe, although for us we can only perceive indirectly. I am open to this. The monad would be the center of the wheel, or the fixed point of the doubting consciousness. The machines already agree with you on this : ) (to prove this you need to accept the most classical axiomatic (modal) definition of belief, knowledge, etc.) See my paper here for an introduction to the theology of the ideally correct machine: http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/publications/SANE2004MARCHALAbstract.html Bruno Roger , rclo...@verizon.net 8/12/2012 - Receiving the following content - From: Bruno Marchal Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-08-11, 09:52:29 Subject: Re: Libet's experimental result re-evaluated! On 10 Aug 2012, at 14:04, Russell Standish wrote: On Fri, Aug 10, 2012 at 12:10:43PM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 10 Aug 2012, at 00:23, Russell Standish wrote: It is plain to me that thoughts can be either conscious or unconscious, and the conscious component is a strict minority of the total. This is not obvious for me, and I have to say that it is a point which is put in doubt by the salvia divinorum reports (including mine). When you dissociate the brain in parts, perhaps many parts, you realise that they might all be conscious. In fact the very idea of non-consciousness might be a construct of consciousness, and be realized by partial amnesia. I dunno. For the same reason I have stopped to believe that we can be unconscious during sleep. I think that we can only be amnesic-of-'previous-consciousness'. With due respect to your salvia experiences, which I dare not follow, I'm still more presuaded by the likes of Daniel Dennett, and his pandemonia theory of the mind. In that idea, many subconscious process, working disparately, solve different aspects of the problems at hand, or provide different courses of action. The purpose of consciousness is to select from among the course of action presented by the pandemonium of subconscious processes - admittedly consciousness per se may not be necessary for this role - any unifying (aka reductive) process may be sufficient. The reason I like this, is that it echoes an essentially Darwinian process of random variation that is selected upon. Dawinian evolution is the key to any form of creative process. The brain parts I was talking about must be enough big and integrated, like an half hemisphere, or the limbic system, etc. What I said should not contradict Daniel Dennett pandemonia or Fodor modularity theory, which are very natural in a computationalist
Re: the tribal self
Social construction of the self is incompatible with natural selection. 2012/8/15 Roger rclo...@verizon.net Hi Bruno Marchal I disagree about the self not being a social contruct. It must at least be partly so, for to my mind, the self is your memory, and that includes to some extent the world. And the self includes what your think your role is. At home a policeman may just be a father, but when he puts on his uniform and stops a car for speeding, he's a different person. Roger , rclo...@verizon.net 8/15/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything could function. - Receiving the following content - *From:* Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be *Receiver:* everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com *Time:* 2012-08-14, 11:03:48 *Subject:* Re: on tribes On 14 Aug 2012, at 14:42, Roger wrote: Hi Bruno Marchal I think that your soul is your identity in the form of point of view. I agree. I use almost that exact definition. As we grow up we begin to define or find ourselves not out of any great insight but pragmatically, out of choosing what tribe we belong to. We define ourselves socially and culturally. We wear their indian feathers or display their tattoes and are only friendly to our own tribe or gang. So a liberal won't listen to a conservative and vice versa. It greatly simplifies thinking and speaking, and is a dispeller of doubt and tells us with some apparent certainty on who we are. OK, but that is not the root of the first person self, which can still exist even when completely amnesic. If not you make the first person I a social construct, which it is not. Bruno So Roger , rclo...@verizon.net 8/14/2012 - Receiving the following content - *From:* Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be *Receiver:* everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com *Time:* 2012-08-12, 10:47:23 *Subject:* Re: the unitary mind vs the modular brain On 12 Aug 2012, at 14:28, Roger wrote: Hi Bruno Marchal As before, there is the natural, undeniable dualism between brain and mind: brain objective and modular mind subjective and unitary OK. You can even say: brain/body: objective and doubtable soul/consciousness: subjective and undoubtable The brain can be discussed, the mind can only be experienced. Exactly. I would say the soul, as the mind can be discussed in theories, but the soul is much more complex. We can discuss it through strong assumption like mechanism. I believe that the only subjective and unitary item in the universe is the monad. It is the eye of the universe, although for us we can only perceive indirectly. I am open to this. The monad would be the center of the wheel, or the fixed point of the doubting consciousness. The machines already agree with you on this : ) (to prove this you need to accept the most classical axiomatic (modal) definition of belief, knowledge, etc.) See my paper here for an introduction to the theology of the ideally correct machine: http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/publications/SANE2004MARCHALAbstract.html Bruno Roger , rclo...@verizon.net 8/12/2012 - Receiving the following content - *From:* Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be *Receiver:* everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com *Time:* 2012-08-11, 09:52:29 *Subject:* Re: Libet's experimental result re-evaluated! On 10 Aug 2012, at 14:04, Russell Standish wrote: On Fri, Aug 10, 2012 at 12:10:43PM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 10 Aug 2012, at 00:23, Russell Standish wrote: It is plain to me that thoughts can be either conscious or unconscious, and the conscious component is a strict minority of the total. This is not obvious for me, and I have to say that it is a point which is put in doubt by the salvia divinorum reports (including mine). When you dissociate the brain in parts, perhaps many parts, you realise that they might all be conscious. In fact the very idea of non-consciousness might be a construct of consciousness, and be realized by partial amnesia. I dunno. For the same reason I have stopped to believe that we can be unconscious during sleep. I think that we can only be amnesic-of-'previous-consciousness'. With due respect to your salvia experiences, which I dare not follow, I'm still more presuaded by the likes of Daniel Dennett, and his pandemonia theory of the mind. In that idea, many subconscious process, working disparately, solve different aspects of the problems at hand, or provide different courses of action. The purpose of consciousness is to select from among the course of action presented by the pandemonium of subconscious processes - admittedly consciousness per se may not be necessary for this role - any unifying (aka reductive) process may be sufficient. The reason I like this, is that it echoes an essentially Darwinian process of random variation that
