[MD] Trance state

[Joseph Maurer]

Hi KO,

I don't understand the relationship of of short-lived genes to long-lived
individual.

Joe


On 11/26/08 1:19 AM, "kieffer odigaunt" <kieffer.odigaunt at googlemail.com>
wrote:

> Hi all,
> 
> The dynamic aspect of evolution is the variation and mutation of the genes
> in successive generations.
> The static aspect of evolution is the algorythmic process of replication and
> the natural selection of 'better' genes.
> Need we ask what is good? No, it is in our bones. This is biological
> evolution.
> 
> -KO
> 
> 
> 2008/11/25 Joseph Maurer <jhmau at sbcglobal.net>
> 
>> On Tuesday 25 March Joe writes:
>> 
>> Hi All,
>> 
>> Evolution is not a syllogism.  Different levels are involved from lower to
>> higher.  The lower has no definition for the higher level, which speaks an
>> undefined language to the lower level.  Is mathematics a universal
>> language?
>> 
>> The higher is undefined and cannot enter into a lower syllogism.  Logic
>> fails when confronted by reality. Mathematical reality cannot explain
>> evolution.  Magnus proposes a dynamic Big Bang to start mathematical
>> calculations.  IMO the Social Level lies outside of mathematical
>> calculation.  What?  Counting the population doesn¹t matter?  Idiot!  Do
>> you
>> mean that mathematics does not add to what I know? Idiot!
>> 
>> Individual consciousness is an existential level of evolution to the social
>> level. Individual consciousness starts a parallel octave of evolution of S
>> only.  It modifies O (gorilla) for its own purposes.  Intellect, higher
>> social, and higher intellectual levels are of S only.   Wait a minute
>> intellect is SO, and social is SO. Idiot! You can only train a chimp so
>> far.
>> So how is metaphysics speaking an undefined language?  How can I know what
>> you are talking about? Value!  Mystical value is outside of mathematics.
>> Yes, but not very far!  E,G. quantum!  Just far enough to show that
>> evolution is not a syllogism.
>> 
>> There is no therefore in evolution to the social level!  Only an apple and
>> sleep!
>> 
>> Joe
>> 
>> On 11/25/08 12:26 PM, "X Acto" <xacto at rocketmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Bo:
>>>> Not describing how things really are, is impossible. Forwarding a
>>>> theory that opens by declaring "..this is NOT how things are" is
>>>> stillborn.
>>> 
>>> Steve:
>>> 
>>> Not at all.
>>> 
>>> Albert Einstein:
>>> "Physical concepts are free creations of the human mind, and are not,
>>> however it may seem, uniquely determined by the external world. In our
>>> endeavour to understand reality we are somewhat like a man trying to
>>> understand the mechanism of a closed watch. He sees the face and the
>>> moving hands, even hears it ticking, but he has no way of opening the
>>> case. If he is ingenious he may form some picture of the mechanism
>>> which could be responsible for all the things he observes, but he may
>>> never be quite sure his picture is the only one which could explain
>>> his observations. He will never be able to compare his picture with
>>> the real mechanism and he cannot even imagine the possibility of the
>>> meaning of such a comparison."
>>> 
>>> Bo:
>>> I'm not rying to play the Sophist, but at this high ground there are some
>>> strange "inside out" turning of metaphysical socks.
>>> 
>>> Ron:
>>> The turning of the sock you mention is the shifting from the particular
>>> to the universal. The whole arguement  is that you insist that Quality
>>> may be universally defined when Pirsig and the rest of us say that
>>> Quality is of a particular expereince and may not be argued to
>>> the universal..
>>> 
>>> Pyrrhonian skeptic Sextus Empiricus first questioned induction, reasoning
>> that
>>> a universal rule could not be established from an
>>> incomplete set of particular instances. He wrote[1]:
>>> 
>>> "when they propose to establish the universal from the particulars by
>> means of
>>> induction, they will effect this by a review of either
>>> all or some of the particulars. But if they review some, the induction
>> will be
>>> insecure, since some of the particulars omitted in the
>>> induction may contravene the universal; while if they are to review all,
>> they
>>> will be toiling at the impossible, since the particulars
>>> are infinite and indefinite."
>>> 
>>> from wiki
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Moq_Discuss mailing list
>>> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
>>> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
>>> Archives:
>>> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
>>> http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
>> 
>> 
>> Moq_Discuss mailing list
>> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
>> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
>> Archives:
>> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
>> http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
>> 
> Moq_Discuss mailing list
> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
> Archives:
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
> http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/