Science and Technology news... :: View topic

Cj · Guest

Anthony Campbell wrote:
[quote]On 2008-06-26, Cj <Cj@mist.net> wrote:
Yes. A blind dog cannot respond to the body language of other dogs.
Since pack leadership (almost equals dominance) virtually requires that
the Alpha ignore the body language of subordinates the blind dog is
automatically exhibiting the body language of a dominant (Alpha) dog.
In theory a blind dog could represent a very dominant Alpha temporarily;
this would only last until the rest of the "pack" realized that the
blind dog was responding inappropriately to other body language signals
unrelated to dominance.
Cj

This certainly sounds likely, although I seem to remember seeint a TV
programme about wolves which said that they tended to protect an injured
pack member -- but I may be misremembering.

Anthony
[/quote]
Few wolves die of old age. This is usually because they are attacked
and killed by their own pack. The social organization of wolves is
based on their body language. Wolves with failing eyesight invariably
display inappropriate body language in response to the body language of
the other pack members. The inability of the wolf with failing eyesight
to discern the body language of other wolves is a major cause of
attacks, and subsequent death, in older wolves. Since we have
relatively few dog packs that are socially similar to wolf packs we
don>t see a lot of dog/dog attacks due to misread signals within packs.
Dogs with poor eyesight are liable to attack by neighborhood dogs when
poor vision precludes appropriate responses to the body language of
other dogs. A blind dog, like pack dominant pack leaders don>t respond
at all to subordinates' signals. The first thing that will trigger a
dog fight is an inappropriate body language display that triggers an
attack from another dog.
Cj

Virgil · Guest

In article <g4dpv8$el8$1@darwin.ediacara.org>,
John W Edser <edser@ozemail.com.au> wrote:

[quote]Not until you have explained more clearly what you mean by "process" and
by "pattern".

JE:-

Process: Any falsifiable theory of causation, i.e. any bona fide theory
of science.

Pattern: The perceptual result of any process.

I also do not understand "OTOH all random patterns provide the same
random pattern."
JE:-
All random processes produce the same pattern.
[/quote]
Then the "perceptual result" of any random roll of dice must always be
the same dice numbers coming up, as the "perceptual result" of rolling a
pair of dice is a number between 2 and 12.

Entertained by my own EIM · Guest

"John W Edser" <edser@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message
news:g4dpv8$el8$1@darwin.ediacara.org...
[quote]Virgil <Virgil@gmale.com> wrote:-
snip
JE:-

Process: Any falsifiable theory of causation, i.e. any bona fide theory
of science.

Pattern: The perceptual result of any process.
[/quote]
Hence you must (logically) mean that process ~= patterning. :-|

So, I can see that you might agree that everywhere one looks in this
universe there is an almost (but not quite) infinitely diverse non-random
proccess going on.

However, please don>t agree to concur until you take into account that I
mean this conclusion to include (by intrinsic implication) that the goings
on at the quantum level (or scale) determine - in spite of the probabilistic
character (i.e., can be determined to be causal only after-the-fact and
statistically) of What Is going on "down there" (which, BTW, is far lower
and 'littlier' than what we see around here, Down Under :)) - everything
that goes on at every higher scale within the (this our) cosmos.

Cheers,
Peter

John Edser · Guest

"Entertained by my own EIMC" <decoy@mindyaown.biz> wrote:-
[quote]JE:-
Process: Any falsifiable theory of causation, i.e. any bona fide theory
of science.
Pattern: The perceptual result of any process.

Hence you must (logically) mean that process ~= patterning. :-|
[/quote]
JE:-
The relationship is not reversible. While all processes are also
patterns, not all patterns are also a process. Processes cause patterns
but patterns do not cause processes. All patterns remain deductive from
a process such that a process remains inductive from a set of patterns.
Only inductions remain explanatory. Deductions from inductions which
provide patterns from a process, test that induction. Nobody has a clue
as to how a mind produces a new, quality induction. All we know is that
some people have made them but others have not.

[quote]So, I can see that you might agree that everywhere one looks in this
universe there is an almost (but not quite) infinitely diverse non-random
proccess going on.
[/quote]
JE:-
We cannot know anything about supposed infinities. All we can validly
propose is that a large but finite number of non random patterns, exist.

[quote]However, please don>t agree to concur until you take into account that I
mean this conclusion to include (by intrinsic implication) that the goings
on at the quantum level (or scale) determine - in spite of the probabilistic
character (i.e., can be determined to be causal only after-the-fact and
statistically) of What Is going on "down there" (which, BTW, is far lower
and 'littlier' than what we see around here, Down Under :)) - everything
that goes on at every higher scale within the (this our) cosmos.
[/quote]
JE:-
Quantum mechanics is not a theory, just an amazing observation waiting
for a falsifiable theory to be able to explain it. All that the
mathematics of statistics can ever achieve is an observation of nature,
NOT AN EXPLANATION FOR THAT OBSERVATION. Why? Mathematics is not a science.

Regards,

John Edser
Independent Researcher

edser@zemail.com.au

John W Edser · Guest

"Phil Roberts, Jr." <philrob@ix.netcom.com> wrote:-

[quote]*RKS:*
Psychopaths are not identified by behaviour, though this can be a
strong indication, but by the lack of normal feelings of guilt,
remorse, empathy and of understanding other people>s feelings in general.

Mark Hubey wrote:
That>s the whole point. Why should they have feelings of remorse?

My two cents worth.
Conscience (a capacity for guilt) is a part of the price we humans have
had to pay for having become a little too rational/objective for our own
good -- a maladaptive (from the standpoint of the individual or "gene")
byproduct of the evolution of rationality/objectivity itself.

"We are nicer than what is good for our selfish genes"
(Dawkins).
[/quote]

JE:-
We have no "selfish genes", period. Hamilton and therefore Dawkins
misused oversimplified polycentric models of monocentric Darwinism to
come up with their popular mathematically based nonsense. Any rational
unit of selection can only have one proposed fitness maximand per unit
and not two or three allowed by Dawkins and Hamilton. They deploy
polycentricity in order to allow selfish gene _models_ which can provide
organism fitness altruism, but only on paper. Organism fitness altruism
cannot possibly evolve in nature. What has become quite erroneously
viewed as organism fitness altruism is in fact, organism fitness mutualism.

Remorse is a critical tribal emotion used to generate _mutualised
fitness returns_ to each and every member of one group, i.e. mutual but
hardly ever (if at all) equal fitness returns are provided by this
emotion to each adult (fertile) form within one group. Without toeing
the group line re: rules and beliefs Cro-Magnon man would never had
stuck together as one enormously powerful, interdependent fitness
mutualised group (one tribe). It was this absolutely amazing social
adaptation which allowed our species to spread and exploit just about
any diverse niche on this planet over such a tiny time span. Groups
within which individuals exchanged within _a set social framework_
provide massive non equal increases in fitness to each and every group
member via the division of labor principle which dramatically increases
productivity per individual _if it can be implemented_. Such enormous
gains do not come without cost. One of these is required group
conformity. We had to evolve a conscience which included feelings of
remorse when we went against our own groups mores and equally but
oppositely, elation if we are conventionally rewarded via the granting
of cultural tokens via group members.

[quote]They
do not believe they are
doing anything wrong. They are being quite rational in thinking that
lying to gain advantage is
a great negotiation trick.
Isn>t deception a large part of
Darwinism/evolution?

Yes. But why assume that what is natural is synonymous with
what is rational?
[/quote]
JE:-
Deception within a small fitness interdependent tribal group of about
500 can reduce the total fitness of everybody, _including the deceiver_.
The early tribally mutualised groups remained vulnerable to those who
regularly took more than they contributed because the mean net gains per
individual per group _fell_ even if just one group member got away with
such a high level deception. Very early in the the evolution of human
social systems nature evolved a conformist psychology along with
powerful feelings of remorse to encourage non deceptive social action,
i.e. allow a highly predictable type of social behavior. So strong were
these and other related feelings that the high levels of distress
(signaling tribally, things are bad) they provide can cause
suicide/disease/ill health. Similarly but oppositely, too higher a level
of eustress (tribally things are very good)will provide apparent self
sacrifice due to _the elation of being held in high group esteem_. I
used the word apparent because these actions are not at all self
sacrificing. They actually represent the payment of an insurance premium
which is _very much less than the gains that paying the premium
provided_. Of course all of these social things remain density
dependent. After we moved from tribe to super tribe, few of them worked.
We had to invent new ways to disperse these tribal emotions in order to
facilitate international trade because the tribal inclination was and
remains, to raid a foreign group rather than trade with it.

Regards,

John Edser
Independent Researcher

edser@ozemail.com.au

Virgil · Guest

In article <g4uva0$2s3p$1@darwin.ediacara.org>,
John Edser <edser@ozemail.com.au> wrote:

[quote]Quantum mechanics is not a theory, just an amazing observation waiting
for a falsifiable theory to be able to explain it.
[/quote]
If quantum mechanics predicts the impossibility of certain events, it is
a theory which can be falsified by occurrence of those events.

Entertained by my own EIM · Guest

"John Edser" <edser@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message
news:g4uva0$2s3p$1@darwin.ediacara.org...
[quote]"Entertained by my own EIMC" <decoy@mindyaown.biz> wrote:-
JE:-
Process: Any falsifiable theory of causation, i.e. any bona fide theory
of science.
Pattern: The perceptual result of any process.

Hence you must (logically) mean that process ~= patterning. :-|

JE:-
The relationship is not reversible. <snip
[/quote]
I wrote patterning with an ing at the end. :-)

And, I tend to agree with any one who leans toward classifying "process" as
something dynamic and "pattern" (without ing) as something static. :-)

[quote]So, I can see that you might agree that everywhere one looks in this
universe there is an almost (but not quite) infinitely diverse non-random
proccess going on.

JE:-
We cannot know anything about supposed infinities. All we can validly
propose is that a large but finite number of non random patterns, exist.
[/quote]
Even if one supposes that this universe is the result of an in some way (or
ways) truly infinite.multiverse one can clearly nevertheless know things
about this universe. And, BTW, it seems mathematical/theoretical physicists
can wrap their minds at least some way around the multiverse, too. So in
this sense your sense of logical validity is not valid.

[quote]

However, please don>t agree to concur until you take into account that I
mean this conclusion to include (by intrinsic implication) that the
goings
on at the quantum level (or scale) determine - in spite of the
probabilistic
character (i.e., can be determined to be causal only after-the-fact and
statistically) of What Is going on "down there" (which, BTW, is far lower
and 'littlier' than what we see around here, Down Under :)) - everything
that goes on at every higher scale within the (this our) cosmos.

JE:-
Quantum mechanics is not a theory, just an amazing observation waiting
for a falsifiable theory to be able to explain it.
[/quote]
It does not wait and I don>t wait but may be you do wait for a theory that
tells you why reality only makes statistical (and may be also otherwise
mathematical - though I>m not capable of bearing witness) sense when we look
at the smallest observable manifestations of What Is going on.

All that the
[quote]mathematics of statistics can ever achieve is an observation of nature,
NOT AN EXPLANATION FOR THAT OBSERVATION. Why? Mathematics is not a
science.
[/quote]
Maths and science are too tightly intertwined for your statement to be
generally valid.
But I agree that we should use "horses for courses".

P

John Edser · Guest

Virgil <Virgil@gmale.com> wrote:-

[quote]JE:-
Quantum mechanics is not a theory, just an amazing observation waiting
for a falsifiable theory to be able to explain it.

If quantum mechanics predicts the impossibility of certain events, it is
a theory which can be falsified by occurrence of those events.
[/quote]
JE:-
Quantum events cannot be perceived when only using the senses we were
born with. Using our inborn senses we do not require a theory of
perception to receive a pattern. We have to build machines to make
quantum event observations. This is not new. We could not measure the
velocity of light without a perception machine and go on to refute
Newton using it. We cannot see ultraviolet and infrared or perceive
radio waves but we can build machines which can make these perceptions
for us, i.e. provide sets of non random patterns to our inherited,
perceptual apparatus which the brain may then go on to interpret using
contesting theories (there is always more than just one) allowing us to
make sense of them. The building of a perceptual machine which can
accept diverse patterns does require a theory. In this sense you are
correct, quantum mechanics is a perceptual theory i.e. it does not
explain the imported pattern as a proposed falsifiable process of
science, it employs a falsifiable theory in order to perceive a pattern
with the tag, "one quantum event". I refer to theories of processes and
not to theories of patterns when I say that quantum mechanics is not a
theory. Quantum mechanics is falsifiable observation of nature and not a
falsifiable process which can explain these observations in any
scientific way.

Mathematics cannot distinguish between a theory of a pattern and a
theory of a process proposed as causative to that pattern because all
mathematics can do is crunch numbers in an entirely reversible way. A
valid theory of science requires a non reversible crunching of numbers,
i.e. the commutative law has to go. The problem is when it does go
mathematics becomes inoperable. The only way to approximate a theory
when using mathematics is to define constants via propositions which
were and remains 100% outside of mathematics (in agreement with Godel).
These are mostly, if not entirely, NOT constants but falsifiable
minimands and maximands, e.g. c is a velocity of light maximand and not
a constant. Zero degrees Kelvin represents an example of a theory
minimand. Both provide critical falsifiable frames of reference as these
were pioneered by Galileo in the mid 1600>s. Without at least one
proposed frame of reference there is no science, just mathematics.

I have proposed here for over 10 years now, that TDF (Total Darwinian
Fitness as I have defined it) presents the only falsifiable fitness
maximand that evolutionary theory has. Like c, you can only allow one
maximand/minimand for any proposed quality because they necessarily
contradict. However, mathematically based Neo Darwinism happily allows
contradictory fitness maximands for the same falsifiable unit of
selection, i.e. allows the misuse of mathematics within the biological
sciences. My detailed example was and remains, Hamilton>s inclusive
fitness which continues to be used to only explain away a false
perception of organism fitness altruism within nature. What is really
being observed here is fertile organism fitness MUTUALISM. Hamilton>s
theory only incorporated contradictory fitness maximands within an
uncorrected, oversimplified-from-Darwinism-mathematical-model, i.e. was
not and never has been, a bona fide theory of science just mathematics
without any falsifiable frame of reference.

Regards,

John Edser
Independent Researcher

edser@ozemail.com.au

Virgil · Guest

In article <g55p6n$cn7$1@darwin.ediacara.org>,
John Edser <edser@ozemail.com.au> wrote:

[quote]If quantum mechanics predicts the impossibility of certain events, it is
a theory which can be falsified by occurrence of those events.

JE:-
Quantum events cannot be perceived when only using the senses we were
born with.
[/quote]
The effects of quantum events can be perceived, or we would never have
discovered quantum events.

John Edser · Guest

"Entertained by my own EIMC" <decoy@mindyaown.biz>

[quote]JE:-
The relationship is not reversible. <snip

I wrote patterning with an ing at the end. :-)
[/quote]
JE:-
Sorry, the difference escapes me.

[quote]And, I tend to agree with any one who leans toward classifying "process" as
something dynamic and "pattern" (without ing) as something static. :-)
[/quote]
JE:-
Most patterns remain dynamic, i.e. change over time. What we do is
classify dynamic patterns into static types using inductive reasoning.
This does not render them static.

[quote]So, I can see that you might agree that everywhere one looks in this
universe there is an almost (but not quite) infinitely diverse non-random
proccess going on.

JE:-
We cannot know anything about supposed infinities. All we can validly
propose is that a large but finite number of non random patterns, exist.

Even if one supposes that this universe is the result of an in some way (or
ways) truly infinite.multiverse one can clearly nevertheless know things
about this universe.
[/quote]
JE:-
Only finite propositions make rational sense. All the rest is just
mathematics based entirely on reversible logic i.e. they are only
tautologies, just like Spencer>s hopeless "survival" of the fittest".
The common Post Modern nonsensical usage of empty tautologies have
damaged the sciences enormously. Almost always these have been inflicted
on the sciences via ignorant mathematicians.

[quote]And, BTW, it seems mathematical/theoretical physicists
can wrap their minds at least some way around the multiverse, too. So in
this sense your sense of logical validity is not valid.
[/quote]
JE:-
Mathematics is not a science, period.

[quote]JE:-
Quantum mechanics is not a theory, just an amazing observation waiting
for a falsifiable theory to be able to explain it.
[/quote]

[quote]It does not wait and I don>t wait...
[/quote]
JE:-
SCIENCE waits...

[quote]but may be you do wait for a theory that
tells you why reality only makes statistical (and may be also otherwise
mathematical - though I>m not capable of bearing witness) sense when we look
at the smallest observable manifestations of What Is going on.
[/quote]
JE:-
Making a valid observation of nature does not _explain_ anything....

[quote]All that the
mathematics of statistics can ever achieve is an observation of nature,
NOT AN EXPLANATION FOR THAT OBSERVATION. Why? Mathematics is not a
science.

Maths and science are too tightly intertwined for your statement to be
generally valid.
But I agree that we should use "horses for courses".
[/quote]
JE:-
Yes but you have to propose how exactly they are related to each other
just to make sense. I propose that mathematics is a proper (nested)
subset of science (which must not to be confused with intersecting sub
sets) _and not the reverse_. This can be tested empirically simply
because the reverse constitutes the required Popperian falsification.

Regards,

John Edser
Independent Researcher

edser@ozemail.com.au

John W Edser · Guest

Virgil <Virgil@gmale.com> wrote:-

[quote]JE:-
Quantum events cannot be perceived when only using the senses we were
born with.

The effects of quantum events can be perceived, or we would never have
discovered quantum events.
[/quote]
JE:-
Virgil,

As I carefully explained, our inherited natural senses, i.e. what we can
sense without the aid of a machine, cannot perceive quantum events
simply because they are too small/fast. You absolutely require a machine
just to be able to perceive them. This mechanized form of perception
does require a theory of science so only in this sense can quantum
events become a falsifiable as a theory. Only perceptions, mechanized
or not, do NOT constitute the process of scientific explanation.

Regards,

John Edser
Independent Researcher

edser@ozemail.com.au

Virgil · Guest

In article <g5822n$1iio$1@darwin.ediacara.org>,
John Edser <edser@ozemail.com.au> wrote:

[quote]JE:-
Mathematics is not a science, period.
[/quote]
mathematicians are usually aware of this, but scientists often are not,
and may deny it vociferously.

John Edser · Guest

Virgil <Virgil@gmale.com> wrote:

[quote]JE:-
Mathematics is not a science, period.

mathematicians are usually aware of this, but scientists often are not,
and may deny it vociferously.
[/quote]
JE:-
In my experience it is mostly mathematicians who do not understand the
critical difference between mathematics and sciences even after the
momentous discovery of Godel. The net result of this is that as more
mathematicians moved into the the sciences over the last century the
empirical and falsifiable nature of the science have been discarded as
epistemologically unnecessary. This popular Post Modern epistemology,
which has taken over evolutionary theory almost entirely, was and
remains based on just a misuse of mathematics e.g. W.D. Hamilton et al
who allocated more than just the one fitness maximand to each proposed
falsifiable unit of selection within oversimplified models of Darwinian
theory allowing Dawkins' selfish gene model (which constitutes valid
mathematics but only invalid science). The other important example is
the misuse of proposed random processes for providing random evolution
and not just random variation.

It is the mathematicians working in the biological sciences, e.g. Kimura
and his "Neutral Theory of Evolution", who have not understood that ANY
proposed random process has to remain linked to at least one non random
process _within the one, same falsifiable theory of science_, just to
make scientific sense. It is mostly mathematicians working in the
sciences who continue to argue that naked random processes validly
constitute theories of science when all that they can signify within the
sciences is ignorance of any proposed process. Mathematicians working in
the sciences appear not to be able to distinguish between a process and
a pattern.

Regards,

John Edser
Independent Researcher

Virgil · Guest

In article <g5eq6h$1o5b$1@darwin.ediacara.org>,
John W Edser <edser@ozemail.com.au> wrote:

[quote]Virgil <Virgil@gmale.com> wrote:-

JE:-
Quantum events cannot be perceived when only using the senses we were
born with.

The effects of quantum events can be perceived, or we would never have
discovered quantum events.

JE:-
Virgil,

As I carefully explained, our inherited natural senses, i.e. what we can
sense without the aid of a machine, cannot perceive quantum events
simply because they are too small/fast.
[/quote]

[quote]You absolutely require a machine
just to be able to perceive them.
[/quote]
Oh?

I understand that the unaided human eye, under suitable circumstances,
can detect a single quantum of light impinging on the retina.

That strikes me as being a quantum event perceived without the aid of
any machine.

John Edser · Guest

Virgil <Virgil@gmale.com> wrote:

[quote]I understand that the unaided human eye, under suitable circumstances,
can detect a single quantum of light impinging on the retina.

That strikes me as being a quantum event perceived without the aid of
any machine.
[/quote]
JE:-
I don>t think that the perception of one photon via the unaided human
eye (if true) would validly allow the claim that the human eye can
perceive unaided, one quantum event.

My main point: quantum theory is not a causative theory of anything,
i.e. a proposed falsifiable process of any science but a mathematical
application which has allowed our pattern perception to go _way beyond
the normal biological range_. This amazing quantum pattern still
requires a proposed falsifiable causative process of science just to be
able to explain it. Only providing the pattern does not allow one iota
of scientific explanation.

The BIG ONGOING PROBLEM is that many mathematicians working within the
sciences today cannot/refuse to separate a pattern from a process
whereas bona fide scientists do so _on just a routine basis_. The
continued misuse of mathematics within the sciences has today, blurred
the critical distinction between pattern and process allowing cause and
effect to become reversed within proposed scientific theories: e.g
Hamilton>s inclusive fitness. Such non theories remain typically Post
Modern, i.e. they explain nothing. All they can do is explain things
away... providing welcome political relief to many...

Regards,

John Edser
Independent Researcher

edser@ozemail.com.au


www.GetXFactor.com Leading Technology, Science, Agriculture News and information	Part of the Identityscape.com network... getxfactor.com jmoodmusic.com smartbusinesschoices.com mintdepot.com lowfaresalways.com evangelicalview.com shoppingpodder.com soproudlywehail.com webnews.ws currenthumor.com

Science and Technology news... Forum Index -> Biological Evolution Forum	Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 Next
Page 2 of 5