To be fair, fractal Darwinism not something which a regular glamboy would have any use for trying to understand.
Still it is somewhat weird that the ideological stupidity has become so fanatical in a figure like ab who, in the past, at least held some pretences of being able to appreciate the phenomenon of thought.
Its peculiar how anti-intellectual these dudes are, and how much they seem to consider it self-evident that to think, and to be literate, is a ridiculous stupidity.
On the subject of fractal Darwinism itself, it would seem to be quite logical that an explanation like this has to be conceived for the seemingly unbridgeable gaps in evolution, of which there are so many and which are all so profound that biologists have long given up trying to explain them, which is why evolution theory is still in the 1900s.
This aside from the fact that the theory fractal Darwinism actually seems to hold some water.
But… even the mere effort of thinking is… bad, son. Cant do that here. This is a layman site for hipsters.
I hope that Tab responds to the posts I left, for the problem I have is: I advanced a thesis and, instead of simply asking me to clarify what I did because he did not understand, he just refused it- petulantly, which is a shadow of pride; stunted pride, like that often borne in the souls of those scholars who could not attain innovation. Then after I did, I was tasked with writing him personally a full paper on it to “prove it”. It wasn’t an argument, it was an idea. Though I do have plenty of resources to mount that defense, as I implied by flexing my library on him. However, if I do so, it will be in its own thread.
“like that often borne in the souls of those scholars who could not attain innovation.”
Indeed that is what turns men who fancied themselves thinkers bitter after the age of, I guess, 45 or so, when they realize there is nothing in them.
Id be full of compassion for them if they hadn’t convinced themselves that their emptiness is a universal virtue.
By the way without a notion like fractal Darwinism, evolution theory is probably still in the 1800s.
Strict Determinism and Darwin do not combine. Darwin was a lot further ahead of his time than he has been given credit for.
It is a curious thing, that every branch of the sciences as well as the humanities have experienced several paradigm-shifts from the 1800’s up to now, save for evolutionary theory and applied biology. A few little things have been added- symbiotic arrangements, epigenetics and the like, but no paradigm shift. And even historically conceived, biology has tended to lag behind the other sciences. It took several thousand years just to realize the evolutionary tree and principle of natural selection. Yet the ancient Greeks (who computed, accurately, the distance of the sun with literally a stick) did possess a notion of the Hierarchy of Being, and that certain lifeforms “belonged” with other life-forms.
To reiterate: there are multiple selection-principles operating at different levels of physical and evolutionary organization, all the way up from the level of the inorganic and abiogenic, to the bacterial, to the mammalian, etc; sometimes, these selection-principles harmonize randomly, in a creative way, actually crossing the apparently unbridgeable distinction between unliving matter and organic life while generating a novel genetic structure- just as a fractal does through the interplay of stochastic processes or ‘chance’ and preset ‘laws’ or restrictions; this synchronization of multiple selection-principles across multiple levels of organization, I call the nomos. The nomos allows the process of evolution to cross incredible gaps and generate novel structures. (Like the magical crystal of our faculty of language which came together fully formed- like a snowflake. I use the word magical here, to insult Tab.) This is not an argument Tab, it is an idea; and I refuse to believe that, especially under the assumption of you having read my other posts, which I always hate to see buried after landing on a new page in a thread, you do not understand it. Now: to return to my image. I titled it Dank vs Lameo. This idea of fractal Darwinism or nomogenetics is cooler. It’s just cooler. It is more dank. And therefor it must be true. A mathematician knows what I am talking about- I mean a pure mathematician, not one of these applied mathematicians,- I despise them, they are lukewarm; afraid to fully throw their heart into their Platonic idealism and yet, too proud to condescend to physics. Pure mathematicians wouldn’t use the word cool or dank of course, they prefer beauty: for them, the beauty of a theory indicates its truthfulness.
Yes. Clearly value ontology is instrumental in taking this divide. Selection is wholly a question of valuing, and given that all beings are valuings, from electrons to lifeforms to galaxies, a fractal model is absolutely necessary to even engage this topic without being sure to do nothing but erring.
Nah see, you’'re mixing metaphysics and epistemology into biology and therefor creating a fuller, more integrated view of the world: there’s a word for that. It’s… what is it, oh yeah: a philosophy. And Tab doesn’t like that. Many do not like that.
Yes, mea culpa, I’m a sinner. I do these crazy things. I confess to have been doing it at an early age. I… enjoy it. Thinking. Is always gotten me in trouble with the glam boys.
It also precludes me from allowing a purely deterministic system to arise from a purely non-determined event; existence.
There’s the rub: repeat-ability. The entire scaffold of the natural sciences is couched upon a singular principle: that an experiment can be repeated, so as to confirm, empirically, the results it yields when conceived as an experiment in relation to a hypothesis. But the atomos, the big-bang event,- Existence, by the very nature of its definition and what it is, which Schelling calls a tautegory … cannot be repeated. That is what makes existence, existence. So we have a pretty big fucking problem there, at least the nominal ‘we’; the editorial ‘we’. For philosophy, for the philosopher, this poses no intellectual challenge at all.
Yeah, guys. You just keep on keeping on there, your accuracy is uncanny. My ego is in shreds.I mean, the two of you, agreeing about stuff, what was I even thinking…?
That was a good one though. Well, for a teenager with a porn addiction.
Anyways. Comedy aside. You wrote:
Yup. Also teach english, know what a phoneme is. Well done me. But… It would seem to me that the ability break down a constant tone into discrete sounds is more of a brain thing than a vocal cord thing. Or is that what you meant…? Walls of text etc.
How sudden, how major…? Looking at anatomy pics of our vocal chords, it looks like they began as a seal to stop us breathing our tea and progressed slowly from there to small talk over biscuits.
My real sticking point is this, why even consider the ‘introduction of new genetic material’. From where…? And if this punctuated miracle evolution is so apparantly easy - just add foreign dna - why don’t we see it all over the place in other species…? A talking antelope would be a real winner for example.
Okay.
Yes. Just some time. Not much, just some.
Ah, ok, I see the “from where” now. Spontaneously created emergent novel genetic material.
You know how massively conserved and over-redundant genomes are…? There’s a reason for that. If your genome is too plastic, you die horribly.
Anyway, fair enough, I’ll go away and look up “chaos theory and fractal evolution” and get back to you. Maybe we’ll like each other more when I get back. No promises though. 
Precisely.
“sounds is more of a brain thing than a vocal cord thing”
No it isn’t. A Chimp cannot truly learn language because it cannot physically break sound down into discrete units that can be organized as sequences- sequences which encode neural activity and digitize it. When I formulate a sentence, I am using the phonemic deconstruction of sound into discrete units to actually break down my own internal mentations into discrete units; I am essentially encoding my neural activity so that when someone else reads the sentence, that activity is “replayed” inside their head. Because every brain is different, this “replaying” will be somewhat changed, filtered as it were. Once that ability to break down sound becomes available, it would allow the organism to do the same inside his head and “think”. Chomsky’s thesis is that what came first was an internal, symbolic faculty that allowed man to model his environment so that he could predict things,- so that he could gain access to the future in a sense, which is of course a great thing in terms of survival. It is only when this change took place in the anatomy, that these two faculties coalesced and produced a new faculty, language; through which one organism’s internal models can be projected, shared, and reintegrated with the models of another. However, there are many other pieces of this puzzle that needed to coalesce at exactly the right time as well, which served no purpose in terms of the basic selective principle of survivability and adaptation that centers the vanilla Darwinian model: the nomos represents the synchrony of divergent elements and selective-principles within the multiple levels of organization in the structure of the universe itself,- like I said, all the way up from non-living matter to advanced lifeforms.
“That was a good one though. Well, for a teenager with a porn addiction.”
I’m 30 years old dawg. Pornography?.. What are you talking about? Left field much? Who is talking about pornography. You want to get personal, I have little to hide. And porn? I don’t even masturbate, man. Not only because I find pornography to be exploitative; pornographers prey on drug-addicted, broken women with histories of rape and sexual abuse- but because I almost entirely lack a sex drive. Both because of my schizotypal personality disorder, anhedonia and just, due to the fact that I became a complete recluse for 15 years during which I did not leave a single room- reading and writing a 10 volume work of philosophy at the exclusion of all else, and sublimated all my energies to that end, including sexual ones. I have had sex only once in the last 15 years, with a woman I truly loved, who lived many seas away from me and ventured at an expense of 8,000 dollars to herself, and as a surprise: for I never would have dared ask for such a thing. It was even a difficult experience for me, (even given how gentle she was and understanding of what that kind of isolation did to my mind, it destroyed every barrier and psychological defense I had to the outside) since sex merges two individuals in a way that is… I just take it very seriously.
Well, amazon was a bust on “evolutionary theory fractal” Google has given me a new scientist article on chaotic evolution.
New scientist 2010 said:
And.
The fractal bit seems just to refer to the nature of the phylogenetic trees.
Okay, well, consider me schooled. You were righter, and I was overly scoffy. I still don’t accept the “no intermediate step - fully formed” bit though. Not until God appears in my back garden anyway.
However, throw me a bone. We have our newly installed genetic change - from whatever source - leading to the associated macroscopic alteration of the lifeform involved.
This alteration still has to pass the natural selection test. If it hinders more than helps, the carrier of this alteration will still be at a procreative disadvantage to the original.
So basically, erm. Big whoop. Doesn’t seem the basic principles of evolution have changed, just the mechanics of the mutagenic engine under the hood.
Anyway, thanks, I learned something new.
Still sounded like a porn reference though. You’ll just have to accept my greater reading in the field of pornography over the years.
And my my, 30…? That’s so cute.
I taught myself Latin by the age of 12. By the age of 30, especially with those 15 spent in my meditative exile, have left me practically- omniscient.
You could also look up the papers I cited earlier, I am not sure if they are behind paywalls.
" If it hinders more than helps, the carrier of this alteration will still be at a procreative disadvantage to the original."
I don’t hold any animosity toward you. And yes, that statement, about procreative disadvantage, almost always holds as true, as the final selective principle: however, the few times it does not hold- led to us. Read Zapffe’s Last Messiah:
" The tragedy of a species becoming unfit for life by over-evolving one ability is not confined to humankind. Thus it is thought, for instance, that certain deer in paleontological times succumbed as they acquired overly-heavy horns. The mutations must be considered blind, they work, are thrown forth, without any contact of interest with their environment. In depressive states, the mind may be seen in the image of such an antler, in all its fantastic splendour pinning its bearer to the ground."
Or to summarize him:
I put in Zappe’s antinatalist philosophy on the lame side. I like Zappfe’s writing, it’s just really negative ideas. He uses a metaphor to describe consciousness: there was this big ass species of deer that used its horns as an integral part of its mating ritual. Every generation developed larger horns until they could barely lift their head and they died: they over-evolved one aspect of themselves at he cost of all else. And Zappfe says that this is what consciousness is for humans, and we will share the same fate as they did.
However, unlike those glorious horns, the faculty we have over-evolved, ie. consciousness- has more than one use. In fact, this one faculty grants man the ability to see beyond his natural sight, into the molecular realm and the astrophysical; it grants him weapons to compensate for those nature did not provide him; it allows him to fly as birds do, to tunnel as rodens; etc. etc.
Yeah, there is a mile of difference between a multi-tool like the mind, and over specialization in a single use aspect. Overspecialization into a solitary niche is the evolutionary equivalent of going to sleep in the middle of the motorway.
Anyway, night folks.
outside of a philosophy forum setting i might be able to maintain an interest in anything greek for longer than five minutes, but my experiences with the legacy of greek history and philosophy… specifically how this stuff is used on the forums, have always been visited by frequent bouts of nausea and alergic reactions to cornballishness. in short, the greatness of the greeks has been incredibly exaggerated, but this is not something that the west could have avoided given its eurocentric mythologizing of history. but now you must understand where i’m coming from when i say this. the fact that the greeks produced probably the greatest proportion of metaphysical nonsense in the shortest amount of time, by comparison to other cultures, and that still to this day such ideas are seriously considered in academia as well as by independent thinkers, could be minor cause for alarm if you have the same perspective of history as i do. and that perspective is something i’ve gradually acquired over the last half decade or so after having spent some time studying thinkers from both the analytical tradition and the marxist tradition. in the briefest possible words, i don’t believe the history of philosophy was just an honest mistake made by a number of confused idiots with too much time on their hands, but rather like manufactured ideological systems carefully designed for the purposes of preserving the power of the ruling classes. the western world and all its institutions are a direct extension of those ideas… some of which are good (and certainly not unique to the greeks) and some of which are bad. very bad.
anywho, much of my disdain for anything to do with the ‘G’ word is, like i said, anecdotal. i’ve seen some shit on the forums that’s so stupid it would make you want to slap your momma. so forgive me if i’m a little weary of it. but we’ll see. you might pull something off that actually impresses me, i dunno.
and about this ‘fractal darwinism’ thing. i don’t see anything about it that isn’t alread incorporated in the general theory of evolution. though i’m not sure yet, i suspect you feel like your ‘on to something’ because of the way you are interpreting various concepts that are either already redundent, or ambiguous enough to present no real objection to the standard theory.
maybe for example… what you’re saying about language evolving fully formed. i would immediately disagree with that theory and suggest that you are, whether knowingly or not, espousing a version of the irreducible complexity theory… something which didn’t carry much weight for long in evolutionary biology. not to mention the obvious fact that language centers in the brain such as the broca area and the silvian fissure could not have evolved over night. these are simple inferences you should have been able to make yourself, but didn’t. so i’m already seeing a red flag, ya know?
yeah but no i don’t get into discussions anymore because it’s too much of a chore. i see too much shit i disagree with, and neither am i in a hurry to prove to anyone that i’m right and their wrong. i’m only here because i’m a forum addict, homes.
btw here’s an entertaining crash course on the greeks , the…cough… fathers of western civilization:
[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q-mkVSasZIM[/youtube]