surreptitious wrote:The conventional view is that Evolution only applies to organic matter such as bacteria, plants and animals. It does not apply to non-organic matter such as stars and planets. By this logic, you are wrong because you are stretching the definition of what a particular phenomena is and what it specifically affects.

We tweak our understanding of our existence and of the universe as new evidence comes to light. In Darwinian/biological evolution it stands that: More important than the actual deed of mutation is that the life-form has the given potential to do so in the first place. The potential to mutate ones thinking on a given subject is of paramount importance. Conventional/traditional thinking does not represent a logical rational counter argument.

I do concede that i am stretching definitions, to regress Darwinian evolution back to the bang and forward can be thought of, i suppose as stretching the process beyond its Traditional confines.

This explains why every poster here finds difficultly in what you are hypothesising. By your assumption then, Evolution is present throughhout the Universe.

It it a fact that "plausibility turns to stubbornness over time". It infuriates me that so many who claim to understand evolution have set minds.

http://youtu.be/w8fu-hq3S7A

I can see a logical thread in your argument

Have you considered the movement of selection from the non-conscious to the subconscious to the conscious, you should.

One could state that the Sun possesses knowledge, since it converts helium into hydrogen which then travels at light speed to Earth and is absorbed by plants through photosynthesis which allows them to grow and since plants are organic, then this chain of events would not come to pass without the Sun which is necessary for life to exist here. So I understand your point. But an inorganic entity like a star is not alive in the sense that an organic one such as a plant is. Evolution only applies to the latter, not the former. Sorry Paul, but I have to agree with the consensus on this. But I see your reasoning if that helps.

You can not explain Darwinian/biological evolution by holding up a fingernail clipping, in that same way you can not explain the process of Primordial evolution by looking at a single phenomenon, one must look to a broad scenario like a solar system evolving.

Paul.

pfrankinstein wrote:I do concede that i am stretching definitions, to regress Darwinian evolution back to the bang and forward can be thought of, i suppose as stretching the process beyond its Traditional confines.

The problem is that you are stretching definitions to the point where it is hard to see what wouldn't be included in the definitions of words, and the words no longer separate things from other things, or processes from other processes - which is the only point of having words at all - and become semantically void and useless. On reaching this state, however, you might make the error of thinking that, because your view seems to describe everything, it is some kind of superunifying, over-arching theory, but it isn't: it is merely broadening the definitions of words to the point where than can fit anything and tell you nothing.

Fenrir wrote:You have failed to explain what connects the three processes you reference apart from the word "evolution". You have not provided a mechanism which is common between the three "evolutions."

Descent with modification by means of "A" type of selection is a mechanism common to all three processes.

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

I'm beginning to think in terms, along the lines of "Variation in expression/frequency of the process" and how this comes about. The thought is new so i'm going to take time to think it over.

Paul.

Paul Almond wrote:

pfrankinstein wrote:I do concede that i am stretching definitions, to regress Darwinian evolution back to the bang and forward can be thought of, i suppose as stretching the process beyond its Traditional confines.

The problem is that you are stretching definitions to the point where it is hard to see what wouldn't be included in the definitions of words, and the words no longer separate things from other things, or processes from other processes - which is the only point of having words at all - and become semantically void and useless. On reaching this state, however, you might make the error of thinking that, because your view seems to describe everything, it is some kind of superunifying, over-arching theory, but it isn't: it is merely broadening the definitions of words to the point where than can fit anything and tell you nothing.

Seemingly so simple as to render such as unsatisfactory:

True or false.

Everything that follows the arrow of time becomes modified, the nature of that modification is always selected.

Cause and effect, the effect is always selected? YES.

The AND in "Cause AND effect" = A portion of time. Descend down through time.
.........................

it is merely broadening the definitions of words to the point where than can fit anything and tell you nothing.

It may seem that way, i see your point yet; Is the "natralists" perspective broader than the "biologists", both perspectives still valid?

Paul.

Overly contrived, or do the pieces just fall into place?

Red. Blue. Yellow.

Primal. Natural. Cognitive.

Non-conscious. Subconscious. Conscious.

Past. Present. Future.

Beginning. Middle. End.

Paul.

SO. The mechanical thought would be; Descent modification selection. Thinking in such terms is for the sake of convenience only, one may be left with the impression that "selection" can be wheeled out as and when... How would it know.
Therefore "Selection is constant".

Are you trying to say that there is something at work that makes one thing happen, instead of all the things that might have happened instead?

If so, everyone already knows about that. It's called physics.

Physics. Chemistry. Biology.
Bang. Bang. Bang.

Paul Almond wrote:Are you trying to say that there is something at work that makes one thing happen, instead of all the things that might have happened instead?

No. What i am saying is that One and three things are happening simultaneously in us, and also separately. You need to take on board that NS is constant, you also need to try and understand that Primal selection also works constantly.

Let me use colour to explain. Primal selection can be viewed working alone in the vast inorganic universe. Natural selection = blue. Primal selection works here on Earth as well as in outer space. So. Both types of selection can be viewed separately, naked on the artist's palette, or blending together so as to paint a picture.

If so, everyone already knows about that. It's called physics.

You mean everybody already understands and accepts that the laws of physics = the first type of selection in the chain.

Drat.

Paul.

JayWilson wrote:Physics. Chemistry. Biology.
Bang. Bang. Bang.

No. Boom boom boom.

Moments of conception = Big bang. Orgasm. Eureka. Universe. Life. Intelligent life.

http://youtu.be/eMwn_hnoS5Y

Paul.

I'm beginning to think in terms, along the lines of "Variation in expression/frequency of the process" and how this comes about. The thought is new so i'm going to take time to think it over.

Paul.

We are all very excited.

I'm going to shift back through the board to find and answer some of the more relevant questions posed, i'm going to need deep waders to get through all the crap though. Wish me luck.

Paul.

You don't need luck. Just ignore your own posts and you'll be fine.

Paul Almond wrote:We are all very excited.

Primal selection, have you pondered the concept of Primal selection.

Think about where it is at work, the size of the domain.

Now template [make loose comparison] between the iceberg of consciousness.

I take it that we are mature enough to discuss new concepts in principle?

Paul.

hackenslash wrote:You don't need luck. Just ignore your own posts and you'll be fine.

When it comes to the subject of evolution how many types of "selection" are known to be at work, One Two or Three?

Make a selection, that's two, Darwinian selection and your own cognitive selection.

CHOOSING, non-consciously, unconsciously subconsciously or consciously still = selecting/choosing.

I Thank you.

Paul.

Alpha. Beta. Gamma.

Thank you.

Jay.

pfrankinstein wrote:I'm beginning to think in terms, along the lines of "Variation in expression/frequency of the process" and how this comes about. The thought is new so i'm going to take time to think it over.

Paul.

"Evolution" = A Self Perpetuating shape shifter.

Variation in expression/frequency of the single process.

I have a "Tree" analogy. But first a question anybody...

Q, Is it the process of "evolution" that changes or is it the circumstances/environment that the process finds itself in?

Paul.

pfrankinstein wrote:Q, Is it the process of evolution that changes or circumstances/environment that it finds itself in?

The question is too incoherent to answer.

Paul Almond wrote:

pfrankinstein wrote:Q, Is it the process of evolution that changes or circumstances/environment that it finds itself in?

The question is too incoherent to answer.

NO.

Think about it.

The big bang starts a single process, that process becomes trapped in a new environment, the Earth, and by self perpetuation new material with different parameters to work on.

Now. Is it the process that has altered or the circumstances/material that the process finds itself in.

Paul.

If we are all star stuff, then the process that went to make stars made us.

JayWilson wrote:Alpha. Beta. Gamma.

Thank you.

Jay.

Just pseudoscience remember, I just made everything up, some may call it "innovation" if it makes sense.

I'd be the first to attempt to paint with evolution and selection.

One bang One process WHAT!?

Not quite science in some peoples eyes, art, an Organon, philosophy, certainly more than just pseudoscience.

I'm insulted.

Paul.