C.S. Holling?

Aye.

THWOTH wrote:Hasn't Holling given us a reliable, scalable framework by which to map complex ecological systems and adaptive processes - one in which evolution is fully integrated?

Not exactly. Or at least I'm not aware of that specifically and it would be a weird thing for me to have missed over the years. But, unless i am unaware of something he did, it kind of depends what you mean. Are you talking about panarchy and social-ecological systems or his resilience and stability paper? At any rate, his work is pretty influential and one of his main ideas is that you can't use maximizing output as a management strategy for any complex system because it creates rigidity and makes it prone to collapse.


This relates to what you mean by mapping. Some related SES work explores using system indicators and attractor basins to identify aspects of state flip. It turns out to be surprisingly generalizable to any adaptive system if what you are interested is the direction of change and the tolerance ranges of a stability region/attractor.

It depends a lot on what you want the map to tell you.

THWOTH wrote:Aye.

Sir, turns out I am correct. Nature exhibited a type of selection before NS; do we have a name for that type?

The laws of motion and physics acting on the vast inorganic universe portray a cosmos to us by means of ? No nothing.

Shall we test the theory of "primal selection"?

Incidently ; NS is not a metephor, it is literal interpratation made by CD as = in math.

Nature was doing the 'selecting' before NS. A throw away argument just ignored here.... a formidable argument in reality.

still I have no platform.

Abracadabra... By means of...

Paul.






Paul.

pfrankinstein wrote:

THWOTH wrote:Aye.

Sir, turns out I am correct. Nature exhibited a type of selection before NS; do we have a name for that type?

The laws of motion and physics acting on the vast inorganic universe portray a cosmos to us by means of ? No nothing.

Shall we test the theory of "primal selection"?

Incidently ; NS is not a metephor, it is literal interpratation made by CD as = in math.

Nature was doing the 'selecting' before NS. A throw away argument just ignored here.... a formidable argument in reality.

still I have no platform.

Abracadabra... By means of...


Paul.

BWE wrote:

pfrankinstein wrote:
If nature was calculating and portraying a physical result in the inorganic world vastly before Darwinian NS, do we have a name for that type?



Paul.

 

what do you mean specifically by "if nature was calculating"? [/quote]
Paul, while you are providing a catalyst for conversion, you are not really contributing. The absolutely only thing you have made clear is that you don't like what you see as implications from some definitions that are essentially matters of convenience.

Why don't you like those implications? Do you agree that speciation is an expression of the process of evolution through adaptation/natural selection?

pfrankinstein wrote:

THWOTH wrote:Aye.

Sir, turns out I am correct. Nature exhibited a type of selection before NS; do we have a name for that type?

The laws of motion and physics acting on the vast inorganic universe portray a cosmos to us by means of ? No nothing.

Shall we test the theory of "primal selection"?

Incidently ; NS is not a metephor, it is literal interpratation made by CD as = in math.

Nature was doing the 'selecting' before NS. A throw away argument just ignored here.... a formidable argument in reality.

still I have no platform.

Abracadabra... By means of...

Paul.






Paul.

BWE wrote:
Paul, while you are providing a catalyst for conversion, you are not really contributing.

It is amazing that no one has pointed this out before.

romansh wrote:

BWE wrote:
Paul, while you are providing a catalyst for conversion, you are not really contributing.

It is amazing that no one has pointed this out before.

That got an actual laugh out loud on my end

I am like the crazy dancing dude that follows the bandwagon but wasn't a part of the band

BWE wrote:

romansh wrote:

BWE wrote:
Paul, while you are providing a catalyst for conversion, you are not really contributing.

It is amazing that no one has pointed this out before.

That got an actual laugh out loud on my end

You are welcome ... I suppose I should have added a smiley somewhere.

I much prefer deadpan

romansh wrote:

BWE wrote:

romansh wrote:

BWE wrote:
Paul, while you are providing a catalyst for conversion, you are not really contributing.

It is amazing that no one has pointed this out before.

That got an actual laugh out loud on my end

You are welcome ... I suppose I should have added a smiley somewhere.

No closure this end, No rational direct counter arguments to my claims made by observation.

Forum quality I guess.

Put your big boy pants on. Did the solar system evolve by means of primal selection?

Can you conceive of and predict by rationale, in reality ; envisage a type of "selection before NS.

While you ponder the where from ? you might give a thought to your own selective ability to evaluate by cognition and choose.

Paul.



.

No closure for you Paul? Based on your responses I am not surprised.

You have had plenty of direct rational responses, but for some reason, you fail to respond to them.

Evolved in the sense of things happened? Yes! Selected ? No! I have explained this to you before.

The term selection as in natural selection is referring to replicates. As I have had said many times. So if you can point to a system that replicates ie it makes copies of itself as in GoL, memes and perhaps temes then perhaps selection can occur. But I have not seen any system apart from life that replicates. Have you?

Now Paul, you put your big boy pants on and answer, do snowflakes replicate?

romansh wrote:

BWE wrote:

romansh wrote:

BWE wrote:
Paul, while you are providing a catalyst for conversion, you are not really contributing.

It is amazing that no one has pointed this out before.

That got an actual laugh out loud on my end

You are welcome ... I suppose I should have added a smiley somewhere.

How shall I move on without closure.
Shall I pretend that i am delude; my opposition to the main stream perception; my notion >>> a gimmick.?

So obtuse to truth mine, the powers that be place me in psuodoscience. My peers.

Paul.

pfrankinstein wrote:
How shall I move on without closure.

By showing a few hints of understanding to your interlocutors' points?

Simples.

pfrankinstein wrote:

romansh wrote:

BWE wrote:

romansh wrote:
It is amazing that no one has pointed this out before.

That got an actual laugh out loud on my end

You are welcome ... I suppose I should have added a smiley somewhere.

How shall I move on without closure.
Shall I pretend that i am delude; my opposition to the main stream perception; my notion >>> a gimmick.?

So obtuse to truth mine, the powers that be place me in psuodoscience. My peers.

Paul.

I am impressed with the ability of others to understand what you are trying to say.

It is impossible to know if you are deluded because you make no strong claim that I can see.

I am fine with considering selection to be equivalent to path dependency, or, each interaction changes what is possible forward in time. I am fine considering evolution to be the universal process of change over time and even see some utility in doing so. I am even fine with the idea of human selection as opposed to natural selection and can imagine some utility in doing so.

But none of that seems to be what closure might actually be in this case.

Perhaps it would help if you could explain whether you have an issue with the actual idea of darwinian selection as the mechanism of speciation on Earth. Do you agree that Darwinian selection as a mechanism explains the process of speciation on Earth?

pfrankinstein wrote:
No closure this end, No rational direct counter arguments to my claims made by observation.

Oh look, back to lying again.

And lying once per sentence is obviously not getting you where you need to go, so multiple lies in just a few words.

pfrankinstein wrote:Forum quality I guess.

Well, you are indeed a member of this forum, but I don't think it's fair to categorize us based on your performance.

pfrankinstein wrote:Put your big boy pants on. Did the solar system evolve by means of primal selection?

No

pfrankinstein wrote:Can you conceive of and predict by rationale, in reality ; envisage a type of "selection before NS.

I can envision many types of selection, but that's entirely irrelevant.

pfrankinstein wrote:While you ponder the where from ?

No need to ponder: you've already been told.

Natural selection is a description for what happens when you have replicating entities that have intrinsic variation and differential fitness.

Thus there is no meaningful question about 'where it came from' because it didn't exist absent these conditions.

It came about by the interaction of these components.

Perhaps it's time you started pondering.

pfrankinstein wrote: you might give a thought to your own selective ability to evaluate by cognition and choose.

And you might choose to take a long walk off a short plank.

pfrankinstein wrote:
How shall I move on without closure.

Well, you need to define for yourself what closure means, then see if it's achievable. If it's not achievable, then you're just going to have to suck it up, buttercup.

pfrankinstein wrote: Shall I pretend that i am delude;

Not required. For others, pretense isn't even necessary.

pfrankinstein wrote: my opposition to the main stream perception; my notion >>> a gimmick.?

So obtuse to truth mine, the powers that be place me in psuodoscience. My peers.

Your opposition is not rational even when it's intelligible, not based on observation, not amenable to testing. It's a jazz-hands performance you use either to boost yourself up or put others down, but it lacks substance and merit in equal measure.

It's been explained to you many times over many years by many people why this is pseudoscience, and that it will remain in pseudoscience.

We are your peers in the sense that we are all human beings, in the sense that we are members of the same forum, in the sense perhaps of age or other factors.

But even the fact that you think you're doing science here, that you genuinely believe that the fate of scientific progress resides on our acceptance of your claims via your performance here shows that you aren't a peer in terms of comprehension.

You also continually blind yourself with arrogance such that you're incapable of seeing past that great big ego.

So yeah, no closure for Paul, because Paul's idea of closure involves the scientific world realizing Paul's greatness after 15 years of writing blather on a small internet discussion board in the pseudoscience subforum.

Have you said that you'll have the last laugh yet - I think I recall you doing so, but perhaps it was some other crackpottery.

http://www.rationalskepticism.org/physi ... l#p2787524

Apposite:




Getting an idea isn't science Paul.

Getting an idea about science isn't science Paul.

To even be considered as relevant to science, you're obligated (no special cases) to test your idea.

You aren't capable of testing your idea - you think your role is to defend it against criticism, and the mere act of doing so you seem to believe lends it authority.

Waving away criticism for years while offering nothing at all of substance even for others to test, let alone having performed any test yourself, already provides ample justification for calling your sham 'pseudoscience'.

But of course, it doesn't end there given that you've also engaged in all the other characteristics of pseudoscience.

We've done all this before, of course, and you ignored it except to yoink a couple of words to use in sentences to try and fool people, but you of course didn't amend your own approach. Why would you when you think you're such a genius that even science and logic should change to accommodate your proclamations?

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

Pseudoscience consists of statements, beliefs, or practices that claim to be both scientific and factual but are incompatible with the scientific method.[1][Note 1] Pseudoscience is often characterized by contradictory, exaggerated or unfalsifiable claims; reliance on confirmation bias rather than rigorous attempts at refutation; lack of openness to evaluation by other experts; absence of systematic practices when developing hypotheses; and continued adherence long after the pseudoscientific hypotheses have been experimentally discredited.[

You pretend your ideas are scientific, but they are not.

You pretend your ideas are factual, but they are not.

Your practice of constructing barely legible sentences in which you declare X and pretend that is ample justification for believing the claim is antithetical to the scientific method.

Your claims are unfalsifiable, at least insofar as you've presented them. You probably think this is indicative of the strength of your claims.

You don't just fail to question your own claims, you ignore refutations by others, and typically the means by which you ignore their claims is to assert that you're right and that they're just too thick to understand your genius. Informally, your ideas have been tested as presented and shown false, flawed, and in many cases simply illogical, but none of this is concerned with science.

An encyclopedic page about reliance on confirmation bias only needs reference this thread to provide ample exemplification.

The concept of systematic practices is anathema to you - you think calling a list of words a 'chart', for example, means you've produced data just because you've called it a chart. Chevrons, colours, lists of words: all manner of irrelevant methods of establishing truth or value are employed by you as if you're doing something substantive rather than just making more claims which are somehow even less intelligible.

While no one may be able to experimentally validate or invalidate your claims, this isn't anyone else's problem but your own - the obligation is on you to test your ideas rigorously. But given you've only made arguments, and given that those arguments have been discussed and found faulty with reference to actually evidenced and established knowledge, and given that you've resisted them and continued on repeating the same claims ad nauseam absent any substantive development, even the last characteristic of pseudoscience above has some relevance here.

Nothing in your approach is scientific. Science doesn't operate by declaration. No one in this thread is doing science, it's only you who thinks we are. Science is a well defined systematic process which isn't going to change just to accommodate your desire to feel special.

You raise this complaint approximately every 12-15 pages, and each time it reiterates that you simply refuse to process any information that doesn't suit you. This cherrypicking is another characteristic of pseudoscience.

But as many have said: most of us don't actually consider your claims 'pseudoscientific' - they don't even amount to that as they don't even attempt to pretend to be following scientific method. Instead, the same ego that drives you to repeat yourself for decades and gloat about how you're right despite failing to convince anyone ever also means you don't feel that your claims have to conform to scientific methodology, but that scientific methodology should conform to your claims.

Nonsense is the best description. The dribbled witterings of someone who should be spending his time learning rather than pretending he's in a position to inform.

For all these reasons, your imagined closure ain't happening. To the next decade of repetitive and incoherent wittering!

pfrankinstein wrote:
Incidently ; NS is not a metephor, it is literal interpratation made by CD as = in math.

This is exemplification not only of the errors of your thinking, but also the arrogance in which you think just stating something makes it true.

For example, Darwin's exposition on this central idea was to liken it to pigeon-breeding, a process familiar with his readership so that he could show the manner in which natural selection works.

Like a pigeon-breeder, natural selection sorts traits, rejecting some while retaining others.

But the concept there of 'selection' is metaphorical. A pigeon-breeder's selection is one of foresight and agency, working with known quantities to effect a desire outcome. We automatically understand this because it is how we behave - goal-directed behavior.

But that's not what's happening in nature which is not agentic; in NS 'selection' is descriptive of what happens, not prescriptive as per your concept of directionality.

The concept of nature selecting is metaphorical; it doesn't mean that nature is picking and choosing in a manner analogous to humans picking and choosing.

You've ignored this for years, yet still it remains, and still you try to introduce directionality in evolution by natural selection as you do with your other claims about directionality in selection towards contemporary ends.

Of course, it probably is just that you don't understand the concept of metaphor, and thus think this is some kind of pejorative. In reality, metaphor is a vital and perfectly common building block of every day reasoning, specifically in context about generating ideas in the first instance by seeing patterns elsewhere that offer explanatory power. Every day reasoning though still has to be experimentally validated to be relevant to science. No matter how logical and satisfying the metaphor is: if you can't evidence it, if you can't show that it's meaningful by drawing falsifiable conclusions from it, then it's just a bunch of words you find stimulating.

A literal metaphor would be an entirely pointless metaphor; an oxymoron, but were we to produce a 'literal metaphor', we'd just call it a tautology and there'd be nothing metaphorical.