And yet you are claiming no teleology??
tututut.
Ok. So let’s do reductive evolution corresponding to psychology as a cognitive inquery. I was going to say ‘science’ but according to some, it’s an iffy science as well next to more apparently substantially demonstrateable inqueries.
The politics inherent in the so called ‘phenomenological reduction’ or the prounoncement that being is subordinate to existence has berm a long road coming, but the trigger for it was the acute political realization, that it is time to exemplify the death toll to and pronounced formal re-cognition of ideal?states ; not with standing those that may yet can offer some revised solution.
What happened was a game theory that literally can, albeit subtly, be played around with.
The same political lean on Darwin, as with others , who revolutionized thinking in any conceivibly consistent and probable manner
The thing to consider is what goes on in a construction of anthropomological factors, that primarily necessitated the factoring in of the ideas associated with it, and why those elements still can be thought about as effective and viable tools to manipulate man’s incredibly complex channels of realizing current issues and problems, given at times outdated yet useful tools to prevent total melt down or deconstruction of a gestalt.
Because even the what’s called ’ phenomenological reduction’ has an ‘ediectic’ counterpart, the idea of skiwing down and putting brackets sutuationally or, within contexts that do relate on some level, show a note of cautious restraint in upsetting the very delicate balance that has arisen in conjunction with such ideas as enetertained at Cern, of finding the god-particle.
The fact is , one does not have to try to connect cosmologically unthinkeable configurative realities ( for lack of a better word) with the ultimate reductive substance without falling into a teleological causitive argument to see the reason behind politically necessity, to cap any iota of uncertainty without knocking over the while apple cart of sustained belief, therefore psychology in this instance fails to connect with evolutionary in a correspondingly way that a functional synch can be established.
Sometimes aberrant parents bring forth extraordinary evolutionary offspring, examples abound.
There can no line of succession be shown as a general rule of some genetic competition going on in pursuit of the best minds, even to the extent as to prove that species survivability as a factor of adaptive intelligence play a part.
The substantial basis of evolution is based more, much more on the physical attributes as factors of strength, primarily, and the invention of tools, secondarily.
There is a minimal demarcation as to the use and function of tools beginning in the stone age, and that is augmented with the acquired facility that the adapted use of of physical characteristics had brought about by trial and error.
It gives n I indication of some formidable instinct to grab hold of a rock and use it, but it dies show some morphological linkeage, which today can be attributed to more then mere ‘discovery’.
This was what made the difference between Freud and Jung basically a very fine lined , subtle distinction, in retrospect, whereas the ontologically trumped up initial impression gabe a distinct taste of a widely divergent view which parted the revisions into disarray.
The same with the example that I mentioned before, of the ‘Case of the Midwife Toad’ which Darwin’s appearant meddling in suicided the whole contravening idea from evolutionary theory as stated.
The mind of man can even tolerate the problems associated with neutralizing any attempt to give an absolute imprimature to a general theory of the phenomenological reduction as setting the stage to the conclusions of positivism.
It’s suspect in the revision, and there really is no nominal conclusion which can be sustained for it indefinitely.
This is why I proposed sub ordinate channels between primary and secondary considerations.
The most interest in idea to support such notion is the missing link, but that is as vague as any other problem that considers sequential development between ideas and hypothetical assumptions and those which garner elements of prepossessing , larger scoped, pre-verbial intentive processes appearing out of now explainable source.
The cig itive source of self consciousness can never be unearthed , fir it will lead to the bedrock of it’s iwn reflexive mother liad, which almost at the point if discovery will disappear as a factual inquiry.
This is why Jung had to go unded a much wider ground the certain contextual situations could exemplify.
Call it a strange magic of sorts, but the magician can not allow the magical production become an undiscoverable artifact as well, for that it hapoen, the whole construction will be pulled diwn, hence never have been created in the first place. Of course we’d never kniw, and fir these reasons, my argument stands.
Just out of curiosity, what part of this…
…led you to believe that I believe that the evolution of matter into, among other things, human psychology, was planned? No God, no plan from my frame of mind.
Again…
"Only, again, unlike with God, nature is not thought to have consciously chosen these mutations. They just happened given the brute facticity of biological matter evolving over time. Some mutations result in making it more likely that a species will survive. But it’s not like nature planned it this way."
I’m basically agreeing with you. Just given the exasperating context that is “the gap” and “Rummy’s Rule”.
Where do you see teleology implied by me?
I didn’t think you believed evolution was planned. That was somebody else’s proposition that you were responding to.
Can the complexities of eyes and brains be explained by natural selection?
Yes.
“design” is teleological by definition
On the other hand, can all of the terrible afflictions to the eyes and the brains that mere mortals endure be explained by a God that is not basically a sadistic monster?
Or, sure, Kushner’s God.
In the presence of disease, suffering and disease can only indicate a sadistic god, if you have to insist that god is a reality.
But I rather think that there is no god.
But eyes and brains with and without their associated diseases, suffering and problems can be explained by natural selection as long as you do not expect every aspect of nature such as traits and features of living things to have to mandate a successful or useful function.
The beauty of natural selection is that 99% of traits and behaviours renders no specific selective advantage and this can be true without diminishing the theory one iota.
When did I claim ‘design’?
No.
Why or why not?
The most primitive organisms sustained themselves by absorbing chemicals from the environment. SSome of these processes required light energy, and soon through variations in DNA transcriptions caused in part by the very same light that those processes required, caused variations in subsequent generations. The light energy was usable in differing degrees by these variants, and those that managed to orient themselves towards the light out competed those that were not so able. In time single celled organisms learned to move towards light sources, and sub cellular structures were better able to become light sentitive.
Organelles that were able to detect light gave organisms that were able to emply light as a source of energy were massively advantaged. As creatures evolved in multicellular organisms these organelles became specialised cells whose main fucntion was the detection of light and the communication of that source to other cells in the organism.
At some point a branch occurred between plant like and animal like organisms whereby light detection and light energy gathering becames differentiated.
SOme of the most primitive animals have what you might call psuedo-eyes, or proto-eyes that are able through nervous communications to inform the rest of the organism as to where the light is. And where these were mobile, plants , on the other hand, turned these skills to Chloroplasts, capable of using light to convert CO2 and water into carbohydrates.
The motile organisms were now able to detect changes in light and began to map their environments in different ways.
And so on…
All bullshit aside, I am interested about this. Are you saying that external factors can cause variations in transcriptions of DNA?
Well, for the reasons I stated earlier. “Natural selection” attempts to explain how environmental factors can allow or not a change to be transmitted, but it cannot explain what causes those changes to happen.
But even that is iffy, because many genes are actively counterproductive to both survival and reproduction with 0 benefits.
On a philosophical level, it is even debatable whether a cause-consequence approach is adequate. It is a linear analysis that necessarily excludes more than it includes. A single chain of single links of cause and consequence must be found to exist, and if not found, then forced.
A wider view that includes all factors non-exclusively can allow one to look for patterns that are consistent and suggest coherence through time. Relationships between factors can often be apparent and hold with perfect consistency with no cause-consequence being discernible without abusing reason with endless, precarious chains that inevitably become circular.
What matters for science is not the determination of causality, but the consistency of its findings. Cause-consequence will always beg the question, such that one inevitably winds up with the Aristotelian paradox of the First Cause.
Who says cause/consequence has to be linear?
You have a shockingly naive view of necessity.
Out of date.
I think we’ve moved on from Aristotle; the man that thought women had fewer teeth than men.
Of course. This is a complete no brainer.
Radaiation is one. Plus a massive list of oncogenic chemicals.
How else do you think mutations and variations occur?
I mean…
A consequence has a cause, and a cause gives a consequence. There’s not really a way around that. Not because you can’t find it so much as because it’s baked into the definition.
Yo momma.
You keep making these assertions.
Well, to be clear, you said light. And I guess I don’t see why other chemicals couldn’t interfere with DNA as it splits, but I would need you to be a little more specific as to how.
That’s the question people tend to sort of jump over.
But you seem to be saying that variations occur only because of extragenetic factors acting on the moment of transcription. Again, you are not being too clear, but I’m interested.
And if I could bother you, answer me this: do you believe discernible patterns can be found in the occurence of variations, or do you believe them to be simply random?