One bang one process.

Discussions on astrology, homeopathy and superstition etc.

Moderators: kiore, The_Metatron, Blip

User avatar
Paul Almond
Posts: 1541
Joined: Feb 26, 2010 6:03 pm
Name: Paul Almond
Country: United Kingdom
Location: Yes
Contact:

Re: One bang one process.

Post by Paul Almond »

The mechanism of Darwinian evolution can be understood without reference to biology. For example, a computer program can be set up with various parameters that determine its behaviour. Copies of this program can be made with slightly different parameters, and tested, in a process similar to natural selection, with the best programs being kept and used as the basis for later variations. Evolution is a well-defined process that can be understood in a variety of contexts. You are not offering any well-defined process. You are offering pretentious word salad.
If I ever start making posts like "On the banning and partial banning of words!" then I view my life as less than worthless and I hope that my friends here would have a collection to pay for ninjas to be sent to my home to kill me*. (*=humanely)
User avatar
CdesignProponentsist
Posts: 12711
Joined: Mar 07, 2010 12:02 pm
Country: California
Location: Southern California

Re: One bang one process.

Post by CdesignProponentsist »

1001 posts and I still can't figure out what the purpose of this thread is.
"Things don't need to be true, as long as they are believed" - Alexander Nix, CEO Cambridge Analytica
lobawad
Posts: 2545
Joined: Jul 17, 2011 8:53 am
Name: Cameron Bobro
Country: Slovenia

Re: One bang one process.

Post by lobawad »

CdesignProponentsist";p="1336438 wrote:1001 posts and I still can't figure out what the purpose of this thread is.


The thread title sounds like the title of a Nick Cave album, though. So that's something I guess.
"Never give succor to the mentally ill; it is a bottomless pit."
- William Burroughs
pfrankinstein
Posts: 1814
Joined: Mar 27, 2011 12:42 am
Name: paul
Country: UK

Re: One bang one process.

Post by pfrankinstein »

Science evolves, alas experts in biology have brought about a specialised understanding of the subject of evolution, evolution can now only be thought of as being a biological process. The meme opinion has been reinforced over and over again to such an extent that those who admire those experts accept the word as law and without question. Darwinian/biological evolution is a bastard process that stands alone, that is no fore-running primitive process can be seen/perceived as being its ancestor, no process after its emergence can be seen as being an advancement.

Darwin s process did indeed appear as if by magic, totally out of the blue.

Paul.
pfrankinstein
Posts: 1814
Joined: Mar 27, 2011 12:42 am
Name: paul
Country: UK

Re: One bang one process.

Post by pfrankinstein »

Paul Almond";p="1336435 wrote:The mechanism of Darwinian evolution can be understood without reference to biology. For example, a computer program can be set up with various parameters that determine its behaviour. Copies of this program can be made with slightly different parameters, and tested, in a process similar to natural selection, with the best programs being kept and used as the basis for later variations. Evolution is a well-defined process that can be understood in a variety of contexts. You are not offering any well-defined process. You are offering pretentious word salad.


Thanks for your input Paul. Dissection of the single chain of evolution from bang to now is well defined.

Paul.
User avatar
Paul Almond
Posts: 1541
Joined: Feb 26, 2010 6:03 pm
Name: Paul Almond
Country: United Kingdom
Location: Yes
Contact:

Re: One bang one process.

Post by Paul Almond »

pfrankinstein";p="1336450 wrote:
Paul Almond";p="1336435 wrote:The mechanism of Darwinian evolution can be understood without reference to biology. For example, a computer program can be set up with various parameters that determine its behaviour. Copies of this program can be made with slightly different parameters, and tested, in a process similar to natural selection, with the best programs being kept and used as the basis for later variations. Evolution is a well-defined process that can be understood in a variety of contexts. You are not offering any well-defined process. You are offering pretentious word salad.


Thanks for your input Paul. Dissection of the single chain of evolution from bang to now is well defined.

Paul.

eh?
If I ever start making posts like "On the banning and partial banning of words!" then I view my life as less than worthless and I hope that my friends here would have a collection to pay for ninjas to be sent to my home to kill me*. (*=humanely)
hackenslash
Posts: 22910
Joined: Feb 25, 2010 2:26 pm
Name: The Other Sweary One
Country: Republic of Mancunia
Location: That niggling voice telling you you might be wrong...
Contact:

Re: One bang one process.

Post by hackenslash »

pfrankinstein";p="1336431 wrote:Science and mankinds artefacts evolve by 'descent [down through generations and time] modification and by means of cognitive selection. That is a science fact, an observation, nothing philosophical about the op. No equivocation of any word or term.


Factually incorrect. While science can be said to descend, in the sense that new understanding can be the product of older understanding, actually arising from it (in the sense that Special Relativity was born of Maxwell's field equations and their implications), artefacts do not beget artefacts. New artefacts arise from greater understanding. There is no sense in which artefacts give birth to new artefacts. The knowledge that produces these artefacts can be figuratively said to evolve, or descend, but the artefacts themselves do not.

Similarly, individual entities cannot evolve, they can only develop. Evolution occurs over generations, as does descent. The universe doesn't have generations, or descent, only development.

When you can get over this definitional stumbling block, you might be onto something. Unfortunately, your palsied understanding of the most basic language will not allow you to ever overcome it and, should you ever manage to do so, it won't firm your 'theory' it will kill it stone dead, even in your own mind, in precisely the same way that it was dead in all of ours as soon as you uttered the first strains of your nonsensical bollocks so long ago.
User avatar
ElDiablo
Posts: 3128
Joined: Feb 25, 2010 9:52 pm
Country: USA

Re: One bang one process.

Post by ElDiablo »

pfrankestein,
can you answer this?

ElDiablo";p="1336337 wrote:pfrankinstein,
What is the real point you're trying to make? You know, the big idea that you are trying to establish?
God is silly putty.
User avatar
Fenrir
Posts: 4129
Joined: Mar 25, 2011 10:12 am
Country: Australia

Re: One bang one process.

Post by Fenrir »

pfrankinstein";p="1336447 wrote:Science evolves, alas experts in biology have brought about a specialised understanding of the subject of evolution, evolution can now only be thought of as being a biological process. The meme opinion has been reinforced over and over again to such an extent that those who admire those experts accept the word as law and without question. Darwinian/biological evolution is a bastard process that stands alone, that is no fore-running primitive process can be seen/perceived as being its ancestor, no process after its emergence can be seen as being an advancement.

Darwin s process did indeed appear as if by magic, totally out of the blue.


Paul.


No, it did not.

Our understanding of the process is what has emerged, not the process itself.

The "process" which drives biological evolution always existed. All that was required for selection to operate was reproductive populations containing material which was variable and inheritable.

Atoms do not form reproducing populations. Stars do not form reproducing populations. Propeller engines do not form reproducing populations (which is unfortunate, a flock of Wankels on a mating flight would be a sight to see). An Ipod performs a similar purpose for us to that performed by a Walkman a generation ago yet the technology used is utterly different. The purpose is the same but the means of achieving that purpose has changed utterly. The Ipod is conceptually descended from the Walkman but is physically unrelated.

Change in populations of ideas is interesting and analogous to biological evolution in many ways. Ideas exist as populations and exhibit variability and have means of reproduction and inheritance. The mechanisms behind these processes are not however derived from the selective pressures operating in biological evolution.

You keep asserting that these processes are related but haven't got past step one in describing how they are related.
Religion: it only fails when you test it.-Thunderf00t.
User avatar
Spearthrower
Posts: 33888
Joined: Feb 25, 2010 6:11 pm
Country: Thailand
Location: กรุงเทพมหานคร

Re: One bang one process.

Post by Spearthrower »

pfrankinstein";p="1336316 wrote:
Spearthrower";p="1336316 wrote:
A factual science link? Can you explain what that means?

Humans have minds, minds require brains, brains evolve. Is that what you're saying?


Cognitive selection, choosing, making selection with a brain emerged from natural selection.


And with respect to biology, it uses the same mechanisms as any other organism being the selecting force - there's nothing fundamentally different in the process of artificial selection.

Meanwhile, your cognitive selection seems to be more like fashion - why do baby name preferences change over time? Why do hats come in and out of selection? It's whimsical selection, not a higher order of a primal force.


pfrankinstein";p="1336316 wrote:
Spearthrower";p="1336316 wrote:Knowledge does not change, knowledge evolves: this sentence is self-contradictory - evolution is change. As I already pointed out to you - the knowledge is an imperfect comprehension of the facts - the facts themselves haven't changed. When you want to address my posts, can you actually address the content?


Yes one can insert that knowledge changes, that is if one is ignorant to the mechanism that brought about that change/advancement of knowledge.


So you're contradicting yourself when you said before that 'knowledge does not change'.


pfrankinstein";p="1336316 wrote:Casually informally change why not. Formally with knowledge of the mechanism, one understands that science evolves.


Science just means a body of knowledge, so really we're just chasing our tails again with polysemous words.
I'm not an atheist; I just don't believe in gods :- that which I don't belong to isn't a group!
Religion: Mass Stockholm Syndrome

Learn Stuff. Stuff good. https://www.coursera.org/
User avatar
Spearthrower
Posts: 33888
Joined: Feb 25, 2010 6:11 pm
Country: Thailand
Location: กรุงเทพมหานคร

Re: One bang one process.

Post by Spearthrower »

pfrankinstein";p="1336329 wrote:
Spearthrower";p="1336287 wrote:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equivocation

Equivocation ("to call by the same name") is classified as both a formal and informal logical fallacy. It is the misleading use of a term with more than one meaning or sense (by glossing over which meaning is intended at a particular time). It generally occurs with polysemic words (words with multiple meanings).


The fallacy of equivocation is often used with words that have a strong emotional content and many meanings. These meanings often coincide within proper context, but the fallacious arguer does a semantic shift, slowly changing the context by treating, as equivalent, distinct meanings of the term.


On the one hand, you appear to be berating people for limiting themselves to biological evolution, and in the next post you will then reiterate 'descent with modification'. This notion does not apply to stellar evolution. Thus, your primary idea is really just equivocation - there's no significant relationship between these types of evolution over and above the fact that they all mean 'change over time'.


The stumbling block seems to be my use of the word 'descent'. If a biologist uses the word 'descent' it is taken to mean descent down through generations. It is an unspoken taken for granted fact that generations can only occur with the passage of/down through time. Knowledge the same, the universe the same down through time.

Paul.



Yes, this does appear to be your stumbling block as I've spelled out for you. In all the other types of evolution we can talk about, there is no descent because there are no generations. A rock that gets smashed by another is not the parent rock passing on its variability to its descendant shards. There are no generations, no descent, and no descent with modification.

Again, all you are really saying is that stuff changes over time - you're not establishing that the change is due to selection.
I'm not an atheist; I just don't believe in gods :- that which I don't belong to isn't a group!
Religion: Mass Stockholm Syndrome

Learn Stuff. Stuff good. https://www.coursera.org/
User avatar
Spearthrower
Posts: 33888
Joined: Feb 25, 2010 6:11 pm
Country: Thailand
Location: กรุงเทพมหานคร

Re: One bang one process.

Post by Spearthrower »

pfrankinstein";p="1336431 wrote:
ElDiablo";p="1336351 wrote:
Spearthrower";p="1336229 wrote:Yep - change over time. This is something that all uses of the word 'evolution' entail. However Paul doesn't seem to understand that if I start talking about genes while discussing evolution, we all know I am talking about biology. Likewise, when Paul uses the term 'descent with modification' he's taking a quality of biological evolution and misapplying it to other types of change over time where that process doesn't operate.

It's functionally equivalent to be using the metaphor of nucleosynthesis to discuss Biology - it just doesn't work.

It seems that he's really having a philosophical discussion but he hasn't realized it yet. I particularly like how he wants to redefine or twist established terms so that they fit his points.


There is no scientific basis to suggests that 'biological evolution' is the only true type of evolution, only tradition.


No one ever in any of these threads has ever said that 'biological evolution is the only true type of evolution'. What people have laboured to explain to you is that biological evolution is the only type of evolution where the phrase 'descent with modification' has any coherent meaning. That's because there are clearly defined and empirically grounded mechanisms by which this operates.

The notion that there's a primal force that accounts for this biological selection, that was latent in the universe from the moment of its expansion even when there were no biological life forms, is false.

Now you will immediately flip back to saying that I am just talking about biological evolution - this is because you are really just using a bait and switch. You are taking characteristics of biological evolution and falsely claiming that those characteristics are true of all types of evolution - this is wrong. It's wrong and has been explained to you comprehensively.



pfrankinstein";p="1336431 wrote:You can argue traditional perception if you like, but those arguments can easily be rubbished by factual observation.


Whenever you get round to providing a single factual observation, please let us know.



pfrankinstein";p="1336431 wrote:Science and mankinds artefacts evolve by 'descent [down through generations and time] modification and by means of cognitive selection.


And there we have it again. No, science, and whatever that other thing is supposed to mean, do not evolve by descent because descent means inheritance, which means reproduction, and these things are not alive and consequently do not have babies (i.e. packages of variable inheritance)


pfrankinstein";p="1336431 wrote: That is a science fact


No. It is not. Merely asserting that it is does not make it a science fact sic.

pfrankinstein";p="1336431 wrote:an observation,


An erroneous one then.


pfrankinstein";p="1336431 wrote:nothing philosophical about the op.


You've not presented any facts or observations - it IS philosophy; there's no inherent criticism by calling it so.


pfrankinstein";p="1336431 wrote:No equivocation of any word or term.


Your entire argument revolves around equivocation with a healthy splash of Post hoc ergo propter hoc.

No one is saying it's intentional and nefarious, just that it's sloppy thinking.
I'm not an atheist; I just don't believe in gods :- that which I don't belong to isn't a group!
Religion: Mass Stockholm Syndrome

Learn Stuff. Stuff good. https://www.coursera.org/
User avatar
Spearthrower
Posts: 33888
Joined: Feb 25, 2010 6:11 pm
Country: Thailand
Location: กรุงเทพมหานคร

Re: One bang one process.

Post by Spearthrower »

pfrankinstein";p="1336447 wrote:Science evolves, alas experts in biology have brought about a specialised understanding of the subject of evolution, evolution can now only be thought of as being a biological process. The meme opinion has been reinforced over and over again to such an extent that those who admire those experts accept the word as law and without question. Darwinian/biological evolution is a bastard process that stands alone, that is no fore-running primitive process can be seen/perceived as being its ancestor, no process after its emergence can be seen as being an advancement.

Darwin s process did indeed appear as if by magic, totally out of the blue.

Paul.



This is just blatantly ignoring the thousands of responses you have had on this topic.

In your first thread of this on RDF, I shared a list of types of evolution with you because you tried to claim the above with respect to me.

The thing is that I, and others here, are very well aware that there are other things in the universe that evolve, including the universe itself. That's because evolution implies only change over time.

Your claim, however, revolves around a selecting agent for all this. You have been shown why this is an error, but you don't get it. I don't see you ever getting it because you think you are right and you don't respond to people's critiques.

Asking where we go from here is like asking how a dog chasing its tail will arrive at its destination.
I'm not an atheist; I just don't believe in gods :- that which I don't belong to isn't a group!
Religion: Mass Stockholm Syndrome

Learn Stuff. Stuff good. https://www.coursera.org/
User avatar
Spearthrower
Posts: 33888
Joined: Feb 25, 2010 6:11 pm
Country: Thailand
Location: กรุงเทพมหานคร

Re: One bang one process.

Post by Spearthrower »

pfrankinstein";p="1336450 wrote:
Paul Almond";p="1336435 wrote:The mechanism of Darwinian evolution can be understood without reference to biology. For example, a computer program can be set up with various parameters that determine its behaviour. Copies of this program can be made with slightly different parameters, and tested, in a process similar to natural selection, with the best programs being kept and used as the basis for later variations. Evolution is a well-defined process that can be understood in a variety of contexts. You are not offering any well-defined process. You are offering pretentious word salad.


Thanks for your input Paul. Dissection of the single chain of evolution from bang to now is well defined.

Paul.


No, it's not.
I'm not an atheist; I just don't believe in gods :- that which I don't belong to isn't a group!
Religion: Mass Stockholm Syndrome

Learn Stuff. Stuff good. https://www.coursera.org/
User avatar
Spearthrower
Posts: 33888
Joined: Feb 25, 2010 6:11 pm
Country: Thailand
Location: กรุงเทพมหานคร

Re: One bang one process.

Post by Spearthrower »

hackenslash";p="1336518 wrote:Similarly, individual entities cannot evolve, they can only develop. Evolution occurs over generations, as does descent. The universe doesn't have generations, or descent, only development.


Again, an insightful comment that will undoubtedly not make the slightest dent in Paul's self-confidence.

Foetuses evolve, but they do so in terms of change over time: development. Likewise the universe, solar systems, and so on - not in terms of descent by modification. None of them are iterations, they are all developmental processes of individual entities.

Undoubtedly we'll be treated to another revolution of the merry-go-round now.
I'm not an atheist; I just don't believe in gods :- that which I don't belong to isn't a group!
Religion: Mass Stockholm Syndrome

Learn Stuff. Stuff good. https://www.coursera.org/
User avatar
Spearthrower
Posts: 33888
Joined: Feb 25, 2010 6:11 pm
Country: Thailand
Location: กรุงเทพมหานคร

Re: One bang one process.

Post by Spearthrower »

ElDiablo";p="1336545 wrote:pfrankestein,
can you answer this?

ElDiablo";p="1336337 wrote:pfrankinstein,
What is the real point you're trying to make? You know, the big idea that you are trying to establish?



Paul will keep telling us that he cannot reveal this until we genuflect to understand his first claim. Thus, we're never going to find out because his first claim is already unacceptable due to being factually wrong.

He could, of course, just say - right, well even if you don't agree, you know what I mean so on to the next point. But I doubt that's going to happen.
I'm not an atheist; I just don't believe in gods :- that which I don't belong to isn't a group!
Religion: Mass Stockholm Syndrome

Learn Stuff. Stuff good. https://www.coursera.org/
User avatar
Spearthrower
Posts: 33888
Joined: Feb 25, 2010 6:11 pm
Country: Thailand
Location: กรุงเทพมหานคร

Re: One bang one process.

Post by Spearthrower »

I'll be away for a month.

I am sure we'll have those empirical facts Paul keeps talking about presented here by the time I'm back, right?
I'm not an atheist; I just don't believe in gods :- that which I don't belong to isn't a group!
Religion: Mass Stockholm Syndrome

Learn Stuff. Stuff good. https://www.coursera.org/
User avatar
Spearthrower
Posts: 33888
Joined: Feb 25, 2010 6:11 pm
Country: Thailand
Location: กรุงเทพมหานคร

Re: One bang one process.

Post by Spearthrower »

Amidst Paul's editing of a previous post and confusion stemming from the errors in his use of the quote function, I still found this nugget of confused thinking that's at the base of Paul's claims:

Course there is descent, knowledge is inherited.


Inherited knowledge? Babies today are born with the knowledge of their ancestors?

When you appreciate what inheritance actually means, you'll see not only why this is wrong, but also why your analogy is broken.
I'm not an atheist; I just don't believe in gods :- that which I don't belong to isn't a group!
Religion: Mass Stockholm Syndrome

Learn Stuff. Stuff good. https://www.coursera.org/
User avatar
ElDiablo
Posts: 3128
Joined: Feb 25, 2010 9:52 pm
Country: USA

Re: One bang one process.

Post by ElDiablo »

Spearthrower";p="1336591 wrote:
ElDiablo";p="1336545 wrote:pfrankestein,
can you answer this?

ElDiablo";p="1336337 wrote:pfrankinstein,
What is the real point you're trying to make? You know, the big idea that you are trying to establish?



Paul will keep telling us that he cannot reveal this until we genuflect to understand his first claim. Thus, we're never going to find out because his first claim is already unacceptable due to being factually wrong.

He could, of course, just say - right, well even if you don't agree, you know what I mean so on to the next point. But I doubt that's going to happen.

Maybe he's protecting humanity from learning the true secret of life - that the universe is a conscious living organism and we are each merely a cell.
God is silly putty.
User avatar
Nostalgia
Posts: 9266
Joined: Feb 28, 2010 7:53 pm
Country: Earth

Re: One bang one process.

Post by Nostalgia »

No, the TRUE secret is that the universe is just a single cell in a much larger organism. :snooty:
We are alive, so the universe must be said to be alive. We are its consciousness as well as our own. We rise out of the cosmos and see its mesh of patterns, and it strikes us as beautiful. And that feeling is the most important thing in all the universe.
Locked