One bang one process.

Paul Almond · **#1041** by **Paul Almond** » Jun 05, 2012 6:21 pm

pfrankinstein, let's say that, before biological evolution starts, we have something that is selected in your model. Let us also imagine something that is not selected. What features does the thing that is selected have that the thing that is not selected does not have?

I'm looking here for something a bit better than "whatever features it has to cause it to be selected" - because if that is the case, the whole idea would be a tautology. In biological evolution, things are selected because they are good at making copies of themselves, so what is the crieteria for selection in your view. What does nature "like"?

And how does this differ from previous views of nature?

pfrankinstein · **#1042** by **pfrankinstein** » Jun 05, 2012 8:47 pm

What is being selected for in a process that has no direction good question.

To think in terms of non-direction Think of the second-hand of a faceless Rolex watch turning at the speed of light in every direction, nothing remarkable there then... The answer is nothing is being selected for.

It is only when you ask a question of the faceless timepiece a specific question that is forced to stop and answer.

The specific question i ask is also the initial one: 'How is it i came to exist'.

The second hand is forced to point in one direction, a single chain of what i can only described as being a positive.

'Being selected for', 'survival of the fittest' are phrases that have a positive ring to them, by virtue inheritance, that is i theme mine around Darwin/Spencer, echoes that positivity.

Look at the tree, now look for the fruit on the tree.

Paul.

Paul Almond · **#1043** by **Paul Almond** » Jun 05, 2012 8:53 pm

This is like talking to Yoda on crack. I'm out of here.

Scar · **#1044** by **Scar** » Jun 05, 2012 9:48 pm

pfrankinstein wrote:What is being selected for in a process that has no direction good question.

To think in terms of non-direction Think of the second-hand of a faceless Rolex watch turning at the speed of light in every direction, nothing remarkable there then... The answer is nothing is being selected for.

It is only when you ask a question of the faceless timepiece a specific question that is forced to stop and answer.

The specific question i ask is also the initial one: 'How is it i came to exist'.

The second hand is forced to point in one direction, a single chain of what i can only described as being a positive.

'Being selected for', 'survival of the fittest' are phrases that have a positive ring to them, by virtue inheritance, that is i theme mine around Darwin/Spencer, echoes that positivity.

Look at the tree, now look for the fruit on the tree.

Paul.

True, but consider the following:

As I have elsewhere shown, the phenomena, so regarded, are the mere results of the power of the never-ending regress in the series of empirical conditions, a blind but indispensable function of the soul. The Ideal, insomuch as the transcendental unity of apperception relies on the paralogisms of natural reason, can never furnish a true and demonstrated science, because, like philosophy, it can not take account of problematic principles. The whole of conscious life, naturally, becomes adjusted to noetic acts; I set myself the all-embracing task of uncovering noetic acts by conscious conversion into the corresponding multiplicities of the whole of conscious life. Since all of the Categories are disjunctive, it is obvious that general logic would thereby be made to contradict the never-ending regress in the series of empirical conditions. In the case of the transcendental unity of apperception, space should only be used as a canon for the phenomena. The Ideal of human reason, in so far as this expounds the universal rules of the noumena, can be treated like pure logic. Since none of the objects in space and time are problematic, the Antinomies have nothing to do with, in natural theology, our sense perceptions, yet space teaches us nothing whatsoever regarding the content of pure reason.

Macroinvertebrate · **#1045** by **Macroinvertebrate** » Jun 05, 2012 9:59 pm

That makes perfect logical sense, especially considering the apex of time is merely a subdivided obtuse vortex in the fiduciary confines of augmented perception; much like the tree with low hanging fruit; look at it, it's not there, then it's there, then it's gone but the low hanging fruit remains.

Scar · **#1046** by **Scar** » Jun 05, 2012 10:00 pm

Macroinvertebrate wrote:That makes perfect logical sense, especially considering the apex of time is merely a subdivided obtuse vortex in the fiduciary confines of augmented perception; much like the tree with low hanging fruit; look at it, it's not there, then it's there, then it's gone but the low hanging fruit remains.

Exactly!

pfrankinstein · **#1047** by **pfrankinstein** » Jun 06, 2012 10:58 pm

Paul Almond wrote:This is like talking to Yoda on crack. I'm out of here.

And i don't blame you. I inadvertently posted before i had edited, and then could'nt be botherd to delete.

In a nutshell:

If one is asking how it is they came to exist then by virtue of asking a specific question the direction-less process gains direction.

A specific question can be answered specifically. The non-directional perspective shifts and the one process gains the perspective of having direction. [simple]

The 'One bang One process concept' is a themed theory, that is it is based around inherited Darwinian principles. Darwin/Spencer measure in the positive hence 'selected for' 'survival of the fittest'.

Do you understand?

pfrankinstein · **#1048** by **pfrankinstein** » Jun 06, 2012 11:05 pm

Scar wrote:
Macroinvertebrate wrote:That makes perfect logical sense, especially considering the apex of time is merely a subdivided obtuse vortex in the fiduciary confines of augmented perception; much like the tree with low hanging fruit; look at it, it's not there, then it's there, then it's gone but the low hanging fruit remains.

Exactly!

One can most easily envisage 'the origin of species' and 'biological evolution' as a tree bearing fruit. If biological evolution ever needed to be symbolised by a physicist in short hand then the 'tree bearing fruit' would be the best symbol.

Or perhaps you have a better suggestion.

Paul.

pfrankinstein · **#1049** by **pfrankinstein** » Jun 06, 2012 11:18 pm

www.abc.net.au/science/surfingscientist ... ndrum5.pdf

A specific question can be answered specifically. The non-directional perspective shifts and the one process gains the perspective of having direction. [simple]

LucidFlight · **#1050** by **LucidFlight** » Jun 06, 2012 11:20 pm

So, to sum up:

Asking how we came into existence by means of posing a particular query, that mechanism which seems to be going nowhere start to look as if it is going somewhere.

Particular queries can be addressed in a manner that is equal to itself in its particularity. The floundering viewpoint changes and the singular mechanism takes on the view of possessing an identifiable pathway. [Easy!]

"Singular rapid expansion, singular mechanism" idea is a stylised set of ideas; in other words, it's influenced by the hereditary postulations of a popular English naturalist. Two English men - one a well-known English naturalist and the other a polymath of the Victorian era - gauge additively; therefore, "chosen as" "those with most selective advantages tend to sustain their populations more effectively in a given environment."

¿Comprende?

pfrankinstein · **#1051** by **pfrankinstein** » Jun 06, 2012 11:35 pm

LucidFlight wrote:So, to sum up:

Asking how we came into existence by means of posing a particular query, that mechanism which seems to be going nowhere start to look as if it is going somewhere.

Particular queries can be addressed in a manner that is equal to itself in its particularity. The floundering viewpoint changes and the singular mechanism takes on the view of possessing an identifiable pathway. [Easy!]

"Singular rapid expansion, singular mechanism" idea is a stylised set of ideas; in other words, it's influenced by the hereditary postulations of a popular English naturalist. Two English men - one a well-known English naturalist and the other a polymath of the Victorian era - gauge additively; therefore, "chosen as" "those with most selective advantages tend to sustain their populations more effectively in a given environment."

¿Comprende?

Exactly.

Paul.

Durro · **#1052** by **Durro** » Jun 08, 2012 5:15 am

pfrankinstein wrote: I'm typing this very slowly so you might better understand.

!

MODNOTE
Paul, given your previous history of moderator interventions, you should know not to post such a personalised provocative comment. Given your history, you have now earned another warning, your 3rd current warning and another 1 week suspension of your membership. I suggest that you spend some of your suspension reconsidering your posting style, for further warnings come with longer suspensions, up to and possibly including permanent banning.

You are reminded that you may not make any additional accounts during your suspensions (i.e. "Sockpuppets"), or else your suspension will be lengthened up to and possibly including permanent banning from the forum. If you need to contact the staff during your absence, you can do so via the forum admin e-mail at info@rationalskepticism.org

All other members are reminded that suspended members are afforded protection under the FUA, so please don't take this as licence to make unkind comments about Paul. If anyone has any questions, please PM myself or another Mod, or take your issue to the Feedback forum.

Durro

pfrankinstein · **#1053** by **pfrankinstein** » Jun 15, 2012 9:56 am

LucidFlight wrote:So, to sum up:

Asking how we came into existence by means of posing a particular query, that mechanism which seems to be going nowhere starts to look as if it is going somewhere.

Absolutely, the single chain of 'evolution' gains direction, and looks to be goal orientated.

Figuratively speaking, the torch light starts out as a white beam of light, turns red, passes through the blue filter and enters the retina and is absorbed by the grey matter.

Paul.

Scar · **#1054** by **Scar** » Jun 15, 2012 10:13 am

pfrankinstein wrote:
LucidFlight wrote:So, to sum up:

Asking how we came into existence by means of posing a particular query, that mechanism which seems to be going nowhere starts to look as if it is going somewhere.

Absolutely, the single chain of 'evolution' gains direction, and looks to be goal orientated.

Figuratively speaking, the torch light starts out as a white beam of light, turns red, passes through the blue filter and enters the retina and is absorbed by the grey matter.

Paul.

pfrankinstein · **#1055** by **pfrankinstein** » Jun 15, 2012 10:36 am

Scar wrote:
pfrankinstein wrote:
LucidFlight wrote:So, to sum up:

Asking how we came into existence by means of posing a particular query, that mechanism which seems to be going nowhere starts to look as if it is going somewhere.

Absolutely, the single chain of 'evolution' gains direction, and looks to be goal orientated.

Figuratively speaking, the torch light starts out as a white beam of light, turns red, passes through the blue filter and enters the retina and is absorbed by the grey matter.

Paul.

So lets see if i have this right Scar.

If a mortal man asks a specific fundamental question about his origins, then evolution gains direction and in some ways can be seen as being goal orientated.

With your one non-directional perspective Are you Scar Omniscience?

Might i remind you that the big bangs timeline is presented in such a way as to answer the same mortal fundamental Q i address here.

Paul.

ElDiablo · **#1056** by **ElDiablo** » Jun 15, 2012 12:29 pm

pfrankinstein wrote:
If a mortal man asks...

Is there anything but mortal (hu)man, or are you simply using this for dramatic effect?

Scar · **#1057** by **Scar** » Jun 15, 2012 4:32 pm

pfrankinstein wrote:
Scar wrote:
pfrankinstein wrote:
LucidFlight wrote:So, to sum up:

Asking how we came into existence by means of posing a particular query, that mechanism which seems to be going nowhere starts to look as if it is going somewhere.

Absolutely, the single chain of 'evolution' gains direction, and looks to be goal orientated.

Figuratively speaking, the torch light starts out as a white beam of light, turns red, passes through the blue filter and enters the retina and is absorbed by the grey matter.

Paul.

So lets see if i have this right Scar.

If a mortal man asks a specific fundamental question about his origins, then evolution gains direction and in some ways can be seen as being goal orientated.

With your one non-directional perspective Are you Scar Omniscience?

Might i remind you that the big bangs timeline is presented in such a way as to answer the same mortal fundamental Q i address here.

Paul.

Please, don't stop. This shit is hilarious.

:lol:

Macroinvertebrate · **#1058** by **Macroinvertebrate** » Jun 15, 2012 10:14 pm

Have you not noticed, Paul, that nobody thinks your ideas are compelling or profound? You're the only one that thinks so. That alone should clue you in to the fact that you are just regurgitating intellectually vapid nonsense.

pfrankinstein · **#1059** by **pfrankinstein** » Jun 16, 2012 3:58 pm

Macroinvertebrate wrote:Have you not noticed, Paul, that nobody thinks your ideas are compelling or profound? You're the only one that thinks so. That alone should clue you in to the fact that you are just regurgitating intellectually vapid nonsense.

Hey, it is not my problem if some/most of the know all members here in this forum lack the ability to think outside of the box.
Open minded intelligent people should have the ability to 'suppose' and 'envisage' new concepts.

Like it or not the 'One bang One process' concept has merit, the movement of 'selection' being self evident.

You yourself macroinvertibrate have yet to pose any logical counter argument to any of my ideas, instead it would seem that you prefer to ignorantly join the two a penny preconditioned thinking crowd.

In the same way that a hand held optical device can be tuned by rotating a wheel to find focus on a sample, the perspective we have of 'evolution' can also differ from different levels. It may have escaped your notice, not only must i explain the 1=1 concept, i must also show and outline those different perspectives.

Do try harder to think, try engaging with your brain before you post/insult me.

Paul.

Scar · **#1060** by **Scar** » Jun 16, 2012 9:45 pm

pfrankinstein wrote:
Macroinvertebrate wrote:Have you not noticed, Paul, that nobody thinks your ideas are compelling or profound? You're the only one that thinks so. That alone should clue you in to the fact that you are just regurgitating intellectually vapid nonsense.

Hey, it is not my problem if some/most of the know all members here in this forum lack the ability to think outside of the box.
Open minded intelligent people should have the ability to 'suppose' and 'envisage' new concepts.

Like it or not the 'One bang One process' concept has merit, the movement of 'selection' being self evident.

You yourself macroinvertibrate have yet to pose any logical counter argument to any of my ideas, instead it would seem that you prefer to ignorantly join the two a penny preconditioned thinking crowd.

In the same way that a hand held optical device can be tuned by rotating a wheel to find focus on a sample, the perspective we have of 'evolution' can also differ from different levels. It may have escaped your notice, not only must i explain the 1=1 concept, i must also show and outline those different perspectives.

Do try harder to think, try engaging with your brain before you post/insult me.

Paul.

One bang one process.

Re: One bang one process.

Re: One bang one process.

Re: One bang one process.

Re: One bang one process.

Re: One bang one process.

Re: One bang one process.

Re: One bang one process.

Re: One bang one process.

Re: One bang one process.

Re: One bang one process.

Re: One bang one process.

Re: One bang one process.

Re: One bang one process.

Re: One bang one process.

Re: One bang one process.

Re: One bang one process.

Re: One bang one process.

Re: One bang one process.

Re: One bang one process.

Re: One bang one process.

Who is online