Evolutionary strategies/behaviours and culture

[Johnny Canuck3]

He's all yours gorski. Enjoy!

We've done it before.

 

[Jonti]

Hey, go to bed gorski! (I'm an early riser and you need your sleep too).

But, for later, I'd respectfully suggest it isn't just humans who just soooo don't do determinism really well. Ever heard of the Harvard Law of Animal Behaviour ...

"under carefully controlled experimental circumstances, an animal will behave as it damned well pleases."

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

Hey, go to bed gorski! (I'm an early riser and you need your sleep too).

But, for later, I'd respectfully suggest it isn't just humans who just soooo don't do determinism really well. Ever heard of the Harvard Law of Animal Behaviour ...

You can't accept determinism due to a mixture of a failure of imagination, and the presence of egoism.

 

[Jonti]

I suppose you'd say the same to Heisenberg, and all the mathematicians and phycisists who build your power stations and nuclear weapons?

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

You can't handle the truth.

 

[Jonti]

Let's not talk about me JC2, let's talk about you.

You say you just can't help the way you behave. How long have you felt this incontinent lack of self control?

 

[gorski]

You can't accept determinism due to a mixture of a failure of imagination...

Now, that's funny, coming from a self-confessed "determinist"!

...and the presence of egoism.

And this is dangerous!!! I mean the presumptions behind it and the very idea that somehow "leaving our notions/feeling of self" will get us anywhere far... The real Q is what kind of "ego", not if we can somehow "extinguish" it...

Moreover, the poster doesn't seem to be anywhere even close to not having one... Quite the opposite!

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

Let's not talk about me JC2, let's talk about you.

Why: are you somehow unworthy of consideration?

 

[Jonti]

It's not possible to speak of freedom/creativity/etc. in mathematical formulas! You won't get very far like that!

There is also no such thing as 100% prediction in all things Human.

Determinism is for sissies!!

More?

Yes please!

You see, to say that maths is not something that is freely created is to concede the point I am keen to make: there is something unhuman and objective about these matters. There is such a thing as reality, and we can talk about it (even though we may grant that certainty is not something that is found here under the sun -- most certainly not in human affairs).

I wonder if the following explains why we see such ludicrous and transparent antics around this issue from wealthy and authoritarian elitists?

So long as authority inspires awe, confusion and absurdity enhance conservative tendencies in society. Firstly, because clear and logical thinking leads to a cumulation of knowledge (of which the progress of the natural sciences provides the best example) and the advance of knowledge sooner or later undermines the traditional order. Confused thinking, on the other hand, leads nowhere in particular and can be indulged indefinitely without producing any impact upon the world.

 

[gorski]

Methodologically speaking: you have no idea what you're talking about, do you, m8...?!?

Look, just about every "immovable, absolute" idea we had - changed/was challenged so far...

Get it? No? Sorry, can't do any better than that, right now, as I'm a bit pissed...

Wheheeeyyy... "Absolute objectivity" is for God and sissies...

Which one are you, m8?

[Btw, I mean it in a good sense, not being mean! Remember the Euclidian stuff? Then the non-Euclidian stuff...? Numbers...? Then non-numbers, as it were...? Certainty, then uncertainty...? Relativity, as plagirised from the ancient Greeks [the aporia] - and then the serious challenge to it form all sorts of quarters, like Tesla or Bohr and Heisenberg etc.? And so on and so on... Not to mention the Earth as the centre of the Universe... ]

 

[gorski]

Andreski is clear: if we are not obliged [see the pomo shite, as in the "terror of the strict inference/proof"], then this stuff [unobliging pomo nonsense] is very infatuating, as it's unobliging...

Sure, it's simple to see - but does that mean that we have to go jumping into the [uncritically thought of absolutes seeking] science in a heartbeat? Not at all!!!

There are other options! Living without absolutes is not that terrible and unbearable!!

But it depends on one's spine/inner strength...

 

[Jonti]

Still overstating your case then?

Look, just about every "immovable, absolute" idea we had - changed/was challenged so far...

How does that imply it's not useful, methodologically speaking, to have them?

Sounds to me like the methodology has been able to produce an increasingly comprehensive account of nature.

 

[gorski]

Overstating my case? Says who? Or are we to forget that it's you judging here and not God him/herself? Now, that's what I call overstating one's case!

"Useful" is not the word to use when critically thinking about those ideas... One doesn't actually stop oneself from thinking it through all the way because of "utility"...

http://www.reference.com/search?q=ideology

Epistemological ideologies

Even when the challenging of existing beliefs is encouraged, as in science, the dominant paradigm or mindset can prevent certain challenges, theories or experiments from being advanced.

There are critics who view science as an ideology in itself, or being an effective ideology, called scientism. Some scientists respond that, while the scientific method is itself an ideology, as it is a collection of ideas, there is nothing particularly wrong or bad about it.

Other critics point out that while science itself is not a misleading ideology, there are some fields of study within science that are misleading. Two examples discussed here are in the fields of ecology and economics.

A special case of science adopted as ideology is that of ecology, which studies the relationships between living things on Earth. Perceptual psychologist J. J. Gibson believed that human perception of ecological relationships was the basis of self-awareness and cognition itself. Linguist George Lakoff has proposed a cognitive science of mathematics wherein even the most fundamental ideas of arithmetic would be seen as consequences or products of human perception - which is itself necessarily evolved within an ecology.

Deep ecology and the modern ecology movement (and, to a lesser degree, Green parties) appear to have adopted ecological sciences as a positive ideology.

Some accuse ecological economics of likewise turning scientific theory into political economy, although theses in that science can often be tested. The modern practice of green economics fuses both approaches and seems to be part science, part ideology.

This is far from the only theory of economics to be raised to ideology status - some notable economically-based ideologies include mercantilism, social Darwinism, communism, laissez-faire economics, and free trade. There are also current theories of safe trade and fair trade which can be seen as ideologies.

Hmmmm, human perception, did he say? Maths? Yayks! 'Tis disturbing, innit?!?

 

[Jonti]

while science itself is not a misleading ideology, there are (also) ecology and economics

History too, could be seen as problematic.

 

[gorski]

Again, you are a master of avoiding the bits that don't suit your prejudice, m8...

Historicity of ideas is something you need to study a bit... Science is just that: ideas...

 

[Jonti]

I'm not avoiding anything. Looks to me you're avoiding the bits that clash with your 'everything is relative' claims. I'm happy to assert that science itself is not a misleading ideology: that it's nothing like a religion. Which is not to say there is no danger in scientism, of course.

You say ... even the most fundamental ideas of arithmetic would be seen as consequences or products of human perception - which is itself necessarily evolved within an ecology

I say ... The grammatical rules are not arbitrary but designed by selection for an environment that has certain fundamental pre-existing features, including distance and direction - and ... non-contradiction.

 

[gorski]

How many times does one have to tell you before you actually listen and hear??? Not black or white, not "either or" - there are other options!

I do take into account the achievements of Science. See my giving credit to Darwin [which you chose to completely neglect/ignore, as it was "unthinkable" for you that someone can actually do the two at the same time, which attitude of yours is in itself very strange, I must say, as it's "fan like", more akin to a football stadium than the critical arena of thinking!], but also my critical stance to a particular perspective to his methodology and the latter interpretations, emphasising certain elements in his "theory" and completely ignoring other possibilities... For instance...

But you, on the other hand, have serious difficulties understanding and appreciating, not to mention acknowledging, anything outside your BRAND of Science and Methodology! Besides, how can you acknowledge something you do not know about?

Once again, for the umpteenth time: I do NOT say/claim that everything is relative - that is YOU saying it and never listening to other possibilities, as you have been trained in "black or white" type of thinking! It seems that is the only option you care to [or can?] understand or are informed about. But believe me, there are other ones, too - in this interesting and diverse world of ours!!

I say that all our ideas are changeable/prone to revision! Something you need yet to study: the idea of Historicity! Besides, even in Science you have this as an option, too - you just choose to ignore those "moments", as they seem to knock off your ideas of "absolute facts/given-ness" and that seems to disturb you, make you feel uneasy and uprooted, I would say! Imagine, some here do not bow to the demi-gods of science but dare question... Brrrrrrr... How scary is that??? Something in the line of: if you're not uncritically and fan-like cow towing to Science [as if it's Homogeneous and Monolithical], i.e. your understanding of Science, then they must be reactionaries and religious zealots and whatnot terrible...

Well, I have news for you, Jonti: that is not so. If anything, you seem to be the reactionary "force" here [if we discard the Religious and similar fundamentalists], as you seem unable to question anything Science throws at us, in terms of the very type of thinking behind it...

Ergo, get off the Absolutes horsy, ffs... It won't kill ya, you know... Just let go and feel around, you can still be a scientist, even without the crutch. I bet you can be a better scientist without it, actually! With a wee bit more humility, I suppose, things might look a little different, though. Especially if you open yourself up to Philosophy and critical thinking...

One more thing: it is a perfectly legitimate stance in Science, to be a Determinist and a Conservative. Just be honest about it and don’t try to patronise me, sell me your understanding of the world as the only possible one. Because it isn’t! Just tell me “this is what I think on the topic” and then let’s debate it and try to see what’s what, if we can find a common language and take each other into account. Because, Science in itself is diverse and not monolithical! There are various options in it, too! That’s all! Ergo, do not misrepresent yourself or more precisely, don’t try to misrepresent Science as such, please!

Good luck [to all of us, when it comes to really hearing/considering the other!]!!

 

[Jonti]

Once again, for the umpteenth time: I do NOT say/claim that everything is relative

Got it!

Now, repeat after me (through clenched teeth if necessary) ...
Science is a unique system of ideas; it is not -- need not be -- ideologically misleading and its methods can lead us to uncover value-free facts. The very statements "everything is relative" or "no fact is value-free are" (obviously!) self-contradictory.

 

[Jonti]

...
One more thing: it is a perfectly legitimate stance in Science, to be a Determinist and a Conservative. Just be honest about it and don’t try to patronise me, sell me your understanding of the world as the only possible one. Because it isn’t! Just tell me “this is what I think on the topic” and then let’s debate it and try to see what’s what, if we can find a common language and take each other into account. Because, Science in itself is diverse and not monolithical! There are various options in it, too! That’s all! Ergo, do not misrepresent yourself or more precisely, don’t try to misrepresent Science as such, please!

So your feeling about our discussion is conditioned by your belief that I'm a dishonest Determinist and a Conservative? Is that what you are saying? And you say this because I assert ...

Even the most fundamental ideas of arithmetic can be seen as consequences or products of human perception. But remember that perception necessarily has grammatical rules which are not arbitrary. Those rules are instead evolved by selection for an environment that has certain fundamental pre-existing features, including distance and direction - and ... non-contradiction.​

Or in other words, because I believe in a pre-existing external world in which our species evolved.

It's a shame Kant lived such a long time before Darwin's dangerous idea was released on the world!

 

[phildwyer]

It's a shame Kant lived such a long time before Darwin's dangerous idea was released on the world!

Let everyone note Jonti's allusion here to Daniel Dennett's foolish and reactionary book, "Darwin's Dangerous Idea." Dennett is among the most blindly dogmatic sociobiologists, and he argues that all human societies and sciences can be reduced to the principles of natural selection. He also attacks SJ Gould's superb re-reading of Darwin. He is in short an ultra-Darwinist of the conservative, Dawkinsite tendency. So it seems that Jonti has inadvertantly revealed his true colours at long last.

 

[phildwyer]

Or in other words, because I believe in a pre-existing external world in which our species evolved.

I don't think you'll find anyone who doesn't believe in that. But the error of the Darwinists is to equate that world with our experience of it. Kant's unsurpassed achievement was to prove that our experience of the world is *not* the result of evolution, but of categories that are hard-wired into the human brain. So it seems that Jonti has put his foot in it once again.

 

[phildwyer]

So your feeling about our discussion is conditioned by your belief that I'm a dishonest Determinist and a Conservative?

You are very far from being a determinst. But you have certainly shown yourself both dishonest and a conservative, many times, and quite conclusively. Two out of three is enough for me!

 

[gorski]

Got it!

1) Science is a unique system of ideas;

2) it is not -- need not be -- ideologically misleading and

3) its methods can lead us to uncover value-free facts.

4) The very statements "everything is relative" or "no fact is value-free are" (obviously!) self-contradictory.

1) OKI...

2) Uchhhh... You're not there yet, m8...

3) You still do not get it.... At all...

4) Yayks....

 

[gorski]

Here, m8, chew on this for a while, if you can...

Philosophy struggled with the question of "adequate cognition" of the outside world until Hegel, following Kantian turning-point in Subject-Object relation and setting up of Reason as the subject matter of Philosophy [rather than the "outside world"], showed how Mind/Spirit constitutes the world and comprehends it, i.e. how laws of thinking have to be the same as laws of constitution of objects.

The world, thence, is effectively Man's product, which happening in History, therefore, finishes - considering its essential constitutive principles - by Spirit's/Mind's coming back to itself. Absolute Knowledge/Philosophy is now brought to the level of Notion/Science.

Hegel deals with the idea of mediation as a gnoseological question, namely, he thinks that Kant's problem can be solved only if transcendental deduction of categories can be shown as constituting an object of cognition by the comprehending subject, i.e. if we think the object of cognition as a result of subject's self-activity, which, as a result of subject's act [Tathandlung in Fichte's terms], is identical with the subject of cognition, placing the whole process in - the medium foreign to Philosophy, up until then - history, understood as actual happening of mediation between Man and Nature, the medium in which the Absolute subject of cognition externalises itself and comes back to itself. All the spheres of happening of the world are incorporated into the happening of the Absolute. Here History is identified as self-development of the Absolute and as articulation of the categories of philosophical Reason. Therefore, history is both the happening of necessity as well as one of freedom and Reason. Hegel thinks he managed to reconcile the opposition of the whole Philosophy: Being and existing, essence and existence, form and matter, theory and practice etc. etc. His philosophy, hence, is a total philosophy and as such Hegel characterises it as the pinnacle of development of Philosophy.

[Just to show you how little you "know", when it comes to Philosophy, even though you're fancying yourself as quite "competent" in the field... Hopefully you will see just how inadequate your "knowledge" in the area is, and give us a break, maybe read a bit more, with different eyes?!?

Well, I was always an optimist... ]

 

[phildwyer]

Just to show you how little you "know", when it comes to Philosophy, even though you're fancying yourself as quite "competent" in the filed... Hopefully you will see just how inadequate your "knowledge" in the area is, and give us a break, maybe read a bit more, with different eyes?!?

Well, I was always an optimist... ]

Don't give him ideas. He's more fun as a clown.

 

[Jonti]

Well, yeah, this 'how laws of thinking have to be the same as laws of constitution of objects' is what I said above ... you seemed not to notice. Evolution supplies the mechanism, and gives a scientific rather than philosophic rational.

Like I said ...

It's a shame Kant lived such a long time before Darwin's dangerous idea was released on the world!

I'm going to enjoy reading your responses to phildwyer, he praises your efforts here, fwiw!

It suggests that philosophy is more reliable as a source of knowledge than science, and that if we really want to understand evolution, we must read some philosophy. Gorski has been arguing this quite persuasively on another thread, with reference to Kant.

 

[gorski]

Well, yeah, this 'how laws of thinking have to be the same as laws of constitution of objects' is what I said above ... you seemed not to notice. Evolution supplies the mechanism, and gives a scientific rather than philosophic rational.

I'm sorry, where was it said with the meaning I ascribed to it, please? I might have missed it and if that's the case - sorry! But I don't think so. Because your provisos and/or placing a whole different meaning to it would lead me to think that the price paid for your "concession" might be way too high...

As you just posted: "Evolution... gives a scientific rather than philosophical rational." It means you do NOT understand, as these "ideas" ARE philosophical ideas, not scientific. They came out of Philosophy! They are, by definition a completely different stance towards life as a whole and cognition in particular, m8... Sorry but you will have to see the development from Aristotle onwards as Philosophical and how we think/express ourselves has to do with much more than just adaequatio intellectus et rei...

As for you being a Determinist and Conservative: it was not addressed just to you. Some have openly declared themselves as Determinists here, ergo...

Certainly, to go back to the issues, put simply, if we are the makers of our own world, if it isn't "just" given to us, if we can only "know it" insofar as we appropriate it for ourselves by our labour/effort, i.e. if we must purposefully reach into it in order to see and understand/know anything, i.e. we "put ourselves into the Nature" and only like that can we "know it", hence depending on what and how we do it these "ideas" are changeable and must be Historicised, hence no absolutes for Humans - as we can only know it in limited terms, as seen in Kant, for instance, limited by our categories of time and space, by our finite nature etc. etc. In other words, Nature, says Kant, does not give us the laws, we give it to Nature! That's the MEANING of Kantian revolution in S-O relation! Otherwise how can you explain how those "laws" keep changing?

There one can begin to understand my insistence on different aspects of Darwin's revolution and how it can - once again - be re-considered with other elements gaining prominence in the whole thing [those of co-operation and different kinds of complexities altogether arising from such a complex set-up, rather than the simplistic one of competition only...]...

Maybe you can see it now?

 

[Jonti]

to work backwards:

Maybe you can see it now?
no, a person cannot see your point of view it seems, not outside of a Kantian/Hegelian framework; but the question is whether or how that framework fits the real world.

Otherwise how can you explain how those "laws" keep changing?
the answer dreamt up a couple of centuries ago is unlikely to be the final word on the subject! My answer is this:

that there is a real world, existing independently of us (in which our species evolved). Our theories about this real world get refined and changed over time as we learn more, and are able to bring a wider range of observations and phenomena under the one explanatory scheme.​

where was it said with the meaning I ascribed to it, please?
I don't know what meaning you ascribe the sources you cite: I can only go by the closing words of the first paragraph of your post #294 ... and you approvingly quoted ...

Linguist George Lakoff has proposed a cognitive science of mathematics wherein even the most fundamental ideas of arithmetic would be seen as consequences or products of human perception - which is itself necessarily evolved within an ecology.​

I then looked at that little word 'evolved' and noted that ...

perception necessarily has grammatical rules which are not arbitrary. Those rules are instead evolved by selection for an environment that has certain fundamental pre-existing features, including distance and direction - and ... non-contradiction.​

 

[gorski]

no, a person cannot see your point of view it seems, not outside of a Kantian/Hegelian framework; but the question is whether or how that framework fits the real world.

No, that is not the question. Moreover, it's the way you post the question that shows your limitations and prejudices. One can not [and methodologically speaking that is how you set yourself up] be God if one is Human. You can not judge it in those, absolute terms. Kant should have thought you that... You can not know "the real world" [I get a rash when someone pulls that one, as if they KNOW IT ALL and the other side can't have a different view on what's "real" in our world, namely that there is JUST ONE WAY OF SEEING IT, JUST ONE TRUTH FOR ALL!!!], as if you're somehow outside it and not a Human, limited, finite being! That is fundamentally, substantively [forget about the niceties/form and English or any other manners] arrogant and patronising! And it sure as Hell is seriously Conservative!

the answer dreamt up a couple of centuries ago is unlikely to be the final word on the subject!

Unlikely? Ahem... I thought you knew it all, you knew exactly what the real world is like - absolutely... So, don't sell yourself short here, please... Just spit it out! Say it: I don't know the theory properly [or at all?] - but I know it's rubbish and so I won't even bother... But that won't stop me from writing ad nauseam about it in those terms - as if I know it inside out and I will therefore judge it anyway I damn please...

Yeah, well, knock yourself out, m8.

Ageist, are we? I believe we still value Galileo or Kopernicus or..., don't we? That is even older...

How about Tesla? He dreamt up a few things they [scientists] are still having trouble getting to grips with...

Ergo:

1) How can you know if you haven't even studied it properly?

2) How unscientific is such an attitude? Indeed, how arrogant is that? How dishonest, intellectually and professionally speaking, and thence incompetent, is such a presumption, when one doesn't have the necessary knowledge/proper education in the field but presumes s/he does and judges it as if one is omniscient?

3) Are you really that sure there ever will be a "final word" on anything in those, essential, big matters/theories? This presumption really gives the game away, doesn't it? You act and think as if you have seen the future, and in your mind we are becoming Gods, if some of you already aren't ones... Unlike you I do not presume as if I have seen the future, thanx very much...

My answer is this:

that there is a real world, existing independently of us (in which our species evolved). Our theories about this real world get refined and changed over time as we learn more, and are able to bring a wider range of observations and phenomena under the one explanatory scheme.​

We cannot know or even presume that we know that world "as it really is" - we can only know it in Human terms, as Human Beings, limited and finite, in need of co-operation to keep becoming Human and fulfil our needs, and only insofar as we reach into that world and appropriate it for ourselves through our labour/effort, hence we can only get/take out what we put in, as it were...

More than that - it's up to your imagination, I guess, just don't try to judge everything according to it, please... Looks a wee bit... presumptuous and hence one gets a feeling of one as if one is full of oneself... I repeat the need for a wee bit more humility and a few more qualifications to our Scientific presumptions, not just on your part but Science in general [see the "Theory of Everything", for instance]...

I don't know what meaning you ascribe the sources you cite: I can only go by the closing words of the first paragraph of your post #294 ... and you approvingly quoted ...

It was a light-hearted tease, damn... How could you not see it?

Linguist George Lakoff has proposed a cognitive science of mathematics wherein even the most fundamental ideas of arithmetic would be seen as consequences or products of human perception - which is itself necessarily evolved within an ecology.​

I then looked at that little word 'evolved' and noted that ...

perception necessarily has grammatical rules which are not arbitrary. Those rules are instead evolved by selection for an environment that has certain fundamental pre-existing features, including distance and direction - and ... non-contradiction.​

Again, you place an accent [and from there meaning] where I would not and that depends on one's general theory or meta-theory, if you wish, i.e. "philosophy" and, let's be honest about it, there you have a long way to go yet before you are qualified to hold such absolute views.... Sorry but... Someone had to tell you this in clear, no nonsense terms...

 

[Jonti]

You make me laugh

Do you disagree with this, and if so why?

perception necessarily has grammatical rules which are not arbitrary. Those rules are instead evolved by selection for an environment that has certain fundamental pre-existing features, including distance and direction - and ... non-contradiction.