[MD] Probability

[gav]

hey case,
this is good timing: i just researched evolutionary
theory at some length for a uni paper.
anyway....

--- Case <Case at iSpots.com> wrote:

> 
> [Case]
> Evolution is about change. That's all. It is the
> study of the conditions of
> the environment and organic response to the
> environment over time. As the
> environment changes, organisms change.

yes evolution is about change. but it is directed
change. 
in europe evolutionary theorists don't accept darwin
and natural selection as the whole thing. only
americans and british and perhaps australians and
canadians seem to be on that dogmatic bandwagon.
although to be fair fred hoyle, a british
astrophysicist/biologist, did point out the illogicity
of darwinian theory very eloquently in 'the
intelligent universe'.
so i will try to be brief here. natural selection
cannot account for evolutionary development: ie *new*
forms. it is a weeding out mechanism, not a creative
one. also evolution is primarily cooperative, not
competitive, the central tenet of neo-darwinian
theory. everything evolves *mutually*. the vehemence
with which darwinian theory is defended as the
absolute and only truth is peculiar and revealing.
teleology seems to frighten so many but the very word
'evolution' is teleological: that's what it means. 

another tidbit for you. about 50% of new genetic
material in organisms comes from virii and bacteria.
virii and bacteria are evolutionary agents or vehicles
and can even survive space travel on meteorites.
evolution is cosmic, not just terrestrial.

another:
genetic drift (effectively random change in gene
(allele) frequencies in a popn) causes the immediate
loss of most new mutations. mutations are supposedly
the raw material for natural selection, which
according to the dogmatists IS evolution in toto. but
as nearly all mutations are deleterious or neutral to
the organism and nearly all get eliminated from the
gene pool anyway. it is clear that mutations and
natural seelction alone cannot account for the
diversity and complexity of life today. it is simply
mathematically impossible.

okay another: mctaggart the cambridge philosopher
thought the universe was an organism (rather than a
machine) and that the VALUE in it was increasing with
time, at some point becoming infinite. this was his
teleology and it is IDENTICAL to pirsig's (anyone find
this before me....?)

Bergson:
nature is an organic whole, ultimately teleological
because it is driven by a non-physical life force
(*elan vital*), but whose future and goals are
ultimately unkowable

whitehead:
natural world is an organism. the essence of each
object lies not in itself but its relation to the
whole.

schopenhauer:
will and idea produce reality.....push it forward

case:
> Purpose is about meaning. It is about Why? When you
> introduce purpose and
> teleology you wind up with this weird situation
> where some future end is
> causing events in the present.

no. the future is indeterminate. doesn't have to be an
end. an end is something; DQ, GOD etc isn't something.
there is a purpose and teleology to life. the best and
only real check of this is an existential one: do you
really live your life without any feeling of purpose,
desire, ambition, development? 

 Since the future is
> undetermined and can not
> be predicted, this seems very unsatisfactory to me.

see above.
> 
> Purpose is a purely human phenomenon. I think it is
> extremely valuable but I
> think we need to look to ourselves to find it not
> pawn it off on God or the
> Cosmos.

we are god and the cosmos and so is that spanner over
there and that frog and that piece of
snot....everything. the universe is *one* (uni-) mate.
*we* in the sense you are talking of us are a bunch of
egos which are actually mostly unconscious ideas. WE
are actually much more than that.
> 
> [gav]
> i like Bohm a lot: the universe is energy, matter
> and meaning. meaning
> connects with purpose.
> 
> [Case]
> I am not familiar with Bohm but I agree that the
> universe is energy and
> matter. Meaning is human trait and to the extent
> that we are energy and
> matter it is part of the universe as well.

jeez stop it will ya. how can you write off the rest
of the universe. big leap of faith there case.
in the beginning was the word, the logos, the
demiurge...the universe is just that: one theme
(probably choice, which presupposes value
differentials) played out in space-time. it is
implicitly meaningful. meaning for humans is a
relation between us and the rest of the universe. we
don't *own* meaning; we participate in it.

> [Case]
> I see consciousness as a purely organic phenomenon.
> I do not think it
> resides in the inanimate world.

it doesn't reside anywhere case. we reside in it.

> Natural processes
> will survive our
> individual deaths and the extinction of our species.
> But I see a telling
> correspondence between the complexity of our nervous
> systems and the
> evolution of consciousness.

of course. the development of brain size and
sophiscation is linked to the sophistication of
language which was necessary for the development of
self-consciousness and that bugger: ego. see julian
jaynes for more on this fascinating subject.
> 
> [gav]
> >To the extent that Pirsig invokes purpose of this
> sort I have been highly
> critical. His chapter on evolution is particularly
> rank in this regard. 
> 
> that is unfair in my opinion. i think you are
> misreading him.
> 
> [Case]
> When this was first pointed out to me, I didn't
> believe it. When I reread
> the chapter in light of what people were saying, I
> was flatly outraged. I
> wrote a long furious post about it which I either
> failed to send or has
> disappeared from the archives. If I can find it I
> will edit and resubmit it.
> But I don't think I was misreading. I was violently
> disagreeing.

why were you so angry? do you usually get angry at
ideas dissimilar to your own.....your own psychology
is your teacher here case.


Send instant messages to your online friends http://au.messenger.yahoo.com