But don’t you think that without symbolic equations or the concept of categorization itself that highly abstract thinking becomes impossible? How would one even attempt to communicate general relativity or quantum mechanics without, however imperfectly devised or adopted, symbolic language and some conceptual recursion? I think we should judge the effectiveness of language and communication by what it can produce.
Hi. Fuck you, you ignorant twit.
Not really - Darwin talked about an increasing variety of species, not a general tendency to improve, except locally.
Darwin didn’t use the word mutation - but he did talk about random changes.
What Darwin didn’t understand was genetics - and that was a weakness, because he couldn’t figure out why a useful change didn’t get swamped by all the creatures without the change - which is why Darwin stepped back from some aspects of his ideas in later editions of his book (and people who did believe in mystical tendencies to improve thought that Darwin was outmoded). But when genetics was discovered, the mystery was solved - and Darwin turned out to have been right all along about natural selection and descent with modification (after Darwin’s work, everyone understood that evolution happened- even if they didnt believe Darwin’s mechanism).
I have surprising news for you about how science works!
That instead of educating people, playing along with cladking made an apparent creationist feel welcome to spew is the least surprising thing to happen in this thread.
It’s a miracle.
Come on guys, I was giving my humble opinion. Darwin was wrong all the way, read his book not what the AI says, because the AI says is pure crap. Better read the bibl… no, never mind, I better go a watch a movie now… see you…
.
I’ve read the book, long before AI existed. I’ve read the Bible too - it’s rather negative about lying. Get thee behind me.
Then you know that Darwin expected solely “favourable” variations in species thanks to his natural selection, something that scientifically is proved wrong
Do you understand that Darwin is not evolution’s Jesus?
Of course, but the first message in this thread mentions him as being in error, and I second the motion.
Everybody is wrong about something and being wrong really isn’t that big of an issue. What matters is testing and refining ideas. That’s why honesty in academia is so important and dishonesty in academia ought to be jail worthy.
Am I understanding you that you are using “Waggle Dance” as a referral to the language of bees as an analogy to early hominid communication pre-oral language? That “procedural language” you mean something like a means of communication by activity, such as facial expressions and gestures?
“Life is consciousness” is playing liberally with the terms “life” and “consciousness”.
Also, abstract language, symbolic communication, and “thinking and inductive reasoning” have made humans one of the most successful in spreading population and obtaining resources on the planet (maybe outdone by monocellular life?)
If the thread is “bogged down in examples”, it’s because he made it so. He didn’t clearly communicate that he was making an example and what his larger message was. I suppose I can see from your comments the point about his meaning a larger issue than evolution and species. Except every bit of argument he uses to create his example it’s flawed, and that makes it difficult to extend the argument to a larger conceptual point. The wrongness of his example defeats his communication of a point.
Look, I have long argued that analogies are worthless in a debate because it is to easy to focus on the ways the analogy doesn’t fit the situation, so the opponent can shred the analogy rather than try to understand to intent. So that is very much in agreement with his points about things not being identical.
But analogies are useful for demonstrating concepts when the audience is a receptive audience trying to learn.
His “procedural language” is something that doesn’t make sense. What does that even mean for higher level concepts like “consciousness”, “language”, “species”, “reality”, etc?
How does a shrug and a wink and a twerk communicate anything about how “species” is just a label and a loose one at that?
That’s a poor form of “binary”. Either it will or it won’t. There is nothing of any value communicated by that statement, unless it’s an expression of sympathy.
You have a strong assertion about Darwin’s beliefs yet are exceedingly wrong.
Darwin didn’t believe some individuals were more worthy of life. What he writes about is how individuals have differences that allow them better or worse chances. Being yellow is great when the tree fungus you live in is yellow. When that fungus gets coated in soot, being yellow makes you stand out and being dark gray goes from being highly visible to being able to hide better. That’s how gene frequency adjusts based upon changes to the environment.
Suddenly more gray moths survive and more yellow are eaten by predators.
That’s what is meant by fitness - matches their ecological niche better.
And behavior is a part of differences that can give advantage.
It is so bad that each branch of science uses its own set of experiments. Just as everything in existence affects everything else in existence now and eternally so too every experiment ever performed applies across every domain.
We have inherited false assumption embedded in symbolic language and can’t see it because we separate reality into “manageable bits”.
Exactly. And of course being Christian was more fit than being Muslim.
Not only human beings were a product of their characteristics at birth but so too was every organism that ever arose! Nature doesn’t about who you are or the great chain of being, it cares about what you do. Yellow moths needed to move to the savannah.
Living things exhibit behavior. Perhaps a new category is needed for viruses but we can cross that bridge when we come to it. Right now we just need a frame to study reality.
Both above are right, inherited flaws are the ones dominating several modern theories. And reality can’t be proved thru computer simulations but solely by our senses. Even when we are not capable to sense and perceive everything, what we can sense ourselves and with instruments is what fits with reality.
The common flaw is that species change according to the environment, with the assumption that species have the power to do so. Reality is that environment is what causes changes in species. The entire theory of evolution is a flaw, wrong target, wrong path, completely delusional. This is my humble opinion, my professional opinion is quite more severe.