Is the Darwinistic Selection Principle False?

Philosophy Forums Science, Technology, and Math
581

I agree with all of that.

Having said that, I think you might be interested in James S Saint’s theories concerning the survival priority vs reproduction. He was, in my opinion, a superb rational theorist when it came to defining your words properly, understanding metaphors, and the questions of “why it is” - including -

  • Why the universe exists at all
  • Why light travels that particular speed
  • Why gravity does what it does
  • Why positive and negative particles “attract”
    .
    .
    .
  • Why species-preservation (reproduction) is only an aberrant consequence self-preservation
  • MIJOT - the highest priority and purpose within all living beings (my favorite :smiley: )

You might be interested in a book that Mithus on this board wrote/edited concerning James’ theories and thoughts. He was a big proponent of Nullius in Verbe.

He pointed out that cell reproduction was one strategy of survival by surrounding the cell with a harmonious environment constructed of replications of itself (creating the environment rather than being the subject of it - perhaps the opposite proposed by Darwin). He extended that strategy to include human reproduction and societal reproduction (such as a democratic country wanting to spread democracy for the survival its own democracy). When it comes to choosing between Darwin or Hegel - I’ll choose James every time. :smiley:

582

You are a rambling idiot.
Mario Puzo wrote the Godfather.
It was a monumental invention. FFC is great but give credit where it is due.

ANd once again.

As for naming names. This is about Darwin and not about COVID OR Patton.

But I suppose for you, its one way to avoid addressing any issues of substance

583

okily dokily

584

Mario Puzo wrote the novel, not the screenplay. And anyway, I was talking about directing. That stuff allowed Francis Ford Coppola to eventually direct The Godfather. Make up your mind, does it matter who wrote it or does it not?

585

OFF TOPIC

586

Well if you want to address my post on the topic, I’d be happy. Don’t get all worked up.

587

THIS IS THE POST YOU IGNORED.

Postby Sculptor » Fri Feb 19, 2021 4:40 pm

Pedro I Rengel wrote:
Alls I’m saying is, how committed to science can you be if you take any attack on Darwin as an attack on science?

Dumb question.
Darwin’s principle is unavoidably scientific. It’s as sure and apples fall from trees.

You have to be pretty stupid to pretent the earth is flat, or that apples fall upwards.

So, to any with any interest in actual knowledge, actual wisdom, read my post from the last page again and confront these charges against Darwin.

You have not laid any charges against Darwin, since you simply enough do not understand the principle of natural selection.

You can make up your little straw men as much as you like and have fun setting light to them. But that is not the same as laying charges.

588

I have just contacted Mithus.

589

_

A type of intentional strategic herd defense -

590

Yeah, you didn’t address anything, what do you want me to do? Take it easy bub.

591

So, what is the point of you?

592

What is “successful” then?

It seems you have replaced the gene with the meme, if success is not genetic. Memetic success, i.e. fame, would then follow similar criteria - namely that the meme, the invention, creation of the successful one, propagates and proliferates itself.

Darwin didn’t measure success in terms of fame though, but in terms of genetic reproduction.

593

I don’t know Silhouette, to actually think about shit. What’s yours?

594
595

As well as that which has the ability to be an influence. Even a photon has its self-valuing, even though it is merely space which it values in its own terms. It gets abstract in the well, abstract realms.

Thats because the black hole can absorb anything, nothing contradicts it. It values everything in terms of its own self-valuing.
It has no particular nature.

In fact they often do grow beyond what sustains them and then split up. This is I suspect the real cause of species diversity.

Many species grow beyond what their environment can sustain and then nearly die out.
So I think there is something missing in your argument here.

But this is not the conscious intent of the cell - rather, it produces more of itself out of an excessive vitality.
The balance required for such excess to become a proper sustaining life form is whether it has subtlety of discernment.
(the current “mandate of nature” is attempting with great success to rid the already not so discerning humans of their most important sense of discernment - smell. To help along that which wants to die)

Do you not think that a nation with an abstractly thought out constitution, like the Roman Republic which was designed to prevent monopoly on power, or the former USA, have a slightly alternate mechanism, despite strains of such localist logic as you describe forming the base fabric?

This is enabled since there is an overarching logic to which all successful cells subscribe.
Their cohering together in a greater body is due to this (selfvaluing) logic, to which both the parts and the whole subscribe.
This logic has been called “God” in the derivatives of Kabbalistic logic, i.e. Abrahamic religions.
In what we call pagan religions, “God” means a wholly different thing.

But harmony isnt as easy a concept as you make it seem here.
In many cases, in order to be healthy, an animal needs to fight.
The same goes for nations. Wars have often been waged simply to keep the population fit and alert.
Not that this wont often go terribly wrong, but the alternative is sickness unto death.

More coldly apprehended, these bodies replicate simply because they are made of growth (organic logic) and yet cant keep on growing indefinitely - the excess they produce by existing as organic matter is naturally of their own substance. The cases where this substance was a beneficial factor have been successful. To die and to reproduce are part of the same function. (why holy men dont tend to reproduce - they dont fear death in the same way, they are not defined by their organic, but by their atomic being)

596

I don’t think he was proposing that reproduction is the only means of survival nor that it is necessarily conducted perfectly -

All of those play into that “self-valuing” you mention (also obviously not conducted perfectly).

597

Don’t be so fatalistic. That is not to say you are wrong, but the collapse of an imperial order is elastic.

I also owe you a formal apology, for calling you a communist earlier. War is hell, or whatever the fuck these commies like to say.

598

Good question. He never explained what he means by that word. But not only that . . .

He presented an argument of the following form:

  1. Darwin said X

  2. From X follows that “Successul beings reproduce more than the unsuccessful beings”

  3. We can observe that “Successful beings often reproduce less than the unsuccessful beings”

  4. Therefore, X is wrong

Here, “X” stands for what he calls “Darwinistic selection principle”. He also never explained what he thinks this principle amounts to.

599

It’s a technical matter. The state as it hitherto existed has perished. Whoever can’t see this is probably wearing a diaper on his face.
I’m not saying the People or the implicit power of the Constitution are dead. Not at all. Though the people who came to Trump rallys with diapers with Trump written on them are symptoms of death just like Boideen is. They just didnt get it, what T was telling them without being able to say it directly.

Masons make a harsh school bro. Harsh and subtle. Like nature.

All is quite simply unfolding as I have said it would since 2011.
Something new is taking shape.

600

Sure enough, I just felt I had some depth to add to the conversation.