Is the Darwinistic Selection Principle False?

For discussing anything related to physics, biology, chemistry, mathematics, and their practical applications.

Moderator: Flannel Jesus

Is the Darwinistic selection principle false?

Yes.
6
26%
Probably.
3
13%
Perhaps.
0
No votes
No.
13
57%
I do not know.
1
4%
 
Total votes : 23

Re: Is the Darwinistic Selection Principle False?

Postby phoneutria » Wed Apr 20, 2016 1:03 am

JSS wrote:Darwinism presumes that there is an objective "fitness".


How so?

Edit: godamn quote tags.
Last edited by phoneutria on Wed Apr 20, 2016 1:20 am, edited 2 times in total.
phoneutria
purveyor of enchantment, advocate of pulchritude AND venomously disarming
 
Posts: 2732
Joined: Fri May 23, 2014 5:37 am

Re: Is the Darwinistic Selection Principle False?

Postby Ecmandu » Wed Apr 20, 2016 1:12 am

phoneutria wrote:[Quote=JSS]
Darwinism presumes that there is an objective "fitness".


How so?[/quote]

This is funny... "Whatever survives" which you can never count!!! The objection to you Phoneutria was valid !!
Ecmandu
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 6823
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2014 1:22 am

Re: Is the Darwinistic Selection Principle False?

Postby phoneutria » Wed Apr 20, 2016 1:21 am

What is the objective fitness?
phoneutria
purveyor of enchantment, advocate of pulchritude AND venomously disarming
 
Posts: 2732
Joined: Fri May 23, 2014 5:37 am

Re: Is the Darwinistic Selection Principle False?

Postby Arminius » Wed Apr 20, 2016 1:27 am

A choice of words.

peitho wrote:A metaphor, before I look for the nearest door

existence a river
Life emerging in the flow
fighting the current

Self-preservation is an indication of standing your ground
constant effort
If strength is enough
excess energies can be directed up-stream, or across stream, or to reproduce
a new life for the storm

Need is the sensation of this endless flow
fitness determines how much energy will overflow

The fittest reproduces or reaches the highest point up-stream
a dream
The weakest are washed away
slowly the energies subside
and not enough are present to resist the flow
Natural selection

In this time
weakness is protected
,
helped along
Giving the impression of fitness
Multiplying weakness


How long before the entire structure is washed away?

a herd protected from culling, eats all the vegetation
leading to its own demise
Mutations left unchecked
illness spreads
The herd suffers a slow death

cycles repeat
in existential heat
Will machines suffice
to resist the tide?

:wink:
Image
User avatar
Arminius
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5687
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 10:51 pm
Location: Saltus Teutoburgiensis

Re: Is the Darwinistic Selection Principle False?

Postby Arminius » Wed Apr 20, 2016 2:34 am

James S Saint wrote:
phoneutria wrote:I'd like to know how learning who is the fittest after the fact invalidates the principle.

It isn't an issue of "learning". It is an issue of declaring.

To be "fit" means to compatible with the environment of that moment - to "fit in"/"mate well"/"harmonize sufficiently". It doesn't mean stronger or better in any way at all. To fit merely means to be suited for that situation at that time.

If the dinosaurs really died out due to a meteor strike, is it because they were inferior? Or was it because the environment instantly became incompatible with them? Such a thing can happen to any species. No matter what species develops, by no matter what means, the environment, its situation, can change or be changed such as to destroy that species in favor of another.

When it comes to the issue of having to be compatible with the environment of the moment, every species is equal and Darwinism is irrelevant.

And homo sapiens is the only species that is relatively free of having to be compatible with the environment and can even destroy it. The environment of the very modern homo sapiens is the whole world.

Arminius wrote:Humans are capable of destroying their environment on purpose, thus willfully, consciously, but other living beings are not capable of doing that in the same way.

The "stage" of evolution consists of the evolutionary "actors" (here: living beings) and the evolutionary "scenery" (environment). My thesis is that the "actor" homo sapiens has been destroying his "scenery" for meanwhile about 10000 years. Since then (the "Neolithic Revolution") the humans have been affording the luxury of the partial dissociation of environment, and that means partial independence of adaptation because of culture (thus: intelligence; biologically said: brain).

By the word "dissociation" I mean the "avoidance of adaptation".
Image
User avatar
Arminius
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5687
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 10:51 pm
Location: Saltus Teutoburgiensis

Re: Is the Darwinistic Selection Principle False?

Postby phoneutria » Wed Apr 20, 2016 4:39 am

Arminius wrote:And homo sapiens is the only species that is relatively free of having to be compatible with the environment and can even destroy it. The environment of the very modern homo sapiens is the whole world.


Arminius wrote:Humans are capable of destroying their environment on purpose, thus willfully, consciously, but other living beings are not capable of doing that in the same way.

The "stage" of evolution consists of the evolutionary "actors" (here: living beings) and the evolutionary "scenery" (environment). My thesis is that the "actor" homo sapiens has been destroying his "scenery" for meanwhile about 10000 years. Since then (the "Neolithic Revolution") the humans have been affording the luxury of the partial dissociation of environment, and that means partial independence of adaptation because of culture (thus: intelligence; biologically said: brain).

By the word "dissociation" I mean the "avoidance of adaptation".


Beavers tear down trees, change courses of rivers, and flood entire forest areas just to make themselves a cozy pool in which to swim so they won't have to walk instead. Unlike many mammals closely related to them, they have eliminated the need to hibernate, spending the winter months eating food that they stored up and grooming/socializing inside their dens.

How do humans or beavers falsify the principle of selection?
phoneutria
purveyor of enchantment, advocate of pulchritude AND venomously disarming
 
Posts: 2732
Joined: Fri May 23, 2014 5:37 am

Re: Is the Darwinistic Selection Principle False?

Postby Arminius » Wed Apr 20, 2016 5:09 am

phoneutria wrote:
Arminius wrote:And homo sapiens is the only species that is relatively free of having to be compatible with the environment and can even destroy it. The environment of the very modern homo sapiens is the whole world.


Arminius wrote:Humans are capable of destroying their environment on purpose, thus willfully, consciously, but other living beings are not capable of doing that in the same way.

The "stage" of evolution consists of the evolutionary "actors" (here: living beings) and the evolutionary "scenery" (environment). My thesis is that the "actor" homo sapiens has been destroying his "scenery" for meanwhile about 10000 years. Since then (the "Neolithic Revolution") the humans have been affording the luxury of the partial dissociation of environment, and that means partial independence of adaptation because of culture (thus: intelligence; biologically said: brain).

By the word "dissociation" I mean the "avoidance of adaptation".


Beavers tear down trees, change courses of rivers, and flood entire forest areas just to make themselves a cozy pool in which to swim so they won't have to walk instead. Unlike many mammals closely related to them, they have eliminated the need to hibernate, spending the winter months eating food that they stored up and grooming/socializing inside their dens.

Beavers do not willfully destroy their environment.

Again:

Arminius wrote:Humans are capable of destroying their environment on purpose, thus willfully, consciously, but other living beings are not capable of doing that in the same way.


phoneutria wrote:How do humans or beavers falsify the principle of selection?

Beavers do not falsify the Darwinistic principle of selection.
Image
User avatar
Arminius
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5687
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 10:51 pm
Location: Saltus Teutoburgiensis

Re: Is the Darwinistic Selection Principle False?

Postby phoneutria » Wed Apr 20, 2016 5:36 am

Unfortunately I cannot get into the psyche of a beaver in order to determine whether it does anything willfully. However, the case is hardly made for human behavior to be unlike that of beavers. Both transform the environment to suit their desires first and foremost, and in a way that is careless for the consequences.
phoneutria
purveyor of enchantment, advocate of pulchritude AND venomously disarming
 
Posts: 2732
Joined: Fri May 23, 2014 5:37 am

Re: Is the Darwinistic Selection Principle False?

Postby Moreno » Wed Apr 20, 2016 9:13 am

double
Last edited by Moreno on Wed Apr 20, 2016 9:14 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Moreno
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 10305
Joined: Sat Nov 24, 2007 5:46 pm

Re: Is the Darwinistic Selection Principle False?

Postby Moreno » Wed Apr 20, 2016 9:13 am

phoneutria wrote:Unfortunately I cannot get into the psyche of a beaver in order to determine whether it does anything willfully. However, the case is hardly made for human behavior to be unlike that of beavers. Both transform the environment to suit their desires first and foremost, and in a way that is careless for the consequences.

There is no beaver equivalent to setting off a bunch of explosives because it is fun to watch or because they are pissed off at their dads. Beavers are very destructive to local ecosystems, though nicely within the u of cycles that ecosystems can handle. I do understand why you focused on them, though. With us doing our stuff, when beavers do their thing, it does further simplify ecosystems. They are like little punk brothers to the adult gang. Though extremely little. Like 4 year olds.

But as you say transform the environment to suit their desires, yes. But their desires are about food and shelter. When they play, it is not destructive. Their goal is not destruction. And they won't go damn a stream to ca up the fish they hate in that stream. They will do it for food. So the stream they are in is enough, until they have to move for food reasons.

We are a species, even when we are intentionally being destructive, that would risk an entire planet because the company we are in wants to get all the farmers in the third world to have to pay for their seeds. Sure, some of the people tell themselves they are saving sthe worlds' poor, but that is not what is happening.

We'll put nanoproducts on the market - we can haggle over the chances - that will each have some probability of, say, killing this bird species or that type of plant.

Beavers do not know the potential wider effects of their acts and cannot eliminate categories. We know the wider effects and do eliminate categories and we will risk permanently eliminating categories to make it easier for us to masturbate without standing up or have a better shoehorn.

And then, from where I started, we will destroy because some of us love to destroy, not because it will provide food for our children, though we do that also, even when they suffer from obesity already.
User avatar
Moreno
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 10305
Joined: Sat Nov 24, 2007 5:46 pm

Re: Is the Darwinistic Selection Principle False?

Postby Arminius » Wed Apr 20, 2016 3:15 pm

phoneutria wrote:Unfortunately I cannot get into the psyche of a beaver in order to determine whether it does anything willfully. However, the case is hardly made for human behavior to be unlike that of beavers. Both transform the environment to suit their desires first and foremost, and in a way that is careless for the consequences.

If a beaver really destroyed its environment like humans do, then it had to have the same intelligence, it had to know what "destroying of the environment" means, it had to be as cynical as humans are.

Beavers are not capable of destroying their environment on purpose, thus willfully, consciously. They know absolutely nothing about destroyimg of the environment, nothing about ecological destruction ... and so on.
Image
User avatar
Arminius
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5687
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 10:51 pm
Location: Saltus Teutoburgiensis

Re: Is the Darwinistic Selection Principle False?

Postby phoneutria » Wed Apr 20, 2016 7:00 pm

Moreno wrote:
phoneutria wrote:Unfortunately I cannot get into the psyche of a beaver in order to determine whether it does anything willfully. However, the case is hardly made for human behavior to be unlike that of beavers. Both transform the environment to suit their desires first and foremost, and in a way that is careless for the consequences.

There is no beaver equivalent to setting off a bunch of explosives because it is fun to watch or because they are pissed off at their dads. Beavers are very destructive to local ecosystems, though nicely within the u of cycles that ecosystems can handle. I do understand why you focused on them, though. With us doing our stuff, when beavers do their thing, it does further simplify ecosystems. They are like little punk brothers to the adult gang. Though extremely little. Like 4 year olds.

But as you say transform the environment to suit their desires, yes. But their desires are about food and shelter. When they play, it is not destructive. Their goal is not destruction. And they won't go damn a stream to ca up the fish they hate in that stream. They will do it for food. So the stream they are in is enough, until they have to move for food reasons.

We are a species, even when we are intentionally being destructive, that would risk an entire planet because the company we are in wants to get all the farmers in the third world to have to pay for their seeds. Sure, some of the people tell themselves they are saving sthe worlds' poor, but that is not what is happening.

We'll put nanoproducts on the market - we can haggle over the chances - that will each have some probability of, say, killing this bird species or that type of plant.

Beavers do not know the potential wider effects of their acts and cannot eliminate categories. We know the wider effects and do eliminate categories and we will risk permanently eliminating categories to make it easier for us to masturbate without standing up or have a better shoehorn.

And then, from where I started, we will destroy because some of us love to destroy, not because it will provide food for our children, though we do that also, even when they suffer from obesity already.


Most of human deatructive behavior is not due to a desire to destroy, but due to a lack of care for the consequences while obtaining something we desire.
That is not to say that we don't destroy things for pure amusement at the destruction, but my opinion is that that's a lot more rare than the former.

I've seen such things as elephants knocking down a tree in the process of scratching an itch, and rhinos stomping and stabbing at small animals that pose no threat to them and they have no interest in eating, simply because it upset them.

What I am trying to get at is that, taking into considerations the differences in territoriality and other behaviours between rodents and apes and pachiderms(sp?), I wouldn't think that there is anything beyond natural in human behavior, and that between beavers and rhinos and humans, the difference is a matter of degrees.


Arminius, see the above.
phoneutria
purveyor of enchantment, advocate of pulchritude AND venomously disarming
 
Posts: 2732
Joined: Fri May 23, 2014 5:37 am

Re: Is the Darwinistic Selection Principle False?

Postby phoneutria » Wed Apr 20, 2016 7:03 pm

In adition, Arminius, you seem to be making the case that the artificial environments we have created are buffering us from natural selective pressure. How does that falsify the selection principle?
phoneutria
purveyor of enchantment, advocate of pulchritude AND venomously disarming
 
Posts: 2732
Joined: Fri May 23, 2014 5:37 am

Re: Is the Darwinistic Selection Principle False?

Postby Ecmandu » Wed Apr 20, 2016 9:44 pm

Hold on now!!

What's wrong with the beaver??!!

It's dams create entire thriving ecosystems in the form of flooded estuaries!!
Ecmandu
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 6823
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2014 1:22 am

Re: Is the Darwinistic Selection Principle False?

Postby Artimas » Wed Apr 20, 2016 10:47 pm

phoneutria wrote:In adition, Arminius, you seem to be making the case that the artificial environments we have created are buffering us from natural selective pressure. How does that falsify the selection principle?


It's true. There are so many things today that us humans have created that prevent natural selection, which means the less evolved breed to out number the more evolved of which the human species will suffer HUGE consequences for.

If what I said is what you are arguing Arminius, then we think alike, judging from what I have seen so far.

A "god" who deserves worship will be humble enough to reject it; A "god" who demands worship will not be worthy of it.

All smoke fades, as do all delicate mirrors shatter.

"My ancestors are smiling on me, Imperials. Can you say the same?"

"Science Fiction today ~ Science Fact tomorrow"

Change is inevitable, it can only be delayed or sped up. Choose wisely.

Truth is pain, and pain is gain.


Image Image
User avatar
Artimas
Emancipator of ignorance and also Chameleon upon the stars
 
Posts: 3198
Joined: Fri Oct 03, 2014 12:47 pm
Location: Earth, Milky Way

Re: Is the Darwinistic Selection Principle False?

Postby phoneutria » Wed Apr 20, 2016 10:59 pm

Fine, ignore the question.
phoneutria
purveyor of enchantment, advocate of pulchritude AND venomously disarming
 
Posts: 2732
Joined: Fri May 23, 2014 5:37 am

Re: Is the Darwinistic Selection Principle False?

Postby Artimas » Wed Apr 20, 2016 11:02 pm

I voted no by the way. Just because it does not happen much anymore due to human interference/creating does not mean it does not happen or is not capable of happening.

We're talking about natural selection right? The stronger surviving while the weaker falling?

A "god" who deserves worship will be humble enough to reject it; A "god" who demands worship will not be worthy of it.

All smoke fades, as do all delicate mirrors shatter.

"My ancestors are smiling on me, Imperials. Can you say the same?"

"Science Fiction today ~ Science Fact tomorrow"

Change is inevitable, it can only be delayed or sped up. Choose wisely.

Truth is pain, and pain is gain.


Image Image
User avatar
Artimas
Emancipator of ignorance and also Chameleon upon the stars
 
Posts: 3198
Joined: Fri Oct 03, 2014 12:47 pm
Location: Earth, Milky Way

Re: Is the Darwinistic Selection Principle False?

Postby Artimas » Wed Apr 20, 2016 11:04 pm

phoneutria wrote:Fine, ignore the question.

Personally, I dont think it falsifies it, it is still capable of happening.. It is just a matter of timing, one day it will hit hard, well at at least I think so.

Unless you're asking something else?

A "god" who deserves worship will be humble enough to reject it; A "god" who demands worship will not be worthy of it.

All smoke fades, as do all delicate mirrors shatter.

"My ancestors are smiling on me, Imperials. Can you say the same?"

"Science Fiction today ~ Science Fact tomorrow"

Change is inevitable, it can only be delayed or sped up. Choose wisely.

Truth is pain, and pain is gain.


Image Image
User avatar
Artimas
Emancipator of ignorance and also Chameleon upon the stars
 
Posts: 3198
Joined: Fri Oct 03, 2014 12:47 pm
Location: Earth, Milky Way

Re: Is the Darwinistic Selection Principle False?

Postby phoneutria » Wed Apr 20, 2016 11:09 pm

The thread title. I am waiting for the case to be made.
phoneutria
purveyor of enchantment, advocate of pulchritude AND venomously disarming
 
Posts: 2732
Joined: Fri May 23, 2014 5:37 am

Re: Is the Darwinistic Selection Principle False?

Postby peitho » Thu Apr 21, 2016 8:35 am

Regression, domestication, is not part of evolution?
Dysgenics is not part of eugenics?
Has man stopped evolving because he now determines the standards to measure fitness?
Have you heard of memetic selection?

What happens to millions of years of nurturing, we call nature, does it disappear because in manmade environments we set up rules prohibiting their full expression, or their acknowledgment, or even their recognition?
Training/educating generations to be blind to appearances does not make the apparent go away.
Can we train/educate a chimpanzee to be human, by forcing it to imitate certain behaviors?
Is there no cost to protecting the weak the stupid and the ill from culling?
Is man exempt from world because he can fabricate artificial environments and use words to manipulate abstractions, to the degree that his words no longer refer to anything perceptible, anything experienced?
peitho
 
Posts: 438
Joined: Sat Oct 11, 2014 3:22 pm

Re: Is the Darwinistic Selection Principle False?

Postby James S Saint » Thu Apr 21, 2016 10:11 am

You are deciding what is most fit by seeing what survives. But Darwin proposed that what survives will be what was most fit. It is a circular definition.

Real people do not define it that way. They propose an idea concerning fitness involving strength, agility, intelligence,... various other applicable talents. The question then becomes one of whether those "already declared to be fit" are really the ones that will survive. That makes it a legitimate question. And the answer to that question is "not always". And that answer reduces the Darwinian principle down to a "tendency", not the prevailing "always true" law.
Clarify, Verify, Instill, and Reinforce the Perception of Hopes and Threats unto Anentropic Harmony :)
Else
From THIS age of sleep, Homo-sapien shall never awake.

The Wise gather together to help one another in EVERY aspect of living.

You are always more insecure than you think, just not by what you think.
The only absolute certainty is formed by the absolute lack of alternatives.
It is not merely "do what works", but "to accomplish what purpose in what time frame at what cost".
As long as the authority is secretive, the population will be subjugated.

Amid the lack of certainty, put faith in the wiser to believe.
Devil's Motto: Make it look good, safe, innocent, and wise.. until it is too late to choose otherwise.

The Real God ≡ The reason/cause for the Universe being what it is = "The situation cannot be what it is and also remain as it is".
.
James S Saint
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 25774
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:05 pm

Re: Is the Darwinistic Selection Principle False?

Postby phoneutria » Thu Apr 21, 2016 6:28 pm

James S Saint wrote:You are deciding what is most fit by seeing what survives. But Darwin proposed that what survives will be what was most fit. It is a circular definition.


This is not circular logic. That is just saying the same thing two ways. Circular logic would be to define what is fit by using survival, and then defining survival by using fit. The definition of survival is that which does not become extinct, and it is not dependent on the meaning of fit.

Real people do not define it that way. They propose an idea concerning fitness involving strength, agility, intelligence,... various other applicable talents. The question then becomes one of whether those "already declared to be fit" are really the ones that will survive. That makes it a legitimate question. And the answer to that question is "not always". And that answer reduces the Darwinian principle down to a "tendency", not the prevailing "always true" law.


If you want to make a definition of fitness, as one used by "real people", and then refute it, knock yourself out papito.
But then, that's not the Darwinian principle, is it?
phoneutria
purveyor of enchantment, advocate of pulchritude AND venomously disarming
 
Posts: 2732
Joined: Fri May 23, 2014 5:37 am

Re: Is the Darwinistic Selection Principle False?

Postby Moreno » Thu Apr 21, 2016 9:35 pm

phoneutria wrote:
Most of human deatructive behavior is not due to a desire to destroy, but due to a lack of care for the consequences while obtaining something we desire.
The moment you say 'most' it is a concession. That needs to be noted. Then from there, how much of the hate in humans infuses actions that seem to be about other things, but include or are even primarily an urge to destroy? I think it is a lot more than people like to admit. This can be anything from sthe desire to enter war or conflict not simply to gain resources, but because the urge to destroy want to rationalize an outlet...to thinks that destruction is a part of conspicuous consumption - I can throw out so I am cool, powerful, rich, better than you - to destruction for spite. If I cannot have it or cannot be the only one who has it, no one has it. In many ways we destroy for destructions sake or for what we decide destruction symbolizes. And animals other than us do not do this.

I
've seen such things as elephants knocking down a tree in the process of scratching an itch, and rhinos stomping and stabbing at small animals that pose no threat to them and they have no interest in eating, simply because it upset them.
And warding off, pushing back, even killing when it seems unnecessary to a third party likely is coupled to traits that protect boundaries, keep young safe, keep them in training. But sure animals destroy, but what you are talking about simply indicates that animals are not perfectly efficient machines. They will destroy more than they use. But they cannot create values and symbols to increase this and would not understand why they should. They cannot hate life, seek to spite God or humanity or life.
What I am trying to get at is that, taking into considerations the differences in territoriality and other behaviours between rodents and apes and pachiderms(sp?), I wouldn't think that there is anything beyond natural in human behavior, and that between beavers and rhinos and humans, the difference is a matter of degrees.
The phrase beyond nature seems beside the point. There is in our nature, it seems, something that would even be willing to destroy all things, in some moods. We have in us something that is antilife and animals do not, even if they will kill. A cat may take pleasure in slow killing a mouse - I don't know if this happens in wild animals anywhere but let's say it does - but may be training, even if it is a rather sick act regardless. Humans will kill whole areas for fun, with no gain. Unless we are preparting to destroy planetary ecosystems or something and this is beneficial in some way.


Of course the mental abilities we have allow us to destory in ways animals can not. But our mental natures and what these have taken in as habits also give us a whole set of intentions I do not encounter in the rest of nature.

Related, but not the same...there is no other animal that would hate its own strength or vitality or desires or emotions. It will use its whole nature and accept its whole nature, not taking pride but accepting and certainly not crushing under its own judgment.

We hate nature in us also and try to destroy that.

This antivitalist thanatonic hate is unique to us.

There is nothing like a platypus. There is nothing like us. But our uniqueness is that we include anti life.
User avatar
Moreno
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 10305
Joined: Sat Nov 24, 2007 5:46 pm

Re: Is the Darwinistic Selection Principle False?

Postby James S Saint » Thu Apr 21, 2016 10:11 pm

phoneutria wrote:
James S Saint wrote:You are deciding what is most fit by seeing what survives. But Darwin proposed that what survives will be what was most fit. It is a circular definition.


This is not circular logic. That is just saying the same thing two ways. Circular logic would be to define what is fit by using survival, and then defining survival by using fit. The definition of survival is that which does not become extinct, and it is not dependent on the meaning of fit.

That is exactly what I said. And that is "circular".
Circular means: A = B because B = A
"fit" = "survived" because "survived" = "fit"

Real people do not define it that way. They propose an idea concerning fitness involving strength, agility, intelligence,... various other applicable talents. The question then becomes one of whether those "already declared to be fit" are really the ones that will survive. That makes it a legitimate question. And the answer to that question is "not always". And that answer reduces the Darwinian principle down to a "tendency", not the prevailing "always true" law.


If you want to make a definition of fitness, as one used by "real people", and then refute it, knock yourself out papito.
But then, that's not the Darwinian principle, is it?[/quote]
The "Darwin principle" implies that what people think of as being fit is what survives. The intent behind its promotion is to define what survives as that which was most fit and thus best. It is an excuse to hide WHY it was that one people survived and another didn't.
Clarify, Verify, Instill, and Reinforce the Perception of Hopes and Threats unto Anentropic Harmony :)
Else
From THIS age of sleep, Homo-sapien shall never awake.

The Wise gather together to help one another in EVERY aspect of living.

You are always more insecure than you think, just not by what you think.
The only absolute certainty is formed by the absolute lack of alternatives.
It is not merely "do what works", but "to accomplish what purpose in what time frame at what cost".
As long as the authority is secretive, the population will be subjugated.

Amid the lack of certainty, put faith in the wiser to believe.
Devil's Motto: Make it look good, safe, innocent, and wise.. until it is too late to choose otherwise.

The Real God ≡ The reason/cause for the Universe being what it is = "The situation cannot be what it is and also remain as it is".
.
James S Saint
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 25774
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:05 pm

Re: Is the Darwinistic Selection Principle False?

Postby phoneutria » Fri Apr 22, 2016 11:01 am

Moreno wrote:
phoneutria wrote:
Most of human deatructive behavior is not due to a desire to destroy, but due to a lack of care for the consequences while obtaining something we desire.
The moment you say 'most' it is a concession. That needs to be noted. Then from there, how much of the hate in humans infuses actions that seem to be about other things, but include or are even primarily an urge to destroy? I think it is a lot more than people like to admit. This can be anything from sthe desire to enter war or conflict not simply to gain resources, but because the urge to destroy want to rationalize an outlet...to thinks that destruction is a part of conspicuous consumption - I can throw out so I am cool, powerful, rich, better than you - to destruction for spite. If I cannot have it or cannot be the only one who has it, no one has it. In many ways we destroy for destructions sake or for what we decide destruction symbolizes. And animals other than us do not do this.

I
've seen such things as elephants knocking down a tree in the process of scratching an itch, and rhinos stomping and stabbing at small animals that pose no threat to them and they have no interest in eating, simply because it upset them.
And warding off, pushing back, even killing when it seems unnecessary to a third party likely is coupled to traits that protect boundaries, keep young safe, keep them in training. But sure animals destroy, but what you are talking about simply indicates that animals are not perfectly efficient machines. They will destroy more than they use. But they cannot create values and symbols to increase this and would not understand why they should. They cannot hate life, seek to spite God or humanity or life.
What I am trying to get at is that, taking into considerations the differences in territoriality and other behaviours between rodents and apes and pachiderms(sp?), I wouldn't think that there is anything beyond natural in human behavior, and that between beavers and rhinos and humans, the difference is a matter of degrees.
The phrase beyond nature seems beside the point. There is in our nature, it seems, something that would even be willing to destroy all things, in some moods. We have in us something that is antilife and animals do not, even if they will kill. A cat may take pleasure in slow killing a mouse - I don't know if this happens in wild animals anywhere but let's say it does - but may be training, even if it is a rather sick act regardless. Humans will kill whole areas for fun, with no gain. Unless we are preparting to destroy planetary ecosystems or something and this is beneficial in some way.


Of course the mental abilities we have allow us to destory in ways animals can not. But our mental natures and what these have taken in as habits also give us a whole set of intentions I do not encounter in the rest of nature.

Related, but not the same...there is no other animal that would hate its own strength or vitality or desires or emotions. It will use its whole nature and accept its whole nature, not taking pride but accepting and certainly not crushing under its own judgment.

We hate nature in us also and try to destroy that.

This antivitalist thanatonic hate is unique to us.

There is nothing like a platypus. There is nothing like us. But our uniqueness is that we include anti life.


You make a good case, but ultimately it is a difficult thing to measure. There are more variables in this than we'd ever be able to control.
I think it was Daniel Gilbert that said something like, whenever an expert of psychology says "humans are the only species who ------", some research comes along and proves them wrong, and then they end up looking like fools.

That said, it is clear that we have the potential to cause mass extinction, given that we are indeed doing it, and that we may include ourselves in it, and for a species whose success is entirely based on its intelligence, that seems pretty fucking dumb.

This is an indication that in our evolutionary process we have had explosive growth in some areas, while others remained somewhat rudimentary. Where it was obvious that intelligence (in the mathematical/scientific sense) proved to be an advantage, we put all of our chips on it.
Our history reflects that, how we have made incredible technological progress at an incredible speed, while our social and emotional progress is lagging far behind. A lot of it has to do with all of the shortcuts our brains take in order to keep us thinking fast and being functional, but it is also true that it seems that we have determined that spending the time to understand our emotions is not a worthwhile endeavor, and we'll continue to suffer the consequences of that stupidity.

However, how does that falsify the selection principle? :)
phoneutria
purveyor of enchantment, advocate of pulchritude AND venomously disarming
 
Posts: 2732
Joined: Fri May 23, 2014 5:37 am

PreviousNext

Return to Science, Technology, and Math



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users