One bang one process.

Evolution.

Discussions on astrology, homeopathy and superstition etc.

Moderators: kiore, The_Metatron, Blip

Re: One bang one process.

#1601  Postby Spearthrower » Jan 14, 2022 5:17 am

pfrankinstein wrote:
scott1328 wrote:I suggest that the O.P. read "Darwin's Dangerous Idea" by Daniel Dennett.

In this very long book Dennett presents a thesis that Evolution by Natural Selection is an algorithm. And that algorithm can be found outside of biology.

One of these realms is "Memetics". What Dawkins presented as a metaphor in "The Selfish Gene", Dennett attempts to flush out as a legitimate case of a Darwinian Algorithm outside of biology,

Dennet's thesis is not exactly the same as what the the OP is asserting but it might give the OP a clue on how to frame his rambling.


Pseudoscience though ...

Single Theory is built from the top accepted science theories of the day.

I weigh measure and make comparisons.

I look for similarities and compare the main differences in each chapter.

I play music to express myself.

Pseudoscience though.

Shall I bow out now?

Sad me.



It's not pseudoscience in the strictest sense of the term, because it's actually got fuck all to do with science. At very kindest and best reading, what you're proposing is within the remit of philosophy.

It's not science at all, pseudo- or otherwise, because you've never made a single testable proposition and are still unaware that's an obligatory requirement in science.
I'm not an atheist; I just don't believe in gods :- that which I don't belong to isn't a group!
Religion: Mass Stockholm Syndrome

Learn Stuff. Stuff good. https://www.coursera.org/
User avatar
Spearthrower
 
Posts: 29426
Age: 45
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Re: One bang one process.

#1602  Postby hackenslash » Jan 14, 2022 11:36 am

Yep, hence the invocation of Pauli. It's not even pseudoscience.
User avatar
hackenslash
 
Name: The Other Sweary One
Posts: 22204
Age: 52
Male

Country: Republic of Mancunia
Print view this post

Re: One bang one process.

#1603  Postby hackenslash » Jan 14, 2022 3:50 pm

So, having a bit of a flare day and being immobile as a result, I went back and read from the beginning of the thread up to the new merge, and one thing stood out as worthy in the whole debacle...

Paul made a joke almost ten years to the day that was actually funny.
User avatar
hackenslash
 
Name: The Other Sweary One
Posts: 22204
Age: 52
Male

Country: Republic of Mancunia
Print view this post

Re: One bang one process.

#1604  Postby pfrankinstein » Jan 15, 2022 9:33 am

One way of building on a science theory is to look ever deeper into it.

We see evidence of looking deeper into a subject, biology being the evidence that confirms what the naturalist could only suspect.

In a nut shell the study perspective has shifted from that of the naked eye naturalist to the biologists
By use of the microscope.

Subject (evolution) encapsulated and fully understood...

Both the biologist and naturalists have the luxury of a hard sample to study.

But then thier sample is not immune from my questions of ancestry or progression on a large scale.

Shall I hack and slash and throw a spear in your bubble?
pfrankinstein
THREAD STARTER
 
Name: paul
Posts: 636

Country: UK
Print view this post

Re: One bang one process.

#1605  Postby pfrankinstein » Jan 15, 2022 10:42 am

hackenslash wrote:Yep, hence the invocation of Pauli. It's not even pseudoscience.


Careful now you may have to propose something new.

You know how new sounds like woo.

Hardly ever goes down well the forum.

Paul.
pfrankinstein
THREAD STARTER
 
Name: paul
Posts: 636

Country: UK
Print view this post

Re: One bang one process.

#1606  Postby Spearthrower » Jan 15, 2022 11:26 am

pfrankinstein wrote:One way of building on a science theory is to look ever deeper into it.


Might help to actually start with a scientific theory.

But then, 'looking deeper into it' involves hypothesis formation and experimentation - if you don't do those, it ain't science.


pfrankinstein wrote:We see evidence of looking deeper into a subject, biology being the evidence that confirms what the naturalist could only suspect.


Biology is a subject of study, not 'evidence'.


pfrankinstein wrote:In a nut shell the study perspective has shifted from that of the naked eye naturalist to the biologists
By use of the microscope.


Rather, the advent and development of the microscope has opened up new areas of inquiry in Biology, but there's still plenty to study and look at without use of a microscope.


pfrankinstein wrote:Subject (evolution) encapsulated and fully understood...


By whom? Not by you. And as your comprehension of Biology is so weak, then why would your judgement about the state of Biology be better informed?


pfrankinstein wrote:Both the biologist and naturalists have the luxury of a hard sample to study.

But then thier sample is not immune from my questions of ancestry or progression on a large scale.


Garbled deepities are just not working here Paul.



pfrankinstein wrote:Shall I hack and slash and throw a spear in your bubble?


Or you could garner a clue, engage honestly, learn shit, and amend your discourse.
I'm not an atheist; I just don't believe in gods :- that which I don't belong to isn't a group!
Religion: Mass Stockholm Syndrome

Learn Stuff. Stuff good. https://www.coursera.org/
User avatar
Spearthrower
 
Posts: 29426
Age: 45
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Re: One bang one process.

#1607  Postby Spearthrower » Jan 15, 2022 11:27 am

pfrankinstein wrote:You know how new sounds like woo.



No, woo sounds like woo.
I'm not an atheist; I just don't believe in gods :- that which I don't belong to isn't a group!
Religion: Mass Stockholm Syndrome

Learn Stuff. Stuff good. https://www.coursera.org/
User avatar
Spearthrower
 
Posts: 29426
Age: 45
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Re: One bang one process.

#1608  Postby pfrankinstein » Jan 15, 2022 11:47 am

hackenslash wrote:Yep, hence the invocation of Pauli. It's not even pseudoscience.



The moderators/peers are no mugs.

A vote of no confidence as i see it.

Thanks guys .

Paul.
pfrankinstein
THREAD STARTER
 
Name: paul
Posts: 636

Country: UK
Print view this post

Re: One bang one process.

#1609  Postby pfrankinstein » Jan 15, 2022 12:19 pm

Thought I had an oganon in science.

Turns out it may be Art. Philosophy. And science all at the same time.

Note to self: beware of expressing yourself in threes.

Great minds observed in every sphere and train, and thats as it should be.


https://youtu.be/Rm9TkNJT_wI
Paul.
Last edited by pfrankinstein on Jan 15, 2022 12:33 pm, edited 1 time in total.
pfrankinstein
THREAD STARTER
 
Name: paul
Posts: 636

Country: UK
Print view this post

Re: One bang one process.

#1610  Postby hackenslash » Jan 15, 2022 12:24 pm

pfrankinstein wrote:You know how new sounds like woo.


It really doesn't. If you think otherwise, you've not been paying attention, particularly to places like the physics sub-forum, in which new discoveries are reported all the time.

My only experience of something new that sounded like woo was a music production tool called Melodyne DNA. The reason it sounded like woo was because it was capable of doing something that was long thought to be impossible, namely adjusting individual notes in polyphonic recordings. It was thought to be impossible because of the way a sound wave is constructed, and the necessary co-mingling of multiple sources playing the same notes.

Of course, once you grasp the fundamentals of quantum mechanics (which was also new a century ago, and sounded even to Einstein like woo, but is responsible for the technology you're employing to share your cortical excrement with the world), it becomes fairly obvious why it is possible, because any wave can be constructed as a superposition of other waves, and this can be deconstructed using Fourier analysis and other nifty physics tools.

Hardly ever goes down well the forum.


New and interesting always goes down well here. What doesn't go down well is made-up shit with zero evidential support and mindless blather presented as insight, as you've repeatedly discovered, despite your butthurt need to classify our motivations as other.

You should be aware that the appeal to motivation is a fallacy, no matter how cleverly you think you've disguised it,
User avatar
hackenslash
 
Name: The Other Sweary One
Posts: 22204
Age: 52
Male

Country: Republic of Mancunia
Print view this post

Re: One bang one process.

#1611  Postby hackenslash » Jan 15, 2022 12:28 pm

pfrankinstein wrote:The moderators/peers are no mugs.

A vote of no confidence as i see it.


If by this you're suggesting I'm saying that the moderators put this in the wrong place because it doesn't even qualify as pseudoscience, you're more of an idiot than my meagre metric can account for. It was placed here at my request because the nearest classification we have for your nonsensical dreck is pseudoscience. We don't actually have a 'not even pseudoscience' sub-forum, though I've sometimes wondered why...
User avatar
hackenslash
 
Name: The Other Sweary One
Posts: 22204
Age: 52
Male

Country: Republic of Mancunia
Print view this post

Re: One bang one process.

#1612  Postby pfrankinstein » Jan 15, 2022 12:41 pm

hackenslash wrote:
pfrankinstein wrote:The moderators/peers are no mugs.

A vote of no confidence as i see it.


If by this you're suggesting I'm saying that the moderators put this in the wrong place because it doesn't even qualify as pseudoscience, you're more of an idiot than my meagre metric can account for. It was placed here at my request because the nearest classification we have for your nonsensical dreck is pseudoscience. We don't actually have a 'not even pseudoscience' sub-forum, though I've sometimes wondered why...


Ok.
pfrankinstein
THREAD STARTER
 
Name: paul
Posts: 636

Country: UK
Print view this post

Re: One bang one process.

#1613  Postby pfrankinstein » Jan 15, 2022 12:47 pm

There will be no food fight.

I'm not doing less than pseudoscience.

That's all.

Sorry to trouble you.
pfrankinstein
THREAD STARTER
 
Name: paul
Posts: 636

Country: UK
Print view this post

Re: One bang one process.

#1614  Postby pfrankinstein » Jan 15, 2022 1:55 pm

scott1328 wrote:
pfrankinstein wrote:
scott1328 wrote:I suggest that the O.P. read "Darwin's Dangerous Idea" by Daniel Dennett.

In this very long book Dennett presents a thesis that Evolution by Natural Selection is an algorithm. And that algorithm can be found outside of biology.

One of these realms is "Memetics". What Dawkins presented as a metaphor in "The Selfish Gene", Dennett attempts to flush out as a legitimate case of a Darwinian Algorithm outside of biology,

Dennet's thesis is not exactly the same as what the the OP is asserting but it might give the OP a clue on how to frame his rambling.


Thanks for that alas no time.

Did either of them propose a universal mechanism?

https://youtu.be/-8bqQ-C1PSE


No, neither Dawkins nor Dennett are nearly as pretentious or stupid as that.

I don't understand how you can have time to post here and not have time to pick up a damn book.


Absolutely correct, stupid and pretentious me.

My perspective is flawed by the laws of nature and rational logic.



The solar system changed, developed, emerged, ...lip service 'evolved'.

No mechanism or means of selection evident in any of it.

Paul.
Last edited by pfrankinstein on Jan 15, 2022 2:04 pm, edited 1 time in total.
pfrankinstein
THREAD STARTER
 
Name: paul
Posts: 636

Country: UK
Print view this post

Re: One bang one process.

#1615  Postby Spearthrower » Jan 15, 2022 1:58 pm

pfrankinstein wrote:
Turns out it may be Art. Philosophy. And science all at the same time.


Perhaps.
I'm not an atheist; I just don't believe in gods :- that which I don't belong to isn't a group!
Religion: Mass Stockholm Syndrome

Learn Stuff. Stuff good. https://www.coursera.org/
User avatar
Spearthrower
 
Posts: 29426
Age: 45
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Re: One bang one process.

#1616  Postby pfrankinstein » Jan 15, 2022 2:21 pm

Last edited by pfrankinstein on Jan 15, 2022 3:48 pm, edited 1 time in total.
pfrankinstein
THREAD STARTER
 
Name: paul
Posts: 636

Country: UK
Print view this post

Re: One bang one process.

#1617  Postby hackenslash » Jan 15, 2022 3:27 pm

pfrankinstein wrote:My perspective is flawed by the laws of nature and rational logic.


No, your perspective is flawed by a failure to grasp the laws of nature and logic.

The solar system changed, developed, emerged, ...lip service 'evolved'.

No mechanism or means of selection evident in any of it.

Paul.


Correct, not least because there's nothing for selection to operate on. Nothing that can be filtered. No differential survival. No survival, in fact. This last - survival - is where selection operates. Wherefore stellar survival? By what mechanism are traits passed down?

In reality, there's been no evolution of the sort you require since the demise of first-generation stars, wherein all the elements heavier than beryllium were synthesised.
User avatar
hackenslash
 
Name: The Other Sweary One
Posts: 22204
Age: 52
Male

Country: Republic of Mancunia
Print view this post

Re: One bang one process.

#1618  Postby scott1328 » Jan 15, 2022 3:38 pm

here Pfraninstien,

watch this video


it is a layman’s explanation of what you have been told many times in this thread. Perhaps if you could watch it with a twelve year old, the 12 year old could help you with the big words.
User avatar
scott1328
 
Name: Some call me... Tim
Posts: 8758
Male

United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: One bang one process.

#1619  Postby hackenslash » Jan 15, 2022 3:44 pm

And, just for fun, here's a more complete version of my version of it, since I have it in my clipboard from plsting elsewhere:

All Downhill From Here
User avatar
hackenslash
 
Name: The Other Sweary One
Posts: 22204
Age: 52
Male

Country: Republic of Mancunia
Print view this post

Re: One bang one process.

#1620  Postby pfrankinstein » Jan 15, 2022 3:52 pm

hackenslash wrote:
pfrankinstein wrote:My perspective is flawed by the laws of nature and rational logic.


No, your perspective is flawed by a failure to grasp the laws of nature and logic.

The solar system changed, developed, emerged, ...lip service 'evolved'.

No mechanism or means of selection evident in any of it.

Paul.


Correct, not least because there's nothing for selection to operate on. Nothing that can be filtered. No differential survival. No survival, in fact. This last - survival - is where selection operates. Wherefore stellar survival? By what mechanism are traits passed down?

In reality, there's been no evolution of the sort you require since the demise of first-generation stars, wherein all the elements heavier than beryllium were synthesised.



If there was no type of SELECTION at work there would be sign of Stratigraphy in the planet's or here on the Earth.

Are you proposing a random fruit cake theory?

Paul.
pfrankinstein
THREAD STARTER
 
Name: paul
Posts: 636

Country: UK
Print view this post

PreviousNext

Return to Pseudoscience

Who is online

Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 3 guests