pfrankinstein wrote:If, as i contend the big bang started a "primordial process" of evolution and the "Darwinian process" emerged from that, then would you expect that "primordial process" to parrot the biological process exactly?
No.
For the 'Primordial process' to be seen as the "ancestor" of the 'Darwinian process' and count as a true type of 'evolution' it must exhibit the key mechanism of 'Modification Descent Selection'.
[Primal selection = the laws of physics]

Regress the process, regress the meaning.

The word 'Descent modification selection' have specific connotation/meaning in Darwinian evolution. If one intends to regress the Darwinian process back, should the meaning of those words also be regressed and hold a more basic connotation?

Paul.

This is just another pseudoscientific exercise at re-naming stuff.

So, what you're saying is that 'evolution' is emergence, in whatever context it's applied, and that biological evolution is merely part of a larger evolution that applies to the formation of stars and galaxies by accretion.

OK. I agree. Now what. What else can we learn from your hypothesis that we don't already know?

hackenslash wrote:So, what you're saying is that 'evolution' is emergence, in whatever context it's applied, and that biological evolution is merely part of a larger evolution that applies to the formation of stars and galaxies by accretion.

OK. I agree. Now what. What else can we learn from your hypothesis that we don't already know?

For 'Primordial evolution' [the evolution of the inorganic]to be seen as a true type of 'evolution' in the true Darwinian sense , then 'modification descent and selection' must be observed in that process.

For there to be 'evolution' from the bang to now there must be a central theme that runs through the single process. Think of 'modification descent and selection' as binding the variouse levels/chapters of evolution together.

If one is to regress the process back beyond biology then one must regress/modify the concept of what 'modification descent and selection' means to its most basic. No meanings of the words are changed, but the way they are perceived is altered and
rendered basic.

The primordial basic perception of 'modification descent and selection' must have such breadth that it can apply to every type of inorganic interaction.



Paul.

Thanks, Paul. So, now that we've established this new perception, what do we do now? Where do we go from here? What is the potential for this new perception? What more can we discern or learn about the universe, based on this new way of thinking?

Mr.Samsa wrote:

pfrankinstein wrote:Everything new must be 'woo' or 'pseudoscience' poor assessment Mr Samsa.

I said that your topic is not scientific - which it plainly is not.

To have 'evolution' of any kind there must be the means to store knowledge and also to pass on that knowledge.

Rocks store "Knowledge" and pass "knowledge" on.

Solar systems "Evolve" by descent with modification and by means of the laws of physics? Primal selection.

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

Lee Smolins 'cosmological natural selection' operates on the other side of the big bang.

Between the Big Bang and the emergence of life no type of 'selection' can be perceived? [strikes me as odd]

Yet. Cognitive selection emerged from Natural selection. Consciousness emerged from the sub-conscious.

Perfect sense. The supposition that sub-conscious Natural selection emerged from the non-conscious "Primal selection".
Paul.

JayWilson wrote:Thanks, Paul. So, now that we've established this new perception, what do we do now? Where do we go from here? What is the potential for this new perception? What more can we discern or learn about the universe, based on this new way of thinking?

The primordial basic perception of 'modification descent and selection' must have such breadth that it can apply to every type of inorganic interaction.

*Everything that descends down through time becomes modified, the nature of the modification is always selected.

Paul.

Scar wrote:

This is just another pseudoscientific exercise at re-naming stuff.

No meanings of the words are not changed, but the way they are perceived is altered and rendered most basic.

Paul

pfrankinstein wrote:The primordial basic perception of 'modification descent and selection' must have such breadth that it can apply to every type of inorganic interaction.

Can you provide some examples, please?

pfrankinstein wrote:*Everything that descends down through time becomes modified, the nature of the modification is always selected.

Again, would you care to apply this to a real-world example for us, please?

JayWilson wrote:

pfrankinstein wrote:A,The basic perception of 'modification descent and selection' When regressed]must have such breadth that it can apply to every type of inorganic interaction.

Can you provide some examples, please?

pfrankinstein wrote:B,*Everything that descends down through time becomes modified, the nature of the modification is always selected.

Again, would you care to apply this to a real-world example for us, please?

You miss the point i am driving at.

The requirement in sentence A, must be found in the *ANSWER sentence B to be valid.

Paul

pfrankinstein wrote:

JayWilson wrote:Thanks, Paul. So, now that we've established this new perception, what do we do now? Where do we go from here? What is the potential for this new perception? What more can we discern or learn about the universe, based on this new way of thinking?

The primordial basic perception of 'modification descent and selection' must have such breadth that it can apply to every type of inorganic interaction.

*Everything that descends down through time becomes modified, the nature of the modification is always selected.

Paul.

I think you've missed a point here; though the process appears to be a selection it is actually a side-effect of deselection. The modifications are not selected for but any modifications that fail to survive the problem landscape are lost. It just appears that the modifications that are left are positively selected for when in fact they are simply the crud that is left that never got destroyed.

The difference between the blind watchmaker of nature verses a purposeful designer is that with a designer there can be positive selection. With nature, the very lack of purpose, makes it blind as it has no purpose in mind and so there is no positive selection.

In this respect the proposition that all that exists is selected for can be split into two types,

- residual selection i.e. the next generation is the residual of the previous generation after the members that failed to find a niche in the problem landscape were removed,
- positive selection i.e. the next generation is positively selected for by some designed fitness function and were allowed to pass forward.

People who criticise evolution based on a complexity or the energy needed to search the problem space or the success of the searches do not use this dichotomy but think that everything is positively selected for.

Things can be positively selected for if the selector is aware of the dimension of time. Most things are not, they are state machines in a perpetual now.

You raise some very interesting insights byofrcs.

I'll need time to ponder them.

Thanks Paul.

hackenslash wrote:I'm appaulled at the turn this thread has taken.

[quote="JayWilson"]

Three types of selection Jay, Primal selection, Natural selection, Cognitive selection.

Three primary colours. Red Blue Yellow. Rational to make link?

Stand back, look from distance and Appropriate colour to type of selection.

My attempt. [perhaps you can find a better way]

1,Red. Primal selection. Red shift.

2,Blue. Natural selection. Blue planet.

3,Yellow. Good old cognitive selection.

Now paint with your minds eye.

Paul.

Defo pseudoscience! I beg your pardon.

Envisioning an answer with the "minds eye" still counts as a science practice. Extended granted, but still useful.

Example. Giant impact. Envisage a Mars sized planet colliding with into the Earth during the accretion process.

Why not colour after all the average colour of the universe, cosmic latt, beige, the same colour as an artist's blank canvass.

Paul.

Are you aware of the effects of LSD, Paul?

Edit: Who do you think will find your theory useful, Paul, and how? How can it be applied? Are there practical uses for it?

pfrankinstein wrote:

Scar wrote:

This is just another pseudoscientific exercise at re-naming stuff.

No meanings of the words are not changed, but the way they are perceived is altered and rendered most basic.

Paul

An exercise a re-naming stuff, yes.

JayWilson wrote:Are you aware of the effects of LSD, Paul?

Every man who has a colourful thought or a new idea must be under the influence of narcotics, if that is what you really think Jay, then you disappoint me.

Paul.

Scar wrote:

pfrankinstein wrote:

Scar wrote:

This is just another pseudoscientific exercise at re-naming stuff.

No meanings of the words are not changed, but the way they are perceived is altered and rendered most basic.

Paul

An exercise a re-naming stuff, yes.

No, more than that.

Paul.

pfrankinstein wrote:

Scar wrote:

pfrankinstein wrote:

No meanings of the words are not changed, but the way they are perceived is altered and rendered most basic.

Paul

An exercise a re-naming stuff, yes.

No, more than that.

Paul.

Yeah, you are also conflating different things under one mis-represented label.

JayWilson wrote:Are you aware of the effects of LSD, Paul?

wiki wrote:How someone with synesthesia might perceive certain letters and numbers.Synesthesia (also spelled synæsthesia or synaesthesia, plural synesthesiae or synaesthesiae), from the ancient Greek σύν (syn), "together," and αἴσθησις (aisthēsis), "sensation," is a neurologically-based condition in which stimulation of one sensory or cognitive pathway leads to automatic, involuntary experiences in a second sensory or cognitive pathway.[1][2][3][4] People who report such experiences are known as synesthetes.

In one common form of synesthesia, known as grapheme → color synesthesia or color-graphemic synesthesia, letters or numbers are perceived as inherently colored,[5][6] while in ordinal linguistic personification, numbers, days of the week and months of the year evoke personalities.[7][8] In spatial-sequence, or number form synesthesia, numbers, months of the year, and/or days of the week elicit precise locations in space (for example, 1980 may be "farther away" than 1990), or may have a (three-dimensional) view of a year as a map (clockwise or counterclockwise).[9][10][11] Yet another recently identified type, visual motion → sound synesthesia, involves hearing sounds in response to visual motion and flicker.[12] Over 60 types of synesthesia have been reported,[13] but only a fraction have been evaluated by scientific research.[14] Even within one type, synesthetic perceptions vary in intensity[15] and people vary in awareness of their synesthetic perceptions.

I'm not actually seeing colours you understand but if i was.

Paul.

Tis early, good morning.

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 interconnectivity of the universe.