Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Evolutionary strategies/behaviours and culture

Jonti said:
It is hard to be delicate enough about the Watson gaffe.

Watson is now a very old man, and likely not as aware of subtlties and nuances as he used to be. He was little more than a figurehead for his institute -- now he is not even that. This is a sad story of a man in his declining years, no more than that.

:(
Click to expand...

This might indeed be the case that it was an ill thought through comment given a lot of publicity and not too much should be read into it.

However, I think it is at least indicative that there can at times at least be a tendency for some to make wildly sweeping statements based on genetic determinism.
 
urbanrevolt said:
1) Reason is not calcule- sure. Who said it was?
2) I guess you have interesting things to say but can't be bothered actually saying them
3) in the real world there's a way out of the infinite regress you have clearly become entangled in.
4) Anyway if you ever want a real debate instead of insult let me know!
Click to expand...

1) You did, as that is the only thing you keep saying, the only 'argument' you ever put forward: maths and algorithms... You know of nothing else, so anything else in your "argument" is nothing but empty tokenism! The truth is - you can't even be aware that is so... You are so entangled in it all that you can't see beyond it by any means!

2) Nope, you just a) can't be bothered to read even this thread and b) if it doesn't say stuff in the exact way you can perceive it/want it to be - it's no answer [except your answer!]... Sad!

3) Regression? You wouldn't know one if it hit you on the head! Because you're clearly regressing... :D Ain't no such thing as "progressing" towards "us" becoming more "calculable", maths describable, once and for all given by these "naturally" determined large part to us... [Silly!!!]

The "real world"?!? Boy, I love that conservative clobbering tool!:rolleyes: Wait, you're gonna get it now!!! :D Even if "reality" at the moment "supports that claim seriously" - it still is NOT the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, you twat!!! Our very nature transcends this immeasurably, to the point not coverable by any "positive science"!!! But I understand that this sort of thinking is a wee bit much for the likes of "critically minded", kinda "meet me half-way" type of "truth" [not really "notions" but more like "pretty pictures of congenial nature"] sods like you...:rolleyes:

4) Start debating and with your own thoughts, not scared shitless of going against the grain! Some Darwin you'd have been if you were born in his time... You'd be hob-knobbing with the clergy, that much is obvious!!!:rolleyes:
 
urbanrevolt said:
This might indeed be the case that it was an ill thought through comment given a lot of publicity and not too much should be read into it.

However, I think it is at least indicative that there can at times at least be a tendency for some to make wildly sweeping statements based on genetic determinism.
Click to expand...
Hard to argue with that :D

But looked at another way -- it demonstrates that if even the most eminent scientist, albeit well into his dotage, were to make such a howler, that would likely utterly discredit him and destroy his current standing :(

Of course, his past achievements still stand. I sincerely hope future generations will remember him for those, rather than a few senile random comments in his twilight years.
 
Good point, Jonti. Gorski I don't have time to reply now and neither perhaps for some time- I think though you are making way too many assumptions about what I believe and your method of arguing is way too arrogant- however, when I have time you raise some interesting points- albeit I fear flawed- and I should have been more patient perhaps in my responses despite your good immitation of a medieval scholar- argeuments from authority and the rest.
 
gorski said:
I doubt anyone here wants anything of the sort.

What Phil, myself and some others here keep insisting on is a series of lessons we learned from Kant - Fichte - Hegel - Marx - Critical Theory development, namely - amongst other things, that the whole thing depends on the process of thinking behind the phenomena we encounter and try to describe; the type of thinking which orders the phenomena in a specific manner and therefore gives them meaning and places them in a whole, thereby giving them their "factual-ness"... How can one otherwise explain that the same phenomenon can be seen in completely opposite light by two top but theoretically opposed minds?
Click to expand...

I missed this at the time. My point is that the thinking in turn rests on a being-in-the-world. I have no problem with the Kant - Fichte - Hegel - Marx thing (well, maybe you can keep Hegel) As for the latter question I don't understand the relevance. Fermat might not have actually had a proof for his last theorem, but wasn't the theorem either true or false even in Fermat's time? Surely it wasn't in some super-position of states until Andrew Wiles proved it by means totally unavailable three-hundred-odd years earlier.
 
Fruitloop said:
I missed this at the time. My point is that the thinking in turn rests on a being-in-the-world. I have no problem with the Kant - Fichte - Hegel - Marx thing (well, maybe you can keep Hegel) As for the latter question I don't understand the relevance. Fermat might not have actually had a proof for his last theorem, but wasn't the theorem either true or false even in Fermat's time? Surely it wasn't in some super-position of states until Andrew Wiles proved it by means totally unavailable three-hundred-odd years earlier.
Click to expand...
One may also ask how a being in the world is supposed by the idealists to give meaning to phenomena like evolution; how an idealist can suppose that being-in-the-world is prior to the fact and facts of the world.

One's being-in-the-world is the result of evolutionary processes. One cannot then coherently argue that evolutionary processes derive their meaning and "factual-ness" from the very being-in-the-world that they create.
 
Methodologically, dear boy, not temporally...:p:cool:

But... that's higher maths for ya...:rolleyes:

[Bump for budding scientists:D]
 
What Phil, myself and some others here keep insisting on is a series of lessons we learned from Kant - Fichte - Hegel - Marx - Critical Theory development, namely - amongst other things, that the whole thing depends on the process of thinking behind the phenomena we encounter and try to describe; the type of thinking which orders the phenomena in a specific manner and therefore gives them meaning and places them in a whole, thereby giving them their "factual-ness"... How can one otherwise explain that the same phenomenon can be seen in completely opposite light by two top but theoretically opposed minds?
Click to expand...

trans: a view depends on where you stand to see it.A fact depends on the social context it developed in.
 
I'm reminded of the old police recruitment campaign which had a shot of a black dude running toward an old lady, and clearly you're supposed to think he's about to mug her, then the camera switches and LO! he's not trying to mug her, he's carrying a bag she dropped, and the moral of the ad was 'We always look for another perspective' or somesuch stuff.
 
Consider the Hindu parable of the rope; in the half-light of the evening you see a rope that you assume is a snake, jump out of your socks and creep up to it with extreme caution. As you get closer you can see it's not a cobra or whatever, it's just a piece of coiled rope.

So the question is; was there always a rope there that you mistook for a snake, or was there previously a snake that has now turned into a rope?
 
BTW, I never really got what this 'whole' things are supposed to be placed in actually is. What happened to the multiplicity of different language games?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

A
Cultural acquiescence towards nature
2
Replies
45
Views
2K
Artaxerxes
Artaxerxes
D
Is self-destructive behaviour a natural response to the need for a cull of humans?
2 3 4
Replies
103
Views
4K
Jay Park
Jay Park
2
Cultural Appropriation
2
Replies
42
Views
2K
Celyn
C
B
Pleasure in British culture - medieval festivals to raves
2
Replies
32
Views
2K
phillm
phillm
JimW
Colour photos from China in the early days of the Cultural Revolution
Replies
2
Views
712
JimW
JimW
Back
Top Bottom