THE EMERGING NEW WORLDVIEW

Nicole

Silver Meritorious Patron
I think if I read here longer (I mean the board) my English get better and better, but this is tl;dr!
 
Lexmark,

Well I read it, but there are several things both historically and philosophically that I would take issue with.

First of, it is clear that the worldview of the author is that science is about reality. Science is about interpretation of experience, not reality.

Second, I don't think the idea that Consciousness is held as the Primary Source of everything is anyone‘s worldview. The view I think you are talking about was first roughly proposed by Kant in his Prolegomena and Critique of Pure Reason. It has been since qualified by scientific discoveries regarding the brain and consciousness, and from the discipline of psychiatry. It has a parallel in branches of continental philosophy such as phenomenology and to a small extent, existentialism.

Thirdly, Darwin’s theory of evolution does not state or imply “Survival of the fittest.” That idea and phrase was from the writings of the sociologist Herbert Spenser. Although many people mistakenly attribute it to Darwin.

Where I do agree is that we are evolving into a new worldview, and I think the catalyst for much of this came from the writings of Thomas Kuhn (“The Structure of Scientific Revolutions” 1962), Ludwik Fleck (“The Genesis and Development of a Scientific Fact” 1935), and of course, the writings of Michel Foucault and Jacques Derrida.

Before you simply right this off as post-modernism, I am just saying that these works are some of the major catalyst behind the ideas which are leading to a new paradigm. Paradigms don’t change over night. (By the way, the first person to use the term paradigm as we are using it here was Thomas Kuhn in the book that I mentioned.)

But where I disagree with you the most is the idea that the new developing worldview is that Consciousness is the Primary source of everything.

The Anabaptist Jacques
 
Last edited:

programmer_guy

True Ex-Scientologist
The Anabaptist Jacques said:
First of, it is clear that the worldview of the author is that science is about reality. Science is about interpretation of experience.

And that is about as close as we will get to it. It's good enough for me.


The Anabaptist Jacques said:
Second, I don't think the idea that Consciousness is held as the Primary Source of everything is anyone‘s worldview. The view I think you are talking about was first roughly proposed by Kant in his Prolegomena and Critique of Pure Reason. It has been since qualified by scientific discoveries regarding the brain and consciousness, and from the discipline of psychiatry. It has a parallel in branches continental philosophy such as phenomenology and to a small extent, existentialism.

Old Philosophy and modern brain research are two very different things. That's what I think.


The Anabaptist Jacques said:
Thirdly, Darwin’s theory of evolution does not state or imply “Survival of the fittest.”

Among other things, Darwin proposed something called "natural selection" which is pretty much the same thing as “Survival of the fittest”. Don't you think also?

The Anabaptist Jacques said:
That idea and phrase was from the writings of the sociologist Herbert Spenser. Although many people mistakenly attribute it to Darwin.

Yes, Herbert was ahead of Darwin on this idea.


The Anabaptist Jacques said:
But where I disagree with you the most is the idea that the new developing worldview is that Consciousness is the Primary source of everything.

If you mean that human "Consciousness" is basically some type of brain activity then I agree with you. IOW, Consciousness doesn't make up the system (or our universe)... it is simply a part of it.
 
And that is about as close as we will get to it. It's good enough for me.

Old Philosophy and modern brain research are two very different things. That's what I think.

Among other things, Darwin proposed something called "natural selection" which is pretty much the same thing as “Survival of the fittest”. Don't you think also?

Yes, Herbert was ahead of Darwin on this idea.

If you mean that human "Consciousness" is basically some type of brain activity then I agree with you.

1. It is good enough for me too. I don't think you can argue with the results.

2. What I meant about Kant and brain research is that Kant said it is our minds that determine what we think reality is rather than seeing what reality as it is. I think brain research clearly confirms this.

3. Darwin was clear about natural selection being by chance. Calling it survival of the fittest switches the cause and effect dynamic of evolution.

4. Herbert was wrong. It is simply a statement that confirms the antecedent, like "Scientology always works, and if it doesn't work it means it wasn't applied." "If you survived it means you were fit, therefore survival of the fittest is true." Both are just self-serving definitions, not real things.

I've talked to a lot of World War II veterens. What most of them told me is that they do not know why they survived and their buddies did not. Many of them said it was the hand of God; you might say it is because of a statement by Spencer. I don't know about God, but I know it wasn't because of a statement where the predicate is also the subject.

5. I think the scientific consensus on that is still undetermined.

The Anabaptist Jacques
 

programmer_guy

True Ex-Scientologist
What Darwin proposed was that the offshoot VARIATION of species was by "chance".
He didn't mean that the "natural selection" was by chance. Do you get the difference?
It still came down to "survival of the fittest"... a "weeding out" of the variations.
 
What Darwin proposed was that the offshoot VARIATION of species was by "chance".
He didn't mean that the "natural selection" was by chance. Do you get the difference?

Ok. I see that difference. You're saying what he said and then you're saying what you said he meant.

Wasn't natural selection simply the survival of those creatures who had the necessary attributes to survive, and those attributes were determined by the variation, which is determined chance?

The Anabaptist Jacques
 

programmer_guy

True Ex-Scientologist
Ok. I see that difference. You're saying what he said and then you're saying what you said he meant.

Wasn't natural selection simply the survival of those creatures who had the necessary attributes to survive, and those attributes were determined by the variation, which is determined chance?

The Anabaptist Jacques

Here you can read some info about it: (survival IS based on "natural" selection or "survival of the fittest)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_selection
 
Here you can read some info about it: (survival IS based on "natural" selection or "survival of the fittest)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_selection

Thanks for that. I haven't read the whole thing yet, but from what I read (through the Fitness section) it still only says implies that the bottom line is that it is still chance.
Fitness is still defined as that which survives. So survival of the fitest means survival of the ones that survive. It is still a self-serving defintion. Which is probably why Dawkins never uses it.

The Anabaptist Jacques
 

programmer_guy

True Ex-Scientologist
A snip from the wikipedia article, bold emphasis mine
Natural variation occurs among the individuals of any population of organisms. Many of these differences do not affect survival (such as differences in eye color in humans), but some differences may improve the chances of survival of a particular individual. A rabbit that runs faster than others may be more likely to escape from predators, and algae that are more efficient at extracting energy from sunlight will grow faster. Individuals that have better odds for survival also have better odds for reproduction.

Again, the variation is by chance... but the survival is not by chance. And that is a major part of evolution.
 

Hatshepsut

Crusader
Talkin bout Mojo and Hoodoo & Voodoo....

I think the occult practices of Muddy Waters ran into the same problem that L. Ron Hubbard ran into.

MUDDY WATER'S LAMENT
Got my Mojo workin but it just don't work on you
Got my Mojo workin but it just don't work on you

RON HUBBARD'S LAMENT
Got my Standard Tech workin but it just don't work on you
Got my Standard Tech workin but it just don't work on you.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QwxhGihDki0


You iz da cat's ass Helluvahoax. :roflmao:
 
A snip from the wikipedia article, bold emphasis mine


Again, the variation is by chance... but the survival is not by chance. And that is a major part of evolution.

Ok, cool.

But the survival is still by chance, unless you believe their was a conscience choice made by the specie. The variation was by chance and that chance resulted in survival. It is still the result of chance, not conscience planning.

So survival of the fittest just means survival of those that survived.

Also, would a trait or characteristic of a species over time remain with that species, say 5,000 years or so, unless that was a characteristic that enhanced its survival?

The Anabaptist Jacques
 

themadhair

Patron Meritorious
But the survival is still by chance,
No. Just no.

The analogy I use in this situation is of radioactive atoms. I think we can both agree that when any individual atom will decay is based on chance. And yet we have constant half-lives. In essence something similar is occurring with evolution. The introduction of variation may be chance based, but the effects of that variation of survivability is NOT chance based.

Essentially the flaw in your reasoning are the following two assumptions:
1) You seem to consider ‘chance’ and ‘conscience’ to be the only two possibilities. As in the case of half-lives, while the underlying basis may be chance-based (i.e. the introduction of variation) the overall effects need not necessarily be. If your contention were true here then genetic algorithms would not work.
2) You seem to be assuming some sort of ‘goal based’ concept. This is not the case.

It is worth considering the history of how evolutionary theory developed. The idea that species were mutable was not Darwin’s idea. What Darwin did was discover the mechanism, non-random natural selection, that drove the changes.
Also, would a trait or characteristic of a species over time remain with that species, say 5,000 years or so, unless that was a characteristic that enhanced its survival?
It is possible. Neutral variation, which is variation that does not statistically affect survival probability, occurs all the time. There are also VSDMs (very slightly deleterious mutations) which negatively affect survivability, but not to a sufficient enough degree so as to be removed via natural selection (as in the so-called Muller's ratchet).
 
No. Just no.

The analogy I use in this situation is of radioactive atoms. I think we can both agree that when any individual atom will decay is based on chance. And yet we have constant half-lives. In essence something similar is occurring with evolution. The introduction of variation may be chance based, but the effects of that variation of survivability is NOT chance based.

Essentially the flaw in your reasoning are the following two assumptions:
1) You seem to consider ‘chance’ and ‘conscience’ to be the only two possibilities. As in the case of half-lives, while the underlying basis may be chance-based (i.e. the introduction of variation) the overall effects need not necessarily be. If your contention were true here then genetic algorithms would not work.
2) You seem to be assuming some sort of ‘goal based’ concept. This is not the case.

It is worth considering the history of how evolutionary theory developed. The idea that species were mutable was not Darwin’s idea. What Darwin did was discover the mechanism, non-random natural selection, that drove the changes.

It is possible. Neutral variation, which is variation that does not statistically affect survival probability, occurs all the time. There are also VSDMs (very slightly deleterious mutations) which negatively affect survivability, but not to a sufficient enough degree so as to be removed via natural selection (as in the so-called Muller's ratchet).

Nevertheless, the term survival of the fittest simply means survival of the one that survives.

One can say survival of the ones that best adapt, but survival of the fitest, per the definition of fitness, simply means survival of the one that survives.

The Anabaptist Jacques
 

NonScio

Patron Meritorious
The main problem I have with current views on evolution is that
given the vast number of extant species, and given the number
of past major extinctions, there there appears to be too little
time to do all the evolving.

Current theory holds the age of the earth to be about 4.5 billion
years. The origin of life is pegged around 3.5 billion years. There
are currently something like 10,000,000 identified species existing.
Simple math given those figures would predict a new species
on average every 350 years.

However, geologic evidence indicates several periods of mass
extinction events over that 3.5 billion years. The most recent
is held to be about 65,000,000 years ago. This is when the
dinosaurs disappeared; along with 90% of all species which
existed at that time. It follows that all living species today
"evolved" from the survivors of that disaster.

Not having any definite number for how many species existed
before the end of the Mesozoic era (end of dinosaurs etc.) I will
arbitrarily give it the same number as today; lets say
10,000,000. That means 1,000,000 species survived.
Over the next 65,000,000 years, that one million evolved into
the modern 10 million. That's one new species an average
of every 7 years or so over that 65,000,000 years.

Personally, I see that scenario as flawed. I would speculate that
evolution is governed by a kind of "chaos theory", by chaos mathematics.
It has occured in sudden "snaps" (Cambrian "explosion" for ex) rather
than any neat orderly linear process.

Furthermore, rather than relying on random mutation for the emergence
of new species (along with selection); could it be that life itself
"selects" what it will change into? Somehow, programmed into the
genes, are all sorts of possible changes, different software, waiting
to be initialized in response to whatever environmental contingency
arises? The old form becomes obsolete, untenable...so the organism
"morphs" into something new. Enough individuals morph at about the
same time to ensure a viable breeding population of the new form?

Anyway, just my own speculation.
 

programmer_guy

True Ex-Scientologist
Thanks for that. I haven't read the whole thing yet, but from what I read (through the Fitness section) it still only says implies that the bottom line is that it is still chance.
Fitness is still defined as that which survives. So survival of the fitest means survival of the ones that survive. It is still a self-serving defintion. Which is probably why Dawkins never uses it.

The Anabaptist Jacques

Okay, I think that I might try to understand your view.
You are a fan of Richard Dawkins.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Dawkins

Is this correct?
 
Top