pfrankinstein wrote:You raise some very interesting insights byofrcs.

I'll need time to ponder them.

Thanks Paul.

Further on from my post, today I was on the bus (the voltage regulator has failed on my ride and I'm waiting for the part to arrive as I bought a replacement cheap on eBay from a wrecking yard so I'm using public transport) thinking about this residual verses positive selection and so here is what I think is the underlying mechanism that can be used on both cases,

Attraction and Repulsion.

as in what causes attraction and what causes repulsion ? - hey I'm a reductionist. The claim is that at each scale of the universe there is selection and that is why stuff exists but what is the fundamental mechanism of selection and the answer to the question of what is the raw building block of selection at any scale is to identify what are the attraction and repulsion mechanisms at that scale.

At the most fundamental scale we know of the attraction mechanism is gravity which acts on mass but equally we have the Pauli exclusion principle that in effect stops things made of fermions from collapsing as no two fermions can occupy a particular quantum state at the same time. It goes on from there with a vast array of intra and inter-molecule forces on the small scale (angstroms) to the large scale e.g. the scales that radiation pressure is relevant.

What we see as the "information" accumulation that is embodied in a selected entity is as a side-effect of these attractive and repulsive forces. They are the mechanism that acts at that scale.

We can use the same idea of attraction and repulsion at any scale including living organisms and societies/culture. The side-effects of the information that accumulates comes from how societies attract or repulse.

John P. M wrote: To claim that there are evolutionary processes at work ever since the big bang is easy, but can you actually substantiate your claim? I very much doubt it.But calling the entire process 'evolution', and a form of Darwinian evolution with 'simpler' precursors, muddles the concepts and terminology used, and also leads to unwanted confusion that is already there in the minds of creationists, who have always thought that 'evolution' has been from the big bang and on.

Muddles how muddles. tis easy to understand.


Formidable foundational statement: "One Bang one process". One process = Evolution = leading theory.

Broad dissection of the "single process" by best logic , type of "Domain/material" = Punctuation = Clear division.

Dissection reveals Chiefly Three types of environment.

1,The laws of physics do the 'selecting' in the *vast inorganic universe* [*material domain].

2,On Earth organic life* [*material/domain] by Natural selection.

3, Cognitive selection.

The movement of selection outlined.

1, Newtonian Primal selection = Non-conscious = physics.

2, Natural selection = Unconscious/Sub-conscious.

3, Cognitive selection = Consciouse selection.

Cognitive selection related to Natural selection, YES. Natural selection related to Primal selction. [?LOL]

can you actually substantiate your claim?

Oh yes.

Paul.

Dissection = science procedure. "One bang one process" is a logical science supposition.

Move the thread moderators.

Paul.

JayWilson wrote:

pfrankinstein wrote:<snip stuff about synaesthesia>
I'm not actually seeing colours you understand but if i was.

Exactly. The intermingling of perceptions was what I was alluding to. It is a path to understanding the interconnected of the universe.

Everyone understands the principle mixing the primary colours to get a different colour.

The three primary colours can be viewed separately naked [dissected] on the artists pallet, or mixed together so as to paint a picture.

Paul.

Your ok jay.

byofrcs wrote:We can use the same idea of attraction and repulsion at any scale including living organisms and societies/culture. The side-effects of the information that accumulates comes from how societies attract or repulse.

Here's a question/thought for you sir.

Envisage a single chain of 'cause and selected effect' from bang to you, should one judge the chain in the 'positive', as good.

We measure in the positive 'survival of the fittest; not ' the extinction of the weak'.

From rock to life and on into the minds of men goes selection. What we choose, our cognitive selected stance/opinion with regard to the God question is very important.

The continuation of positive chain, atheist, agnostic, Christian?

Paul.





'

pfrankinstein wrote:

byofrcs wrote:We can use the same idea of attraction and repulsion at any scale including living organisms and societies/culture. The side-effects of the information that accumulates comes from how societies attract or repulse.

Here's a question/thought for you sir.

Envisage a single chain of 'cause and selected effect' from bang to you, should one judge the chain in the 'positive', as good.

We measure in the positive 'survival of the fittest; not ' the extinction of the weak'.

Where I live the ticks have just started to come out. From a practical human point of view I don't view ticks as "good". They are very well adapted to their environment though. This is the survival of the fit.

Obviously the entomologists on this forum would measure ticks as a positive. They probably love these little guys. I don't.

From rock to life and on into the minds of men goes selection. What we choose, our cognitive selected stance/opinion with regard to the God question is very important.

The continuation of positive chain, atheist, agnostic, Christian?

Paul.

'

I view the god questions like I do discussions about the technology on Star Trek. Though I have all of Star Trek series on DVD and I'm happy to discuss the ideas I don't view this as "very important". It certainly has little relevance to our existence as it is a fictional series. I view gods in a similar way. I have bibles like I have Star Trek DVDs. It is fictional and remains so until shown otherwise.

As with ticks and other parasites I don't view it as a positive chain to Christians. Others may.

The_Metatron wrote:Come off it, Paul. You know how it works. You came here with conclusions. Then, when pressed about your hypothesis or method of testing it, you jump onto the "Everything new must be 'woo' or 'pseudoscience'" train. How about you diagram this for us? What's your hypothesis? How did you/do you propose to test it?

The theory can be tested by observation.

Name something that has not arisen by 'modification descent and by means of one the three types of selection' that i outline.

The supposition that the laws of physics count as the forerunner 'primitive type of selection' related to natural selection.

Fucking genius!

Move the thread out of "pseudoscience" now Samsa Meatatron!

Total Lack in faith in the ability of..... My interest wains, my approach lacklustre. I'm insulted move it today.

Paul.

byofrcs wrote:

pfrankinstein wrote:

byofrcs wrote:We can use the same idea of attraction and repulsion at any scale including living organisms and societies/culture. The side-effects of the information that accumulates comes from how societies attract or repulse.

Here's a question/thought for you sir.

Envisage a single chain of 'cause and selected effect' from bang to you, should one judge the chain in the 'positive', as good.

We measure in the positive 'survival of the fittest; not ' the extinction of the weak'.

Where I live the ticks have just started to come out. From a practical human point of view I don't view ticks as "good". They are very well adapted to their environment though. This is the survival of the fit.

Obviously the entomologists on this forum would measure ticks as a positive. They probably love these little guys. I don't.

From rock to life and on into the minds of men goes selection. What we choose, our cognitive selected stance/opinion with regard to the God question is very important.

The continuation of positive chain, atheist, agnostic, Christian?

Paul.

'

I view the god questions like I do discussions about the technology on Star Trek. Though I have all of Star Trek series on DVD and I'm happy to discuss the ideas I don't view this as "very important". It certainly has little relevance to our existence as it is a fictional series. I view gods in a similar way. I have bibles like I have Star Trek DVDs. It is fictional and remains so until shown otherwise.

As with ticks and other parasites I don't view it as a positive chain to Christians. Others may.

Well, i wasn't asking the 'tick' for their opinion, if the tick had the ability to reason and cherished their being here, then their answer would no doubt coincide with what should be the human perspective, assuming they loved the mortal experience.

A 'single chain' from bang to now a 'good' positive one?

If the name of the game is 'survival of the fittest' then the question again.

The continuation of that positive chain, should mankind/science move forward as 'atheist' 'agnostic' or 'christian'?

Good selection, isn't that what it is all about, making good selection. Myself i tend to see atheism as the "negative dead end" of our evolution. I'm agnostic myself, i tend to feel that where the positive meets the negative is the place where the lights come on.

Paul.

pfrankinstein wrote:

byofrcs wrote:

pfrankinstein wrote:

Here's a question/thought for you sir.

Envisage a single chain of 'cause and selected effect' from bang to you, should one judge the chain in the 'positive', as good.

We measure in the positive 'survival of the fittest; not ' the extinction of the weak'.

Where I live the ticks have just started to come out. From a practical human point of view I don't view ticks as "good". They are very well adapted to their environment though. This is the survival of the fit.

Obviously the entomologists on this forum would measure ticks as a positive. They probably love these little guys. I don't.

From rock to life and on into the minds of men goes selection. What we choose, our cognitive selected stance/opinion with regard to the God question is very important.

The continuation of positive chain, atheist, agnostic, Christian?

Paul.

'

I view the god questions like I do discussions about the technology on Star Trek. Though I have all of Star Trek series on DVD and I'm happy to discuss the ideas I don't view this as "very important". It certainly has little relevance to our existence as it is a fictional series. I view gods in a similar way. I have bibles like I have Star Trek DVDs. It is fictional and remains so until shown otherwise.

As with ticks and other parasites I don't view it as a positive chain to Christians. Others may.

Well, i wasn't asking the 'tick' for their opinion, if the tick had the ability to reason and cherished their being here, then their answer would no doubt coincide with what should be the human perspective, assuming they loved the mortal experience.

A 'single chain' from bang to now a 'good' positive one?

If the name of the game is 'survival of the fittest' then the question again.

The continuation of that positive chain, should mankind/science move forward as 'atheist' 'agnostic' or 'christian'?

Good selection, isn't that what it is all about, making good selection. Myself i tend to see atheism as the "negative dead end" of our evolution. I'm agnostic myself, i tend to feel that where the positive meets the negative is the place where the lights come on.

Paul.

No, you asked me and I gave you my answer on the question of "good". There is no good that can apply to all of existence, only things that are interpreted as good from one point of view. What is good from a human point of view could be not-good from a tick point of view.

And so to answer the question regarding "should mankind/science move forward as 'atheist' 'agnostic' or 'christian'?", you have made a category mistake in that you have presented three different things as if they were in the same category.

An "atheism" is to not have a belief about god or to have no belief in gods or to doubt the existence of gods,
The "agnostic" is to take the stance that the proposition of the claims about gods are unknown or unknowable
A "christian" is someone who accepts Jesus as their saviour or lives by ideals that are claimed to be from Jesus.

How can these three possibly be related to consider them an evolution ?.

Now I'll go out on a limb and reduce it to 2 because truthfully the agnostic is a fence-sitter that is irrelevant and I'll change "atheist" to "secular humanist" as this is a pretty common positive stance of atheists that would be comparable to "christian".

Part 1)
So now do I think "should mankind move forward as 'secular humanist' or 'christian'?"

The answer must be secular humanist as the christian beliefs are founded on the pretty slim evidence of the works of Christian writers of which there are no works that were written during the time of Jesus. There are no contemporaneous documents. Thus the very foundation of Christianity is suspect and untrustworthy. Christianity also places great significance on the supernatural existence of Jesus and God and without evidence for this supernatural realm then we cannot trust what is said is even remotely approaching the truth.

Secular humanism though is always relevant as this philosophy promotes human reason as the basis of morality and decision-making. Thus christianity is an anti-humanism as it makes dogma, supernatural and superstition to be its foundation. Christianity seems to be a failed model for society thus the rise of human rights legislation that correlates with the rise in secularism.

Part 2) You have also grouped two things together as if they were related; "mankind/science" are separate fields.

So now do I think "should science move forward as 'methodical naturalism' or 'christian'?"

The answer right now is "methodical naturalism" as the foundation of "Christian" science is a belief in the supernatural. Without evidence for this realm it is not even a candidate.

To date the processes of methodical naturalism have proven to be reliable.

Mr.Samsa wrote:

!

GENERAL MODNOTE pfrankinstein wrote:Dissection = science procedure. "One bang one process" is a logical science supposition. Move the thread moderators. Paul. Pfrankinstein: Please stay on-topic, it has been explained to you why the thread is not going to be moved so your continued in-thread requests to move it are off-topic. Please keep in mind the Forum User's Agreement, particularly this section where you agreed to: 1.2. not cause harm or disruption to the forum or other members, for example please don't: g. try to take threads off-topic Be aware that continued derailing of your topic can result in further sanctions, so just stick to the topic. If you have any questions, then please PM me instead of posting them here (as your concerns will be off-topic). Thanks.

Line of enquiry = Supposition = One Bang One Process = One process = Darwinian Evolution.
Validation for line of enquiry = Change in perspective of subject = Naturalist, biologist. >
One Bang One process = New broad perspective = > >>
The first 'greater than symbol' = The Process of Primordial evolution
The middle 'greater than symbol' = Darwinian evolution.
The third > = The 'Evolution' of science mankind's cultures and artifacts.
.............................
Validation for new term the process of 'Primordial evolution'. Because i propose 'One process' i feel that it important to show that the processes are related. Spark for new term = Life from the primordial soup, The 'Darwinian process' from the 'Primordial process.'
Are you with me so far MrSamsa?

Paul. Not science? mmm

Haven;t you studied your pigeon chess strategies? It's the 'death by mod' gambit.

hackenslash wrote:Haven;t you studied your pigeon chess strategies? It's the 'death by mod' gambit.

I was reading a very interesting thread in science just the other day it was entitled "Have We been here before" most scientific?

Do stay on topic hakenslash. What do you think of my supposition 'One bang one process'.

Do a lot of science theories start off as a 'What if'.

Paul

pfrankinstein wrote:

hackenslash wrote:Haven;t you studied your pigeon chess strategies? It's the 'death by mod' gambit.

I was reading a very interesting thread in science just the other day it was entitled "Have We been here before" most scientific?

Do stay on topic hakenslash. What do you think of my supposition 'One bang one process'.

Do a lot of science theories start off as a 'What if'.

Paul

Why do you use the term "Darwinian Evolution"? Why not biological evolution [BE], chemical evolutionCE, cosmological evolution[CosE]? I am confused as to your intended meaning for these things.

For example, Darwin had no idea about the mechanism of inheritance, so he would not have known about genetic drift. Genetic drift can change gene frequencies, and hence influence evolution of the genome. Darwin was only aware of Natural selection, sexual selection and palaeo-biographical factors, not genetics. And in any case BE, CE, and CosE are different and have different drivers.

Darwinsbulldog wrote:Why do you use the term "Darwinian Evolution"? Why not biological evolution [BE], chemical evolutionCE, cosmological evolution[CosE]? I am confused as to your intended meaning for these things.

For example, Darwin had no idea about the mechanism of inheritance, so he would not have known about genetic drift. Genetic drift can change gene frequencies, and hence influence evolution of the genome. Darwin was only aware of Natural selection, sexual selection and palaeo-biographical factors, not genetics. And in any case BE, CE, and CosE are different and have different drivers.

All these individual evolutions are merely hues of the entire evolutionary rainbow.

Darwinsbulldog wrote:Why do you use the term "Darwinian Evolution"? Why not biological evolution [BE], chemical evolutionCE, cosmological evolution[CosE]? I am confused as to your intended meaning for these things.

For example, Darwin had no idea about the mechanism of inheritance, so he would not have known about genetic drift. Genetic drift can change gene frequencies, and hence influence evolution of the genome. Darwin was only aware of Natural selection, sexual selection and palaeo-biographical factors, not genetics. And in any case BE, CE, and CosE are different and have different drivers.

Brilliant. Yes sir you have it, well put..

Key for the 'new' broad 'Science' perspective of 'evolution' to hold water, the movement of 'selection' and its chronological emergence must be outlined.

Perhaps you would like to comment on the proposal that the laws of physics = the first type of 'selection'.

Alone 'Primal selection' can be easily quashed, one must bear in mind that NS = Unconscious sub-conscious selection, and accept that PS = Non-conscious selection.

NS being Unconscious/subconscious selection = a SCIENCE observation.

The movement from the 'non-conscious' to the 'subconscious' to the 'conscious' = a SCIENCE observation.

Paul.

JayWilson wrote:All these individual evolutions are merely hues of the entire evolutionary rainbow.

It makes my day to see that i have sparked someones imagination, and you mine.

Three types of selection three primary colours why not attempt to make an artistic link. Red shift blue planet and yellow.

http://youtu.be/OERc6iOh6Og

Provoke a thought and be provoked.

Nice Jay.

Paul.

Alone 'Primal selection' can be easily quashed, one must bear in mind the unfolding of selection itself:

1, Primal selection = Non-conscious selection.

2, Natural selection = Unconscious, sub-conscious selection

3, Cognitive selection = Conscious selection.

The supposition that 'selection' began at source in the beginning fits neatly into the observed pattern, both on a Grand universe scale, and also at ones own human personal level.

........................

Science observation = [SO]

http://youtu.be/B3kFPBtc9BE

Paul.