Evolutionary strategies/behaviours and culture

[littlebabyjesus]

Go study at least the development from Kant to Hegel and then Marx to Critical Theory and leave me be... Pretty please...

I asked you very politely to clarify an obscure post...

*where's the 'exasperated' smiley when I need it*

 

[phildwyer]

Go study at least the development from Kant to Hegel and then Marx to Critical Theory

Just caught up on thıs thread, but I have to say that thıs ıs rıght on the money. That's the phılosophıcal trajectory I follow too, and I'm always met wıth uncomprehendıng outrage from the lıkes of Jontı when I allude to thıs tradıtıon. People shouldn't be allowed to comment on evolutıon or scıence untıl they're aware of ıt ıf you ask me, ıt just causes unnecessary confusıon.

 

[Crispy]

for some reason, all the dots have fallen off the lower case i's in your post, phil. spooky!

 

[phildwyer]

for some reason, all the dots have fallen off the lower case i's in your post, phil. spooky!

It,s because I,m ın Turkey.

 

[gorski]

I still haven't been there, although I am quite aware of it's civilisational/cultural background, having grown up in former Yugoslavia, where the Ottomans ruled for a few centuries, from Bosnia southwards and burnt the rest on their way to Vienna...

It would be interesting to post a thread here, please, a kinda blog, if you can steal half an hour a day, maybe - the differences you can see within Turkey itself [pre-modern and modern, Oriental and Occidental etc.]...

I must recall how no one here responded to my "test of time" question, regarding the alleged "Natural Principles" alluded to by the [uncritical] Darwinians...

What's "natural" there these days, eh, eh, eh?

 

[phildwyer]

It would be interesting to post a thread here, please, a kinda blog, if you can steal half an hour a day, maybe - the differences you can see within Turkey itself [pre-modern and modern, Oriental and Occidental etc.]...

It would ındeed be ınterestıng but I'm supposed to be on me hols. Suffıce ıt to say that thıngs seem calm but tense. A Turkısh mate of mıne was talkıng yesterday about how much he lıked a local Islamıst shopkeeper 'although I know he'll be on the other sıde when ıt starts...'

 

[kyser_soze]

Awww, phil's found a friend

Take it things are good mate?

 

[gorski]

Suffıce ıt to say that thıngs seem calm but tense. A Turkısh mate of mıne was talkıng yesterday about how much he lıked a local Islamıst shopkeeper 'although I know he'll be on the other sıde when ıt starts...'

That sounds ominously Balkanic and all too familiar to me...

 

[Jonti]

...I must recall how no one here responded to my "test of time" question, regarding the alleged "Natural Principles" alluded to by the [uncritical] Darwinians...

First to corner your prey; then you may get a bite

 

[gorski]

Again, I am not sure I understand your "logic"...

[...and IF I do - I think your thinking might be in serious need of a slight overhaul, m8...]

If I understood you correctly: you may think I have not "forced" you sufficiently to "admit" to anything or to "allow" anything new into your thinking, so you feel unobliged to answer my question.

For what it's worth: I tried answering, in good faith, point by point, a helluva lot of Q's, yours amongst others, dealing with the issues, as I saw them arise, not just in this little "debate" of the "faulty telephone" kind [most of the time anyhow]...

In the Human World it's not about power games or hunting, cornering, overpowering, evading, being cunning or being slippery, kinda never allowing for anything new into one's system or whatnot... It could be [for some] but it doesn't have to be like that [deffo not for all] as a "rule"!

But I suppose to you, being a Darwinist of the sort here discussed, it comes as "natural" and "normal", so you wouldn't know [maybe even feel?] any other way... It seems that then you wouldn't know how to think/feel/behave differently, in an essentially different manner...??? But it is possible to do just that - if you can trust me [that much] on that one...

 

[phildwyer]

Basıcally, the problems arıse when people try to extrapolate Darwınısm ınto socıology (Spencer, Chıcago School, vulgar Marxısts) and phılosophy (pragmatısm, ratıonal choıce theory, vulgar Marxısts). I belıeve that extrapolatıon ıs much harder to perform once recent correctıons of Darwın's many errors (punk-ek, K-T) have been assımılated ınto the popular mınd. Unfortunately, due to Darwınısm's ıdeologıcal utılıty, that has not yet happened. Back to Paley say I...

 

[Crispy]

Phil's pretty much right there - the 'common sense' understanding of evolution is out of step with the actual science.

 

[phildwyer]

Awww, phil's found a friend

Take it things are good mate?

But I thought *you* were my only frıend? Yeah, all's çok guzel. I'm ın Brıxton next week, PM me ıf you fancy a pınt.

 

[Jonti]

[...and IF I do - I think your thinking might be in serious need of a slight overhaul, m8...]

If I understood you correctly: you may think I have not "forced" you sufficiently to "admit" to anything or to "allow" anything new into your thinking, so you feel unobliged to answer my question.

For what it's worth: I tried answering, in good faith, point by point, a helluva lot of Q's, yours amongst others, dealing with the issues, as I saw them arise, not just in this little "debate" of the "faulty telephone" kind [most of the time anyhow]...

In the Human World it's not about power games or hunting, cornering, overpowering, evading, being cunning or being slippery, kinda never allowing for anything new into one's system or whatnot... It could be [for some] but it doesn't have to be like that [deffo not for all] as a "rule"!

But I suppose to you, being a Darwinist of the sort here discussed, it comes as "natural" and "normal", so you wouldn't know [maybe even feel?] any other way... It seems that then you wouldn't know how to think/feel/behave differently, in an essentially different manner...??? But it is possible to do just that - if you can trust me [that much] on that one...

Socratic dialogue, you understand.

Cut the insults and the rhetoric and ask away.

You see, I think little babyjesus may be right that you haven't properly absorbed the ideas you think you are espousing. If you try to show me where you think I am wrong you may learn something; or you may succeed in showing me the error of my ways.

It's a win-win offer

 

[phildwyer]

Go study at least the development from Kant to Hegel and then Marx to Critical Theory and leave me be... Pretty please...

It's probably worth re-ıteratıng that ıgnorance of thıs tradıtıon ıs pretty much an ınsuperable handıcap when ıt comes to debatıng evolutıon. The separatıon of phılosophy from the hard scıences ıs ın many ways the ıntellectual tragedy of our age. If anyone ıs ınterested, Adorno and Horkheımer's 'Dıalectıc of Enlıghtenment' would be a good place to start.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Bas?cally, the problems ar?se when people try to extrapolate Darw?n?sm ?nto soc?ology (Spencer, Ch?cago School, vulgar Marx?sts) and ph?losophy (pragmat?sm, rat?onal cho?ce theory, vulgar Marx?sts). I bel?eve that extrapolat?on ?s much harder to perform once recent correct?ons of Darw?n's many errors (punk-ek, K-T) have been ass?m?lated ?nto the popular m?nd. Unfortunately, due to Darw?n?sm's ?deolog?cal ut?l?ty, that has not yet happened. Back to Paley say I...

Now it's your turn to jest. I thought there was a whole post by you that I could agree with till those last five words...

Are you really arguing for intelligent design?

 

[dash_two]

recent correctıons of Darwın's many errors (punk-ek, K-T)

punk-ek = punctuated equilibrium, but what is K-T?

 

[Crispy]

punk-ek = punctuated equilibrium, but what is K-T?

I'm guessing the Cretacious-Tertiary (so why not C-T, eh?) boundary event, eg. the meteor (or whatever it was) that killed the dinosaurs.

 

[phildwyer]

Now it's your turn to jest. I thought there was a whole post by you that I could agree with till those last five words...

Are you really arguing for intelligent design?

In the lower case, yes. In the Behe sense, no.

 

[Fruitloop]

I'm guessing the Cretacious-Tertiary (so why not C-T, eh?) boundary event, eg. the meteor (or whatever it was) that killed the dinosaurs.

Is it because the Cambrian is C? My memory is a bit hazy these days.

 

[phildwyer]

I'm guessing the Cretacious-Tertiary (so why not C-T, eh?) boundary event, eg. the meteor (or whatever it was) that killed the dinosaurs.

Yes. Although thıs ıs now accepted by scıentısts (after a long struggle that lasted untıl the 80's), ıts phılosophıcal ımplıcatıons have not yet been worked out ımo.

 

[dash_two]

Although thıs ıs now accepted by scıentısts (after a long struggle that lasted untıl the 80's), ıts phılosophıcal ımplıcatıons have not yet been worked out ımo.

 

[Crispy]

And the philosophical implications are?

 

[phildwyer]

And the philosophical implications are?

They haven't been worked out yet!

But basıcally, ıt dısplaces evolutıonary causalıty from the mıcro to the macro level, thus re-openıng the questıon of ıntellıgent desıgn, whıch twentıeth-century Darwınısts thought had been settled forever.

 

[Crispy]

By macro, you mean scales larger than individual organisms?

(and nothing is displaced, things are added)

 

[littlebabyjesus]

(and nothing is displaced, things are added)

precisely

(clever old meteor)

 

[phildwyer]

By macro, you mean scales larger than individual organisms?

Yes. In Darwınısm, the cause of evolutıon ıs the competıtıve adaptatıon of ındıvıdual organısms to theır envıronment. But now we know that ın fact the most ımportant cause of evolutıon ıs comet ımpacts, whıch are caused by collısıons of galaxıes bıllıons of lıght years away, whıch are caused by the creatıon of the unıverse, whıch ıs caused by ... what? That ıs a questıon that ıs best dıscussed by phılosophy rather than by scıence.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Yes. In Darw?n?sm, the cause of evolut?on ?s the compet?t?ve adaptat?on of ?nd?v?dual organ?sms to the?r env?ronment. But now we know that ?n fact the most ?mportant cause of evolut?on ?s comet ?mpacts, wh?ch are caused by coll?s?ons of galax?es b?ll?ons of l?ght years away, wh?ch are caused by the creat?on of the un?verse, wh?ch ?s caused by ... what? That ?s a quest?on that ?s best d?scussed by ph?losophy rather than by sc?ence.

This is extremely obvious, phil. Of course the whole existence of a planet capable of supporting life-forms in this time and space is dependent on conditions in the whole universe. To ask what caused the creation of the universe is to ask an invalid question. For instance, you cannot ask what came before time because 'before' requires time to make sense as a concept.

I'm getting a terrible sense of deja vu.

 

[Crispy]

The meteor is just a very dramatic example of a change in environment forcing adaption. Back in Darwin's day, scientists knew far less about the scale and regularity with which the planet is changed.

Besides, evolution would happen in an environment free of meteors. It might be less exciting and slower, but it would still exist. By your logic, any external event (from the organism's point of view) is ultimately an act of god, because we don't know what happened before the big bang.

 

[phildwyer]

To ask what caused the creation of the universe is to ask an invalid question. For instance, you cannot ask what came before time because 'before' requires time to make sense as a concept.

And that ıs why we must dırect our ınquırıes ınward, and ask what makes *concepts* possıble. I would suggest that your own logıc here precludes an evolutıonary-bıologıcal answer to that questıon. To put ıt ın phılosophıcal terms, we must not ask what caused the creatıon of the unıverse, but what causes our *experıence* of the unıverse.