[MD] Intellect's Symposium

[David Thomas]

Hi Matt,

I fell off the wagon.
> 
> Matt:
> That's really interesting about the references to evolution,
> though one shouldn't discount talking "evolutionarily," if
> you will, like the mythos-over-logos section in ZMM, when
> the focus was cultural evolution.
For me that makes the problem even more difficult. Biological evolution by
natural selection at least has  a well defined theory with dedicated
scientists/philosophers working on it. Evolution, unfolding, at the
physical, social, and intellectual levels really don't have any evolutionary
theories per se let alone people exploring them from that POV.
> 
> I think the main problems with "definitive agreements" in
> how us humans evolved out of the muck have been
> primarily problems for philosophers, and scientists talking
> philosophy (like Wilson, Dawkins, Pinker, Chomsky).  The
> trouble has been the isolation of "what" we are talking
> about to then be able to isolate the when, where, why,
> and how.  For instance, if you say "the mind" is what
> differentiates us from the monkeys, then you have a lot
> of trouble spelling out the rest.  However, if you say
> "language," your job is a lot easier (just so long as you
> don't also reinstitute "mind"-problems, like Chomsky).  I
> think current discord is around because we're still
> hammering out what this paradigm-shift to Darwin
> means, and some people are suggesting that the job of
> the scientist would be easier if we stopped throwing
> him mysteries, but rather problems.
Right. In addition the ongoing specialization in all fields makes it
difficult for anybody outside a field to understand the inside let alone how
it might it effect the  whole of science. Let alone our lives. Someone, Mark
I think, in another thread commented that Dawkins is not much of a scientist
because he has not "discovered" much of anything. But his role as an
integrator in the broad fields of zoology, genetics, and evolution I find
valuable.

Dave