What we must accept if we accept evolution

OF course trivially one could reject the items but I do not find this a very significant thought.If determinism is not meant in the ugly sense of eugenics then I think that there MUST be some (kind) of determinism in TOE. What this recalls intellectually is the seperation of value and fact and indeed there was a German Scholar who came to Harvard lecturing on this but in consequence of this kind of seperation one had to buy into some relations between perception and physical reality that were only academically proped. Instead I find some kind of direct imposition being skirted. I think this is wrongly laced with chemicals and in the hands of money grabing psychiatrists it goes the wrong way socially in some states of this union.I was just listening to
Object not found!
especially on science and bimetallism and I find that TOE does remand the name of the sound "bimetallism" but that is not on the list.I can even wonder more about the word "parity" diffently. Just listen.This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 01-21-2006 09:39 AM

I guess that is good question CFROG. But I DO KNOW that if I am thinking of SPECIFIC proposals of random electric potentials in a brain, say the (on-off) analogy of Kaufmann from the late 60s then I can give an equally specific response that sustains IANOS series of grounded or groundable statments.I used to have an innocent answer- GRAVITY WAVES, but as you in particular probably know I have used that response nausiatingly before. But it was something I did think!!see also
EvC Forum: creationists side-stepping
http://EvC Forum: Definition of created kind! -->EvC Forum: Definition of created kind!
http://EvC Forum: Definition of created kind! -->EvC Forum: Definition of created kind!
...
even RAZD mentions the thing in general
EvC Forum: Another Test for Intelligent Design ProponentsMy densist to date was
EvC Forum: Message from the future

In my first physics course in high school, the teacher's understanding of causality was no better than Sheldrake's
Rupert Sheldrake - Author and Biologist
and as an aside he had introduced me to "morphic resonance". I began to read Sheldrake's book
(new science of life) All Books
and I thought it possible to avoid his conclusions if one supposed the physical (teleology) of resonances of imperfect forms to be influenced IN THE DIRECTION from the soma to the nucleus via gravity waves. I in the past I found this easier to understand than "acceleration" itself but that was simply the effect of popular science on a nascent mind. With that thought however I was able to THINK about the brain in ways that made discussion of invertebrate nervous physiology seem elementary. I had had the thought that memory ITSELF might be stored NOT in Hofstadter's "grandmother" cell

quote:

---

Schrdinger's Headache
It's been said that we all have a “grandmother cell”: a single brain cell ...
Godel, Escher, Bach: An eternal golden braid by Douglas Hofstadter (seeing it ...

---

http://www.disenchanted.com/dis/technology/quantum.html
but in patterns of gravity waves interacting with cascades of (kinase) physphorylation. This is an *internal* mental thought (and before there was as much attention on cyclic AMP) and one that could be recalled and worked upon subjectively. I have yet to meet anyone with this kind of personal view on how the mind and brain interact. This thought caused me to beCOME critical of much of the notions of personal identity and the philosophy of mind. I worked out the non-computer science aspects of this thought in a class with Shoemaker at Cornell about 5 years later.Back in the 70s when I was first thinking like this after trying to imagine a Penrose twistor it was still something very real that physicists *might* find evidence for the thing itself. This has not occurred. Since then my thinking advanced or retarded through discussion of the 5th force and now it hinges only on the difference of kinematics and dynamics. Needless to comment the notion of a g-wave soliton being the SOURCE of biological memory arrays, avoids all of the discussion sprit vs materialism in the brain substance of any bat's mind say, but in reality Narnia makes better visual sense than the perfect form this thought avoided.Page Not Found | PhysicsCentral
BBC NEWS | Science/Nature | Gravitational wave detector all setI had had to have thought that instead of the mass of two rotating stars the mass of a past descendent lineage was kept waving in the environment (outside the grade's niche) and the amount of monphyletic prior biomass was sufficient to create dissipative sustenance of parameters that affect physical chemistry differences. Anyway, less the dissipation, I wrote up an independent study in high school chemistry on this basis and used this thought to compare the contributions of Cornell biologists to Bohr's insistence and Mayr's denial that anything like this exists in the discipline. So it is not wise to use this thought for determinative purposes but it IS helpful in comparing reflections that strech beyond science fiction and touch the same firmament that D-Vinci kept high up on the ceiling. That’s all.

We can "think" or "make sense" (if something 'makes sense' it is made of some *thing*) in more than two ways.With reptiles and the "third brain" whatever that thing is in itself OR material, there is MORE than a bicameral mind in ours connected. No matter what is selected, what is not within this continuum as first adumbrated might exist but is extant.The "mind" of invertebrates has some qualities so quantifiable.Whatever in life does not think or we can not think it does ( a plant etc) still receives the same material force reality physically.If we deny this is really existent we only fool someone else, not ourselves.TOE probably says a lot more about the "origin" of this physical mind.

quote:

---

Evolution is a good example of a non-deterministic process. If evolution were deterministic, then given current conditions I could determine the exact range of animals that would evolve from my pet dog over the next 100,000 years.

---

quote:

---

A process can only be described a deterministic if you can say that for a given set of conditions a given outcome will arise. It doesn't make any sense to call a process deterministic just because the outcome had a set of physical causes.

---

message # - 189
Now Sewall Wright when making the argument against Fisher’s stoichology, expressed a method wherein evolution was deterministic in the sense that SW argued TO specific outcomes (not as correctly commented by JM as if only the “set of physical causes” were). So to me translation in space and form-making as raised methodically by Croizat (which as a methodical thought process that fails to be done but in New Zeland, does not remand obvious denial of creationism but only removal of useless subtilties) continues to fail to be recognized not because some form of ID or creationism is outpacing the current best process of science, but because a certainly label able tradition in evolutionary theory (both my grandfather and Wright studied under Zelensky) are being out patterned. The marks of the problem only find more publicity in simplistic popular disagreement of creation and evolution rather than the actual thought process that makes the debate continue.Once we have the liberty to say how God created a watermelon we might have the humanity to change the bias to a neturality in our schools of higher education.This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 01-26-2006 06:57 PM