BWE wrote:

romansh wrote:

BWE wrote: Do economies replicate?

Interesting question, I would argue possibly, but mediated by people. I was thinking industries more than economies but good one to discuss.

BWE wrote: Do ideas replicate?

In the sense of memes? Dawkins thinks so, up for debate I suppose.

BWE wrote: Do rocks replicate?

No.

BWE wrote: Does information replicate?

Possibly in the sense of Shannon information.
So, we can discuss further whether evolution occurs in any of these instances, where evolution is slightly imperfect replication followed by selection.
But evolution as in the sense of genes ... definitely.

And we can decide whether we want to call evolution change over time, i.e. time directional, or biological replication, a specific subset of the former also. But that decision would not make an ontological truth. It would make an operational definition. As all definitions are

Amblyopsidae. All deepens on who you ask I suppose. does evolution have direction.?

Paul.

pfrankinstein wrote: does evolution have direction.?

Increasing entropy?

BWE wrote:
And we can decide whether we want to call evolution change over time

And we can decide whether we want to confound the various meanings of evolution.

If Paul keeps referencing Darwin, selection, natural, human, and artificial, and then talking about solar systems being selected, this does lead one to suppose we are thinking about some kind of Darwinian process.

But if you are using evolving in the sense of emerging properties of the universe, an unfolding universe, an ageing universe, a growing universe, an expanding universe then there is no problem.

romansh wrote:

BWE wrote:
And we can decide whether we want to call evolution change over time

And we can decide whether we want to confound the various meanings of evolution.

If Paul keeps referencing Darwin, selection, natural, human, and artificial, and then talking about solar systems being selected, this does lead one to suppose we are thinking about some kind of Darwinian process.

But if you are using evolving in the sense of emerging properties of the universe, an unfolding universe, an ageing universe, a growing universe, an expanding universe then there is no problem.

The mix up between NS AS and HS concerns me.

Misunderstandings of the past , ...nothing artificial or natural about war.
Paul.

pfrankinstein wrote:
The mix up between NS AS and HS concerns me.

Does not worry me too much as the mix-up is all yours.

The categories between artificial and natural are definitional boundaries. When I find chalcanthite it is deemed natural, when I leach copper metal with sulphuric acid (and air) and evaporate the water to crystallize copper sulphate pentahydrate, is that somehow artificial?

romansh wrote:

pfrankinstein wrote:
The mix up between NS AS and HS concerns me.

Does not worry me too much as the mix-up is all yours.

The categories between artificial and natural are definitional boundaries. When I find chalcanthite it is deemed natural, when I leach copper metal with sulphuric acid (and air) and evaporate the water to crystallize copper sulphate pentahydrate, is that somehow artificial?

Mmmm the common ancestor of AI, the wheel locomotion , fish chips and mushy peas.

Paul.

pfrankinstein wrote: Mmmm the common ancestor of AI, the wheel locomotion , fish chips and mushy peas.

It's really OK Paul ... it's not your fault this one process has not given you the ability or acumen to write coherently.

romansh wrote:

pfrankinstein wrote: Mmmm the common ancestor of AI, the wheel locomotion , fish chips and mushy peas.

It's really OK Paul ... it's not your fault this one process has not given you the ability or acumen to write coherently.

I'm not smart enough to be smart, I express myself as is. Am I ignorant?

Paul.

pfrankinstein wrote: I'm not smart enough to be smart, I express myself as is. Am I ignorant?

It is not your fault Paul. Don't worry about it. You are part of the one process.

pfrankinstein wrote:

romansh wrote:

BWE wrote:
And we can decide whether we want to call evolution change over time

And we can decide whether we want to confound the various meanings of evolution.

If Paul keeps referencing Darwin, selection, natural, human, and artificial, and then talking about solar systems being selected, this does lead one to suppose we are thinking about some kind of Darwinian process.

But if you are using evolving in the sense of emerging properties of the universe, an unfolding universe, an ageing universe, a growing universe, an expanding universe then there is no problem.

The mix up between NS AS and HS concerns me.

Misunderstandings of the past

Then you will have absolutely no problem finding a credible, independent source that corroborates your position rather than you simply declaring that you're right and others wrong over and over and over and over.

Of course not because you mean everyone misunderstands except for you, and declarations are all you will ever have.

pfrankinstein wrote:nothing artificial or natural about war.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gombe_Chimpanzee_War

pfrankinstein wrote:

romansh wrote:

pfrankinstein wrote:
The mix up between NS AS and HS concerns me.

Does not worry me too much as the mix-up is all yours.

The categories between artificial and natural are definitional boundaries. When I find chalcanthite it is deemed natural, when I leach copper metal with sulphuric acid (and air) and evaporate the water to crystallize copper sulphate pentahydrate, is that somehow artificial?

Mmmm the common ancestor of AI, the wheel locomotion , fish chips and mushy peas.

The concept of common ancestry here is misapplied: a category mistake.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category_mistake

A category mistake, or category error, or categorical mistake, or mistake of category, is a semantic or ontological error in which things belonging to a particular category are presented as if they belong to a different category,[1] or, alternatively, a property is ascribed to a thing that could not possibly have that property.

Living organisms exhibit common ancestry (descent) because that's how life works, by making imperfect copies of itself as part of a population that, over time, becomes increasingly genetically and phenotypically distinct from its ancestor and from other species which share that same ancestor.

Your metaphor doesn't work. Human inventions do not have a 'common ancestor', they do not make imperfect copies of themselves, do not engage in any actions impacting their survival because they aren't living, have no population, genetics etc, and have no relationship at all to one another. Unicorns and blancmange were both invented by humans, but share no relationship at all, logical, semantic, operational etc., - there's no way to unify these in any sensible or useful way.

Your metaphor just doesn't work at any level.

artificial or natural

These words, as sets, notionally cover everything in the universe.

Either the thing is made by humans or it is not.

I mean, it's a pretty egotistical distinction considering humans have barely managed to escape our own solar system amid the myriad of galaxies comprised of billions of stars, many potentially with local planets potentially containing life, but notional distinction it remains. At least it will be a transferable conceit should we discover alien life that also engages in making things.

But anyway. There are shit tonnes of things on planet Earth that are made intentionally in the exact same manner as humans make stuff, but we somehow don't call 'artificial'. You know, like beaver's dams, bird's nests, tools made by corvids and primates, etc.

To my mind, you are just another individual in that long tradition of human-centric conceits that so many people have engaged uncritically in over our history.

I'll show you.




So is this 'natural' just because it's not made by humans, Paul?

Or is it 'artificial' thereby contradicting your claims that "human selection" (sic) is a necessary bridge between natural selection and artificial selection?

pfrankinstein wrote:

romansh wrote:

pfrankinstein wrote: Mmmm the common ancestor of AI, the wheel locomotion , fish chips and mushy peas.

It's really OK Paul ... it's not your fault this one process has not given you the ability or acumen to write coherently.

I'm not smart enough to be smart, I express myself as is. Am I ignorant?

Paul.

Why does it have to be about ignorance / learning? I don't think a learning disability is what is blocking you from joining the rest of the human race. You may very well experience one, but it's not principally what's obstructing your way, socially.

Put another way, you aren't the first to regard the appearance of human beings as a watershed moment in the history of the cosmos. At best, the jury is out on that one. At worst, well, I've already laid out for you the exercise I'd like you to perform. It's often just something human authors use to sell books to other humans. It's a marketing ploy. In any event, you must come to realize that the sheer popularity of an idea is not a validation of it.

romansh wrote:

pfrankinstein wrote: Mmmm the common ancestor of AI, the wheel locomotion , fish chips and mushy peas.

It's really OK Paul ... it's not your fault this one process has not given you the ability or acumen to write coherently.

More an expression of frustration my scrawl. I trip myself up. Nothing I write is ever good enough, i rebel.

The trouble with my learning advantage.

pfrankinstein wrote:The trouble with my learning advantage.

It is not your fault Paul that, as yet, you have not displayed your advantage.

You can try blaming the one process.

What exactly is a 'learning advantage'?

Was it meant to be condescending, or was it meant to read 'disadvantage'? One can never be sure whether Paul means what he writes, or the exact opposite of what he writes.

Regardless, I wasn't aware that not knowing any depth of the subject you spend decades yammering about on the internet could be considered an 'advantage'... unburdened by the weight of knowledge, one's mind is set free to explore the irreal? This is called 'fiction', and at the very least must establish and maintain an internal cohesion for the audience to suspend their (knowledge) disbelief.

Cito di Pense wrote:I'll just ask whether there are, in the enterprise of studying flocking behavior in birds as "emergent"...

If emergent behavior is defined as an entity possessing properties its parts do not have...

Then what kind of bird behavior isn't emergent? Surely all and every behavior of every organism is emergent in this exact same way?

What actually isn't emergent? Is there anything in the universe that isn't emergent according to this definition?

To tie it back to this thread's actual topic - if we're discussing stuff now and its relationship with the origin of the universe, and given at the outset of the universe there were no atoms, and given that everything we observe is made of atoms, then following the definition, everything is emergent.

Why even call it 'emergence' - just call it 'the universe'.

Back to jam sandwiches having equal exemplificatory power?

Spearthrower wrote:

Cito di Pense wrote:I'll just ask whether there are, in the enterprise of studying flocking behavior in birds as "emergent"...

If emergent behavior is defined as an entity possessing properties its parts do not have...

Then what kind of bird behavior isn't emergent? Surely all and every behavior of every organism is emergent in this exact same way?

So a flock of birds is a new focus of study, not least by having something in common with a school of fish, or a bevy of beauties, that a single fish doesn't have in common with a single bird besides that capacity "to behave". I guess where we get lost is how much we can actually learn. If we create some sort of interacting particle model and we model the interactions in such a way as to display flocking behavior, what have we actually learned from the modeling inputs in terms of interactions that tell us about the interactions of actual birds? It's easy to become bewitched by the results of simulations. I think modeling is cool, but I don't subscribe to a lot of hype about it unless I am trying to maintain my flow of sustenance from funding organizations. Really, we could even study the behavior of researchers publishing puff pieces as part of the program of fund-raising, and it's emergent on the substrate of a blogosphere. What, me cynical?

romansh wrote:

pfrankinstein wrote:The trouble with my learning advantage.

It is not your fault Paul that, as yet, you have not displayed your advantage.

You can try blaming the one process.

By circumstance I have my own version of events and voice.

If I blurt out that the understanding of the subject has itself evolvoled, naturalist to biologist.
And then propose Runaway growth by tradition.
Do I arrive at you?

Paul.
..

If you cant avoid repeatedly repeating repetitions, then yeah, go for another iteration of your central equivocation - I mean, it's not like it's been explained to you dozens of times or anything.