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.
13
37%
Probably.
4
11%
Perhaps.
0
No votes
No.
16
46%
I do not know.
2
6%
 
Total votes : 35

Re: Is the Darwinistic Selection Principle False?

Postby Great Again » Mon Feb 22, 2021 10:59 pm

obsrvr524 wrote:
Great Again wrote:Principles are those regulative propositions which go back or should go back to what was in the beginning. Thus, selection principles are those regulative propositions which go back or should go back to the beginning of evolution.

So we have for instance:
          (1) The (decisions, interrests of [God or randomness or]) "nature" as a selector for the "natural selection".
          (2) The decisions, interrests of the sexual partner as a selector for the "sexual selection".
          (3) The decisions, interrests of the kinship as a selector for the "kin selection".
          (4) The decisions, interrests of the society, their politics, their rulers/deciders over the society as the selector for the "social selection".

I agree with all of that.

Great Again wrote:Life is about self-preservation (cell division, cell renewal) and reproduction, which can happen in two ways: (1) parthenogenesis (one reproduces oneself again and again) and (2) sexual reproduction. This happens in space and time. For humans, this space is not only the environment, but also and even the whole world. Darwin included however only the environment into the development of an individual and a species. And apart from the modern human being, individuals and groups of individuals are exposed to an environment as an immediate space.

Having said that, I think you might be interested in James S Saint's theories concerning the survival priority vs reproduction. He was, in my opinion, a superb rational theorist when it came to defining your words properly, understanding metaphors, and the questions of "why it is" - including -
  • Why the universe exists at all
  • Why light travels that particular speed
  • Why gravity does what it does
  • Why positive and negative particles "attract"
    .
    .
    .
  • Why species-preservation (reproduction) is only an aberrant consequence self-preservation
  • MIJOT - the highest priority and purpose within all living beings (my favorite :D )
You might be interested in a book that Mithus on this board wrote/edited concerning James' theories and thoughts. He was a big proponent of Nullius in Verbe.

He pointed out that cell reproduction was one strategy of survival by surrounding the cell with a harmonious environment constructed of replications of itself (creating the environment rather than being the subject of it - perhaps the opposite proposed by Darwin). He extended that strategy to include human reproduction and societal reproduction (such as a democratic country wanting to spread democracy for the survival its own democracy). When it comes to choosing between Darwin or Hegel - I'll choose James every time. :D

How does the cell or its environment "know" what "harmonoious" is and what not? I guess: by affectance. Right?

Mithus wrote:From the book:

Affectance in:
- Physics: Ultra-minuscule, mostly randomized electromagnetic pulses wherein "positive" is electrical positive and "negative" is electrical negative potential.
- Psychology: Subtle influences, often random and unintentional wherein "positive" is perceived hope and "negative" is perceived threat.
- Sociology: Subtle information, often uncontrolled and deceptive wherein "positive" is constructively affirming and "negative" is destructively disseminating.
- Physiology: Subtle nutrients, toxins, and EMR, often undetected organic and inorganic chemicals and microwave signals, wherein "positive" is healthy and "negative" is unhealthy.
- Economics: Small exchanges in trade, often unnoticed and unrecorded, wherein "positive" is wealth gain and "negative" is wealth loss.
- Military: Subtle elements of control, often physical, psychological, traditional, or religious intimidation or inspiration wherein "positive" is more control and "negative" is less control.

The striving to harmony would then be striving to an-entropy, the balance between entropy and anti-entropy. Right?
Image
User avatar
Great Again
 
Posts: 144
Joined: Wed Jan 20, 2021 3:32 pm

Re: Is the Darwinistic Selection Principle False?

Postby Kathrina » Tue Feb 23, 2021 12:07 am

Meno_ wrote:Katrina Kathrina says,

"When cultures are interrupted, they have fallen into nihilism, decadence, that is, they cease to be cultures and begin to be civilizations, that is, something like "world cultures," and thus they become open, soft and conquered."



Just vainglory led me to this currently, but discontinuity can generally be held from either intrinsic and extrinsic sources. True they are not clear cut, but one side generally dominates.

For Western culture, for reasons of Western technology alone, which is unrivaled (something that has never existed before, not even remotely), is uninterrupted and will remain so for a long time, no matter how many left-wing nutcases try to deny even this fact. There are simply too many who want to see the West down.But just think what values would be lost if the West is down: no freedom of speech, no typical Western individuality, no Western identity.
ImageImageImageImage
User avatar
Kathrina
 
Posts: 224
Joined: Thu Mar 09, 2017 6:50 am

Re: Is the Darwinistic Selection Principle False?

Postby Meno_ » Tue Feb 23, 2021 12:33 am

Kathrina wrote:
Meno_ wrote:Katrina Kathrina says,

"When cultures are interrupted, they have fallen into nihilism, decadence, that is, they cease to be cultures and begin to be civilizations, that is, something like "world cultures," and thus they become open, soft and conquered."



Just vainglory led me to this currently, but discontinuity can generally be held from either intrinsic and extrinsic sources. True they are not clear cut, but one side generally dominates.

For Western culture, for reasons of Western technology alone, which is unrivaled (something that has never existed before, not even remotely), is uninterrupted and will remain so for a long time, no matter how many left-wing nutcases try to deny even this fact. There are simply too many who want to see the West down.But just think what values would be lost if the West is down: no freedom of speech, no typical Western individuality, no Western identity.




Yes, conscience requires ideological mutations ( synthesis) if mankind as a whole is to survive.


Your theory rests more on Hobbsian toes , excuse me, more im uncertainty about the greater plenum , hence fears about corporate defensive and reduced gestures.

Your thesis rests on a romantic sentiment , unsustainable
What really matters 'is' a state or state of mind which has to produce a synthesis. No excuses or choices OT is what it is



Although, the sacrafices and pain may yet not now appear endurable...
Meno_
breathless
 
Posts: 8428
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2015 2:39 am
Location: Mysterium Tremendum

Re: Is the Darwinistic Selection Principle False?

Postby Kathrina » Tue Feb 23, 2021 1:20 am

So you think that the Western technology will vansih in the next decades. Be honest, that's your romantic nihilistic sentiment then. How can a technology just vanish in such a short time? Explain please - in English!

I said that the Western technology and the values of the Western culture - because both belong together - will not disappear quickly. This is not a "romantic sentiment", as you said!
ImageImageImageImage
User avatar
Kathrina
 
Posts: 224
Joined: Thu Mar 09, 2017 6:50 am

Re: Is the Darwinistic Selection Principle False?

Postby obsrvr524 » Tue Feb 23, 2021 2:19 am

Great Again wrote:How does the cell or its environment "know" what "harmonoious" is and what not? I guess: by affectance. Right?

Years ago I had that same thought concerning many ontological assertions (before I even knew what an ontology was). And just earlier I was posting with Jacob about his Value-Ontology wherein he asserts that even photons self-value. - How could a photon do any kind of valuing at all, right?

But what I realized is that in all of these ontologies even from ancient times, when they claim that something seeks or chooses they don't mean to say that the entity actually weighs its options and consciously chooses one over another - but rather the entity inherently behaves as if it was consciously and knowingly choosing.

They have been doing that with electricity and water in saying that it "seeks the path of least resistance" - as if it was consciously choosing a path. Apparently they were doing that with the gods, the devil, angels, a variety of science principles, computers ("prompting you" - "seeking the solution") and now with Affectance Ontology (particles "seeking anentropy") and Value Ontology ("seeking self-values").

I have come to the conclusion that actually we more common people have always had it upside down - it is consciousness and desire that are given misplaced hierarchy in causation - inborn, inherent behaviors are labeled as "desires" and "conscious choices" that guide further behavior. In reality, desire, seeking, and choosing are each an effect of inherent action as well as an subsequent cause of action (at least when they exist). They are midway between their own cause and their own effect.

So when James refers to seeking harmony or seeking anentropy (a cell seeking harmonious surroundings) - he is referring to the entity just naturally doing something that has the effect of compensating for an imbalance. It isn't that it knows in the way a person might consciously know something but rather that it just naturally behaves as to compensate - like a soap bubble "seeking" perfect spheroidal shape - subatomic particles actively seek a perfect balance of size and shape to match their ambient environment - atoms "seek" a perfect balance of their electric charge. And in no case do any of these things ever perfectly attain what they "seek" - they are always shifting and adjusting to compensate for some disturbance. Businesses do the same with the market - by seeking highest profit, they constantly adjust for changing market trends and government regulations (then government uses that to control them while they use that to control government - it gets really conflated).

Apparently it is a universal concept that normal people just never recognize and often think of in backwards terms - much like the Darwin realization that being successful is not the result of being a particular species but that being a particular species is the result of being successful.

Great Again wrote:
Mithus wrote:From the book:

Affectance in:
- Physics: Ultra-minuscule, mostly randomized electromagnetic pulses wherein "positive" is electrical positive and "negative" is electrical negative potential.
- Psychology: Subtle influences, often random and unintentional wherein "positive" is perceived hope and "negative" is perceived threat.
- Sociology: Subtle information, often uncontrolled and deceptive wherein "positive" is constructively affirming and "negative" is destructively disseminating.
- Physiology: Subtle nutrients, toxins, and EMR, often undetected organic and inorganic chemicals and microwave signals, wherein "positive" is healthy and "negative" is unhealthy.
- Economics: Small exchanges in trade, often unnoticed and unrecorded, wherein "positive" is wealth gain and "negative" is wealth loss.
- Military: Subtle elements of control, often physical, psychological, traditional, or religious intimidation or inspiration wherein "positive" is more control and "negative" is less control.

The striving to harmony would then be striving to an-entropy, the balance between entropy and anti-entropy. Right?

Right - with an emphasis on the subtle causes and effects ("Affectance") that literally causes all behaviors of all things throughout the universe - and is actually the entire makeup of the universe.
Last edited by obsrvr524 on Tue Feb 23, 2021 3:50 am, edited 1 time in total.
Member of The Coalition of Truth - member #1

              You have been observed.
    Though often tempted to encourage a dog to distinguish color I refuse to argue with him about it
obsrvr524
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2344
Joined: Thu Jul 11, 2019 9:03 am

Re: Is the Darwinistic Selection Principle False?

Postby Kathrina » Tue Feb 23, 2021 3:41 am

obsrvr524 wrote:
Great Again wrote:How does the cell or its environment "know" what "harmonoious" is and what not? I guess: by affectance. Right?

Years ago I had that same thought concerning many ontological assertions (before I even knew what an ontology was). And just earlier I was posting with Jacob about his Value-Ontology wherein he asserts that even photons self-value. - How could a photon do any kind of valuing at all, right?

But what I realized is that in all of these ontologies even from ancient times, when they claim that something seeks or chooses they don't mean to say that the entity actually weighs its options and consciously chooses one over another - but rather the entity inherently behaves as if it was consciously and knowingly choosing.

They have been doing that with electricity and water in saying that it "seeks the path of least resistance" - as if it was consciously choosing a path. Apparently they were doing that with the gods, the devil, angels, a variety of science principles, computers ("prompting you" - "seeking the solution") and now with Affectance Ontology (particles "seeking anentropy") and Value Ontology ("seeking self-values").

Or with "natural selection": "nature is selecting"!
ImageImageImageImage
User avatar
Kathrina
 
Posts: 224
Joined: Thu Mar 09, 2017 6:50 am

Re: Is the Darwinistic Selection Principle False?

Postby obsrvr524 » Tue Feb 23, 2021 4:08 am

Kathrina wrote:Or with "natural selection": "nature is selecting"!

Right. It is like a presumption of purpose or intent - a suspicion of consciousness - a superstition when no other understanding is apparent when actually it is all natural "forces" balancing out something that has become imbalanced.

I have to put the word "forces" in quotes because James pointed out that forces actually don't exist in nature at all - they are the same issue - they are actually inherent migrations of affects that give the appearance of some kind of force thing involved when there is nothing there but a migratory balancing of affectance that requires a counter migration to prevent - movement isn't caused by pushing - rather pushing is caused by movement.

We (in the common world - and science) have always had it backward. And he seems to have validly proven his case - answering the questions that science couldn't answer..
Member of The Coalition of Truth - member #1

              You have been observed.
    Though often tempted to encourage a dog to distinguish color I refuse to argue with him about it
obsrvr524
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2344
Joined: Thu Jul 11, 2019 9:03 am

Re: Is the Darwinistic Selection Principle False?

Postby Kathrina » Tue Feb 23, 2021 2:31 pm

@ Meno.

Here is someone who wants to explain the world with the help of astrology and the like. Why did you not make it clear to him that he is irrational or romantic, because his "thesis rests on a romantic sentiment". In his case, it is romance and irrationality. But not in my case. Why did you insinuate that my "thesis rests on a romantic sentiment", although I have only used historical facts?

1) It is a historical fact that Western technology is spread all over the world.
2) It is a historical fact that Western technology belongs exclusively to western Culture.
3) It is a historical fact that Western culture has not been interrupted and has not yet come to its end.You will soon experience this yourself, when the surveillance of all people by the machines (in this case: AI), which are all of Western origin (why do I actually have to explain this today?) , has become established.
ImageImageImageImage
User avatar
Kathrina
 
Posts: 224
Joined: Thu Mar 09, 2017 6:50 am

Re: Is the Darwinistic Selection Principle False?

Postby Kathrina » Tue Feb 23, 2021 2:59 pm

obsrvr524 wrote:
Kathrina wrote:Or with "natural selection": "nature is selecting"!

Right. It is like a presumption of purpose or intent - a suspicion of consciousness - a superstition when no other understanding is apparent when actually it is all natural "forces" balancing out something that has become imbalanced.

It is something like humanizing nature, as we know it from us when we humanize pets. In general, the breeding of animals alone is proof that man himself selects. He has also bred himself - - towards a pet.

17.png
17.png (183.63 KiB) Viewed 395 times
ImageImageImageImage
User avatar
Kathrina
 
Posts: 224
Joined: Thu Mar 09, 2017 6:50 am

Re: Is the Darwinistic Selection Principle False?

Postby Kathrina » Tue Feb 23, 2021 3:08 pm

obsrvr524 wrote:
Kathrina wrote:Or with "natural selection": "nature is selecting"!

Right. It is like a presumption of purpose or intent - a suspicion of consciousness - a superstition when no other understanding is apparent when actually it is all natural "forces" balancing out something that has become imbalanced.

And "forces" should be called "interactions"!
ImageImageImageImage
User avatar
Kathrina
 
Posts: 224
Joined: Thu Mar 09, 2017 6:50 am

Re: Is the Darwinistic Selection Principle False?

Postby obsrvr524 » Tue Feb 23, 2021 5:45 pm

Kathrina wrote:
obsrvr524 wrote:
Kathrina wrote:Or with "natural selection": "nature is selecting"!

Right. It is like a presumption of purpose or intent - a suspicion of consciousness - a superstition when no other understanding is apparent when actually it is all natural "forces" balancing out something that has become imbalanced.

And "forces" should be called "interactions"!

I have been trying to work that out (James didn't leave much concerning what word to use in its place other than "migrate" - explicative but not entirely appropriate in common use). And the question has led to some complex and disturbing thoughts (besides realizing the limits of my vocabulary).

I am not sure that an actual change of the word is really needed, but just for fun if we wanted to get pedantically accurate - it gets challenging, complex, and tideous. I went through a number of potential substitute words and almost settled on "affect" but even though surreptitiously applicable in some uses - inappropriate in others.

Our languages in the West are starting to disturb me. It seems that in many cases we have a language that implies the exact opposite of what is really going on - backwards and upside-down - like the Darwin issue (I have to wonder if that was intentional - maybe we really should learn to write from right to left and bottom to top - and maybe Americans really are driving on the right side of the road --- nah).

The first problem I faced was that the word "force" is used in both a dynamic and a static situation - where it implies that something is getting moved (affected) and also when nothing moved (feckless). When pushing your car you say that you are "applying force" but you also say that when pushing against a locked door - in one case there is affect but in the other - no visible affect (although on that ultra-minuscule scale particles are getting crowded closer together). And that led me to think of the word "push" in place of "force" would be appropriate - but not quite.

Pushing is the act of increasing the affectance (or energy) between particles in a material. The particles keep "trying" to balance out that extra affectance by migrating away from each other (again "trying" meaning to inherently behave such as to bring that effect). But what about decreasing the affectance between them?

If there is a word for push there has to be a word for pull - but guess what - according to the ontology absolutely nothing ever actually pulls anything anywhere ever - pulling is even more substantially nonexistent than force. When we pull, we do one of two things - we "grab" and effectively push from the other side or we (in the case of being chemically stuck or bonded to a surface) we inspire a migration of the particles toward us by decreasing the affectance between the particles - making them "try" to migrate back together. But what is an appropriate word for that?

I haven't worked that out yet. :D

I think what it amounts to is either increasing the affectance between objects (what we would normally think of as the attempt to decrease the proximity of objects - pushing away) - or decrease the affectance between them (increase that proximity - pulling closer). The behavior of the Earth an Moon reflect that as a balance - the momentum of the Moon "tries" to decrease the affectance (flying away) while simultaneously the gravity from both is "trying" to increase the affectance (pulling closer) - yielding the anentropic state of a stable orbit - "pushing" and "pulling" - but - not really. 8-[


    "I am going to cause a decrease imbalance of affectance between me and my wife" :o
- just doesn't sound right - because it means that I am going to increase the attraction (or migration) between us. :-?
Member of The Coalition of Truth - member #1

              You have been observed.
    Though often tempted to encourage a dog to distinguish color I refuse to argue with him about it
obsrvr524
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2344
Joined: Thu Jul 11, 2019 9:03 am

Re: Is the Darwinistic Selection Principle False?

Postby Great Again » Tue Feb 23, 2021 7:20 pm

I have found a text passage on the subject of "forces" in the e-book offered by Mithus:

James S. Saint, in: Gudrun Brune, 'Rational Metaphysics : Affectance Ontology', 2019, wrote:Long ago just prior to Newton's fame, the enlightenment era crew, now called "scientists", proposed that objects of mass (weight and inertia) were attracted to each other by a mysterious "force" to be called "gravity". Newton became famous by forming a means of measuring the effect of this "force of gravity" so that it could be tested with a variety of mass objects. And after doing such testing, it was discovered that sure enough, masses did seem to behave as though there was a mysterious force attracting them and related to the amount of mass of each object.

A superstition is a concept superimposed onto an observable physical event so as to "stitch together" the event and the cause of the event. In more ancient times such superstitions were called "gods", an invisible controller of events and the forces were the "magic" due to them being invisible yet causing sometimes surprising events. And not being visible or understood by the common people, they were "super-natural", forces that are not themselves physical yet govern physical events.

The "force of gravity" was in fact one of these "superstitious, supernatural forces". And because the cause and the event of mass attraction could be reliably measured, it was accepted that the "force of gravity" was in fact a certain physical existence, even though never directly seen or see-able.

....

Rational Metaphysics: Affectance Ontology is a particular understanding of affects, all and any affects. And what we call "mass attraction" or "the effect of the force of gravity" is certainly an affect to be understood. And we all know that such an affect really does occur. It is objectively testable and very observable. So what is the understanding concerning how that magic force works?

Science is all about finding the reasons behind anything and everything through independent investigation and study. And as it turns out, that magic force, spooky action at a distance, "force of gravity" is found in RM:AO to not actually exist at all. The behavior akin to mass attraction certainly happens, but there is no actual force involved. The "Force of Gravity", that "spooky action at a distance", doesn't actually exist as a real entity, merely an aberrant effect of other formerly not explained nor imagined events. In that regard, Einstein, Lorentz, Maxwell, and others were right. The Force of Gravity, the god of mass attraction, is a superstition cast into the world due to reliable correlation data rather than complete rational thinking.

Very briefly, what is actually happening (provably so) is that each and every mass is a concentration of the very same substance that exists between every mass and other masses. In modern physics terms, that substance could be called "ultra-minuscule electromagnetic pulses". In RM:AO, it is referred to as simply "Affectance" (meaning "subtle influence") and is measurable and explainable as to why it exists and precisely how it behaves. What is called a "sub-atomic particle" is merely a concentration of that substance and is constantly reconstituting itself by releasing and absorbing tiny portions of Affectance ("ultra-minuscule electromagnetic pulses").

These are, of course, daring theses.
Image
User avatar
Great Again
 
Posts: 144
Joined: Wed Jan 20, 2021 3:32 pm

Re: Is the Darwinistic Selection Principle False?

Postby obsrvr524 » Tue Feb 23, 2021 11:05 pm

Great Again wrote:These are, of course, daring theses.

:lol:
That never stopped James - if he thought he knew the logic behind his assertions (and usually proved that he did) he would have debated God himself. That is one of the things that caught my attention - seriously confident and willing to back it up (much like Mr Trump in that way). James mostly talked about what is necessarily true - not merely probably true.

Having read through his reasoning - especially concerning his ontology - I have to accept nearly everything he asserted (other than things he admitted to be only his guessing from a distance). He had valid logic behind everything and stated that the very first thing you must do is to "Define your words" :D

In various places he explains the exact details concerning why what he asserts must be true and that what he claims is never in conflict with what science has observed - only in the way they interpret it. You end up being able to strongly sense the difference between when you just think you are right and when you know that you absolutely have to be right.

And I can tell you that after a while of working through it - that confidence rubs off on you - it changes you inside.
Member of The Coalition of Truth - member #1

              You have been observed.
    Though often tempted to encourage a dog to distinguish color I refuse to argue with him about it
obsrvr524
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2344
Joined: Thu Jul 11, 2019 9:03 am

Re: Is the Darwinistic Selection Principle False?

Postby Jakob » Wed Feb 24, 2021 12:29 am

Kathrina wrote:@ Meno.

Here is someone who wants to explain the world with the help of astrology and the like. Why did you not make it clear to him that he is irrational or romantic, because his "thesis rests on a romantic sentiment". In his case, it is romance and irrationality. But not in my case. Why did you insinuate that my "thesis rests on a romantic sentiment", although I have only used historical facts?

1) It is a historical fact that Western technology is spread all over the world.
2) It is a historical fact that Western technology belongs exclusively to western Culture.
3) It is a historical fact that Western culture has not been interrupted and has not yet come to its end.You will soon experience this yourself, when the surveillance of all people by the machines (in this case: AI), which are all of Western origin (why do I actually have to explain this today?) , has become established.


on Sep 17, 2016 , I wrote:Ive kept myself from writing as I am deeply angry about almost all views and have no expectation of change until I make it. This is how I understand my philosophership.

In 2011, before we set out making this forum, I set out a timeline that has been remarkably accurate so far. What I can tell you is that the coming presidential term is not going to provide the opening yet, but the one after that is likely to begin showing true cracks; that is to say, invitations (for new law, for the lawgiver to step in).


Let's talk about science as you understand it though. What is your take on the dynamics of the gluonic shifts, do you favour a mosaic or a system of suspension?
Image
For behold, all acts of love and pleasure are my rituals
User avatar
Jakob
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 7390
Joined: Sun Sep 03, 2006 9:23 pm
Location: look at my suit

Re: Is the Darwinistic Selection Principle False?

Postby Kathrina » Wed Feb 24, 2021 1:33 am

Jakob wrote:
Kathrina wrote:@ Meno.

Here is someone who wants to explain the world with the help of astrology and the like. Why did you not make it clear to him that he is irrational or romantic, because his "thesis rests on a romantic sentiment". In his case, it is romance and irrationality. But not in my case. Why did you insinuate that my "thesis rests on a romantic sentiment", although I have only used historical facts?

1) It is a historical fact that Western technology is spread all over the world.
2) It is a historical fact that Western technology belongs exclusively to western Culture.
3) It is a historical fact that Western culture has not been interrupted and has not yet come to its end.You will soon experience this yourself, when the surveillance of all people by the machines (in this case: AI), which are all of Western origin (why do I actually have to explain this today?) , has become established.


on Sep 17, 2016 , I wrote:Ive kept myself from writing as I am deeply angry about almost all views and have no expectation of change until I make it. This is how I understand my philosophership.

In 2011, before we set out making this forum, I set out a timeline that has been remarkably accurate so far. What I can tell you is that the coming presidential term is not going to provide the opening yet, but the one after that is likely to begin showing true cracks; that is to say, invitations (for new law, for the lawgiver to step in).


Let's talk about science as you understand it though. What is your take on the dynamics of the gluonic shifts, do you favour a mosaic or a system of suspension?

In mathematics this would be comparable with operations like the different mirroring (at point, straight line) and rotations combined with displacements. And because one can never isolate gluons, so one can never put them under a microscope, then the suspicion comes that these gluons do not exist as objects, just as little as there are reflections as objects.

However, I think I know what you are getting at. You want to point out that science has come to its end with physics and therefore we have to depend on other aids if we still want to recognize something in addition. I can agree with that for the most part. But how will one be capable of making an ojective statement if nobody accepts it objectively? This is only possible by falling back on old recipes: God/gods, religion, theology, also philosophy (which would then experience a great rebirth). But how do you want to explain it to the mass of people, if they don't want to know anything about astrology and the like? That works only about coercion. And coercion is what I reject.
ImageImageImageImage
User avatar
Kathrina
 
Posts: 224
Joined: Thu Mar 09, 2017 6:50 am

Re: Is the Darwinistic Selection Principle False?

Postby MagsJ » Wed Feb 24, 2021 4:43 am

Kathrina wrote:
Kathrina wrote:
MagsJ wrote:_
India was too busy infighting with their families and their own, and weakened themselves and their numbers after many lengthy battles, which made them ripe pickings for invasions. They were very feudal, and some say they still are, but I think less so.

List of wars involving India
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_w ... ving_India

Hasn’t China got an unbroken culture? Probably the only civilisation that has.

All cultures had been uninterrupted until the time when they were interrupted. There is only one culture that has not been interrupted: the Western Christian culture. That may soon change.

When cultures are interrupted, they have fallen into nihilism, decadence, that is, they cease to be cultures and begin to be civilizations, that is, something like "world cultures," and thus they become open, soft and conquered.

Only communists and Bideners can be of the hasty opinion that the West has been interrupted. They want to disrupt the West, but so far they have not succeeded. Not yet.

Besides, by now the whole world is a Western culture when it comes to the application of Western technology. Everywhere on this planet machines are used, electricity is used, trains are used, telephones are used, cars are used, airplanes are used, rockets are used, nuclear energy is used, atomic bombs, chemical and biological weapons are used, computers are used, genetic engineering is used, the internet is used. Who wants to destroy the western culture, must first of all abolish the Western technology, the whole modern age.

If Biden and Co. are in the process of destroying Western culture, one should always keep in mind that this destruction itself is still a part of Western culture. Western culture is not finished. Not yet. You left-wing nutcases can think and say that as much as you want. You will perish with and in your own desires.

It's all about success, about the intelligence that is to be eliminated. But this story is not over yet. Not yet.

To be able to achieve all this, they have to lie and cheat even more than they do now (and that's bad enough).

You can see from the reactions in the West, including here at ILP, that the majority of the Westerners themselves (!) wants to destroy the Western culture. The only problem for them is that they have not yet been able to do it successfully. Not yet. And they try to do it by using Western technology.This is as contradictory as it is ironic and cynical, because it is nihilistic.

If the world is going to become more and more like, for example, Biden wants it to be, then it will find itself relatively soon in a huge chaos. A huge chaos!

Remember my words.

Crikey!

I mention the East, and you think I’m trying to destroy the West? I weren’t making any comparisons here.

I’m not Chinese.. I don’t give that much of an f about this.. I was just interested and intrigued by the suggestion I came across and the reason behind the reasoning why it is said to be so.

This was about history, not politics, and I’m not left-leaning in my politics in any way shape or form. You have presumed far too much here, so please stand corrected.
The possibility of anything we can imagine existing is endless and infinite.. - MagsJ
I haven't got the time to spend the time reading something that is telling me nothing, as I will never be able to get back that time, and I may need it for something at some point in time.. Huh! - MagsJ
You’re suggestions and I, just simply don’t mix.. like oil on water, or a really bad DJ - MagsJ
User avatar
MagsJ
The Londonist: a chic geek
 
Posts: 21859
Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 2:59 pm
Location: Suryaloka / LDN Town

Re: Is the Darwinistic Selection Principle False?

Postby Sculptor » Wed Feb 24, 2021 5:05 pm

Kathrina wrote:
obsrvr524 wrote:
Kathrina wrote:Or with "natural selection": "nature is selecting"!

Right. It is like a presumption of purpose or intent - a suspicion of consciousness - a superstition when no other understanding is apparent when actually it is all natural "forces" balancing out something that has become imbalanced.

It is something like humanizing nature, as we know it from us when we humanize pets. In general, the breeding of animals alone is proof that man himself selects. He has also bred himself - - towards a pet.

17.png


Darwin is way ahead of you.
Sculptor
 
Posts: 253
Joined: Thu Dec 17, 2020 10:52 pm

Re: Is the Darwinistic Selection Principle False?

Postby Kathrina » Wed Feb 24, 2021 10:35 pm

Kathrina wrote:
Kathrina wrote:
MagsJ wrote:_
India was too busy infighting with their families and their own, and weakened themselves and their numbers after many lengthy battles, which made them ripe pickings for invasions. They were very feudal, and some say they still are, but I think less so.

Only communists and Bideners can be of the hasty opinion that the West has been interrupted. They want to disrupt the West, but so far they have not succeeded. Not yet.

Besides, by now the whole world is a Western culture when it comes to the application of Western technology. Everywhere on this planet machines are used, electricity is used, trains are used, telephones are used, cars are used, airplanes are used, rockets are used, nuclear energy is used, atomic bombs, chemical and biological weapons are used, computers are used, genetic engineering is used, the internet is used. Who wants to destroy the western culture, must first of all abolish the Western technology, the whole modern age.

If Biden and Co. are in the process of destroying Western culture, one should always keep in mind that this destruction itself is still a part of Western culture. Western culture is not finished. Not yet. You left-wing nutcases can think and say that as much as you want. You will perish with and in your own desires.

It's all about success, about the intelligence that is to be eliminated. But this story is not over yet. Not yet.

To be able to achieve all this, they have to lie and cheat even more than they do now (and that's bad enough).

You can see from the reactions in the West, including here at ILP, that the majority of the Westerners themselves (!) wants to destroy the Western culture. The only problem for them is that they have not yet been able to do it successfully. Not yet. And they try to do it by using Western technology.This is as contradictory as it is ironic and cynical, because it is nihilistic.

If the world is going to become more and more like, for example, Biden wants it to be, then it will find itself relatively soon in a huge chaos. A huge chaos!
List of wars involving India
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_w ... ving_India

Hasn’t China got an unbroken culture? Probably the only civilisation that has.

All cultures had been uninterrupted until the time when they were interrupted. There is only one culture that has not been interrupted: the Western Christian culture. That may soon change.

When cultures are interrupted, they have fallen into nihilism, decadence, that is, they cease to be cultures and begin to be civilizations, that is, something like "world cultures," and thus they become open, soft and conquered.

Only communists and Bideners can be of the hasty opinion that the West has been interrupted. They want to disrupt the West, but so far they have not succeeded. Not yet.

Besides, by now the whole world is a Western culture when it comes to the application of Western technology. Everywhere on this planet machines are used, electricity is used, trains are used, telephones are used, cars are used, airplanes are used, rockets are used, nuclear energy is used, atomic bombs, chemical and biological weapons are used, computers are used, genetic engineering is used, the internet is used. Who wants to destroy the western culture, must first of all abolish the Western technology, the whole modern age.

If Biden and Co. are in the process of destroying Western culture, one should always keep in mind that this destruction itself is still a part of Western culture. Western culture is not finished. Not yet. You left-wing nutcases can think and say that as much as you want. You will perish with and in your own desires.

It's all about success, about the intelligence that is to be eliminated. But this story is not over yet. Not yet.

To be able to achieve all this, they have to lie and cheat even more than they do now (and that's bad enough).

You can see from the reactions in the West, including here at ILP, that the majority of the Westerners themselves (!) wants to destroy the Western culture. The only problem for them is that they have not yet been able to do it successfully. Not yet. And they try to do it by using Western technology.This is as contradictory as it is ironic and cynical, because it is nihilistic.

If the world is going to become more and more like, for example, Biden wants it to be, then it will find itself relatively soon in a huge chaos. A huge chaos!

Remember my words.
MagsJ wrote:Crikey!

I mention the East, and you think I’m trying to destroy the West? I weren’t making any comparisons here.

I’m not Chinese.. I don’t give that much of an f about this.. I was just interested and intrigued by the suggestion I came across and the reason behind the reasoning why it is said to be so.

This was about history, not politics, and I’m not left-leaning in my politics in any way shape or form. You have presumed far too much here, so please stand corrected.

I did not say that you are "Chinese", "left-leaning" and want "to destroy the West", because I know that you are not Chinese, not left-leaning and do not want to destroy the West. I was referring to my own post, the last one, in which your previous post is still included. It would have been better to take your post out before. Sorry, Mags. I was referring to leftists / comunists, not to you.
ImageImageImageImage
User avatar
Kathrina
 
Posts: 224
Joined: Thu Mar 09, 2017 6:50 am

Re: Is the Darwinistic Selection Principle False?

Postby Sculptor » Thu Feb 25, 2021 11:09 am

Kathrina wrote:I did not say that you are "Chinese", "left-leaning" and want "to destroy the West", because I know that you are not Chinese, not left-leaning and do not want to destroy the West. I was referring to my own post, the last one, in which your previous post is still included. It would have been better to take your post out before. Sorry, Mags. I was referring to leftists / comunists, not to you.



It's always been the source of great amazment how clowns like you soak up exactly the right amount of propoganda to completely undermine your own interests and to maximise your own oppression.
There are no reds under the beds. There is only the corporate interests that promote this rather idiotic myth.
You ought to be ashamed of yourself.
Sculptor
 
Posts: 253
Joined: Thu Dec 17, 2020 10:52 pm

Re: Is the Darwinistic Selection Principle False?

Postby obsrvr524 » Thu Feb 25, 2021 11:24 am

Sculptor wrote:There is only the corporate interests that promote this rather idiotic myth.
You ought to be ashamed of yourself.

Sounds like a conspiracy theory.

Maybe there are no corporate ideologues in your attic?
Member of The Coalition of Truth - member #1

              You have been observed.
    Though often tempted to encourage a dog to distinguish color I refuse to argue with him about it
obsrvr524
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2344
Joined: Thu Jul 11, 2019 9:03 am

Re: Is the Darwinistic Selection Principle False?

Postby MagsJ » Thu Feb 25, 2021 11:49 am

Kathrina wrote:I did not say that you are "Chinese", "left-leaning" and want "to destroy the West", because I know that you are not Chinese, not left-leaning and do not want to destroy the West. I was referring to my own post, the last one, in which your previous post is still included. It would have been better to take your post out before. Sorry, Mags. I was referring to leftists / comunists, not to you.

Fair enough.. :P
The possibility of anything we can imagine existing is endless and infinite.. - MagsJ
I haven't got the time to spend the time reading something that is telling me nothing, as I will never be able to get back that time, and I may need it for something at some point in time.. Huh! - MagsJ
You’re suggestions and I, just simply don’t mix.. like oil on water, or a really bad DJ - MagsJ
User avatar
MagsJ
The Londonist: a chic geek
 
Posts: 21859
Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 2:59 pm
Location: Suryaloka / LDN Town

Re: Is the Darwinistic Selection Principle False?

Postby Jakob » Fri Feb 26, 2021 1:01 am

Kathrina wrote:
Jakob wrote:
Kathrina wrote:@ Meno.

Here is someone who wants to explain the world with the help of astrology and the like. Why did you not make it clear to him that he is irrational or romantic, because his "thesis rests on a romantic sentiment". In his case, it is romance and irrationality. But not in my case. Why did you insinuate that my "thesis rests on a romantic sentiment", although I have only used historical facts?

1) It is a historical fact that Western technology is spread all over the world.
2) It is a historical fact that Western technology belongs exclusively to western Culture.
3) It is a historical fact that Western culture has not been interrupted and has not yet come to its end.You will soon experience this yourself, when the surveillance of all people by the machines (in this case: AI), which are all of Western origin (why do I actually have to explain this today?) , has become established.


on Sep 17, 2016 , I wrote:Ive kept myself from writing as I am deeply angry about almost all views and have no expectation of change until I make it. This is how I understand my philosophership.

In 2011, before we set out making this forum, I set out a timeline that has been remarkably accurate so far. What I can tell you is that the coming presidential term is not going to provide the opening yet, but the one after that is likely to begin showing true cracks; that is to say, invitations (for new law, for the lawgiver to step in).


Let's talk about science as you understand it though. What is your take on the dynamics of the gluonic shifts, do you favour a mosaic or a system of suspension?

In mathematics this would be comparable with operations like the different mirroring (at point, straight line) and rotations combined with displacements. And because one can never isolate gluons, so one can never put them under a microscope, then the suspicion comes that these gluons do not exist as objects, just as little as there are reflections as objects.

However, I think I know what you are getting at. You want to point out that science has come to its end with physics and therefore we have to depend on other aids if we still want to recognize something in addition. I can agree with that for the most part. But how will one be capable of making an ojective statement if nobody accepts it objectively? This is only possible by falling back on old recipes: God/gods, religion, theology, also philosophy (which would then experience a great rebirth). But how do you want to explain it to the mass of people, if they don't want to know anything about astrology and the like? That works only about coercion. And coercion is what I reject.

Actually what Id be getting at is that science has not yet learned to think. I trust you've read my post on refuting the law of identity, in the thread you recently visited.

Leave astrology out of it, it is just an art of power, it has little to offer scientific thought. Governments and banks use it, not scientists. Leave religion out of it too.
But what is this idea that the masses should be wooed? That has never been the case - science has always operated best far away from the masses. Im sure you're not ignorant of the lives of Archimedes, Newton or Galileo. Nor of the fact that Einstein, after he became famous, did not produce much of consequence. Science is a matter of unearthing subtleties through extreme patience and persistence, something for which the masses are entirely unfit.

Your statement that the world will forever, at least until its destruction, be under the dominion of science, and that this science is of western origin, is true. There are elements of nonwestern thought that can be applied to science in order to enable it to deal with certain contradictions that have come to light early in the 20th century, but these elements can also be derived simply from clear thought.

The scientific matter before us now is that of 4 dimensional engineering, as premonitioned by the phenomena of superposition and entanglement. Supposedly various companies and governments are in possession of a quantum computer - but I expect there to be very interesting "bugs" coming into play, which will point to our inefficiency at 4d architecture, because we do not yet understand precisely how the future influences the present as much as the past does; we do not know how to approach systems in their own terms.

Perhaps this science is actually quite well established in secret. Much new science is established in secret. And much of it is kept, partly for very good reasons, away from the masses.
Image
For behold, all acts of love and pleasure are my rituals
User avatar
Jakob
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 7390
Joined: Sun Sep 03, 2006 9:23 pm
Location: look at my suit

Re: Is the Darwinistic Selection Principle False?

Postby Sculptor » Fri Feb 26, 2021 3:00 pm

obsrvr524 wrote:
Sculptor wrote:There is only the corporate interests that promote this rather idiotic myth.
You ought to be ashamed of yourself.

Sounds like a conspiracy theory.

Maybe there are no corporate ideologues in your attic?


It's plain fact.
You are a dupe.
Sculptor
 
Posts: 253
Joined: Thu Dec 17, 2020 10:52 pm

Previous

Return to Science, Technology, and Math



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users