Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Philosophical implications of Darwinism/ID
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5032 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 30 of 38 (209431)
05-18-2005 4:17 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by Parasomnium
05-18-2005 10:07 AM


Re: DarwinIsm & pHilosophY
If these two figures (the "geometry" in them ) are complementary and
reflect determatively this next

(Thus lenticel viscous with pit tori adapt to electric field inversions dynamically due to the molecular rxn of cellulose to external field alternating currents across generations of changing dielectrics)& in the proposition (this would mean that one could go out into the back yard and correlate the lenticels in various species of trees and compare (them)) with different geographies (WITH THE SAME FORMALISM THAT PUNC EQ APPLIES TO FOSSILS)(I BSM propose) then it seems to me, Darwinism becomes philosophical, in your Psense and it does so, by Nature's God no matter what metaphysics it suggests in different stations NOT on Earth.
Picture reference urls are:
torus/margo
lenticle ellipse
repeating circuit
http://www.pnu.ac.ir/.../Film/plants/media/ch01/lenticel.htm
place of supposed causality
This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 05-18-2005 05:01 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by Parasomnium, posted 05-18-2005 10:07 AM Parasomnium has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by Parasomnium, posted 05-18-2005 6:07 PM Brad McFall has replied

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5032 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 32 of 38 (209461)
05-18-2005 6:16 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by Parasomnium
05-18-2005 6:07 PM


Re: DarwinIsm & pHilosophY
Ok but I could have simply put in your
quote:
a view that replaces religious explanations for the diversity in biological nature with naturalist ones.
and removed my letters.
If trees adapt to storm front cycles dielectircally then there would be downward causation of tree stands onto any genes currently attached to bark but not the bite of such sensicality.
Your personal wish is my comma&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by Parasomnium, posted 05-18-2005 6:07 PM Parasomnium has not replied

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5032 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 37 of 38 (209719)
05-19-2005 3:22 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by Dead Parrot
05-18-2005 7:19 AM


I was going to work up the philosophy as Modulous lastly asked but this is a bit more work than I am putting out today. Maybe this weekend I'll work it over. Anyway here is where, in a physics lab it would be found ,in my opinion. 1/2a, 1/2c, 1/2both would be portioned within a HardyW equilibria.
The green line shows where the dipole would exist.
It is unclear to me if the additions involved were merely designs of the author and less likely designs of nature. In any product I have reduced the two "jars" of Faraday to one botantical use of wood. In any case this is not "extraordinary" but just what is expected in the lab.
Material from
On the Source of Power in the Voltaic Pile by Faraday
Colloids by AG WARD
The Third Dimension of Chemistry by AF Wells
Theory of Dielectrics by Frohlich
and
http://www.pnu.ac.ir/.../Film/plants/media/ch01/lenticel.htm
This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 05-19-2005 03:24 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by Dead Parrot, posted 05-18-2005 7:19 AM Dead Parrot has not replied

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5032 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 38 of 38 (210019)
05-20-2005 1:29 PM
Reply to: Message 35 by Modulous
05-19-2005 5:24 AM


Re: Implications
quote:
In a remarkable passage,. that could serve as a credo for modern formalism as well, Goethe asserts his central claim for internalist primacy, while also specifying the vital, but secondary, role of adaptation. Internal formation acts as a primary source that "must find external conditions." Adaptation may then shape a range of diversity from an underlying form, but the typal pattern cannot be explained by the secondary modifications, and the adaptations themselves can only express a superficial restructuring of inherent order:
Man, in considering all things with reference to himself, is obliged to assume that external forms are determined from within, and this assumption is all the easier for him in that no single living thing is conceivable without complete organization. Internally, this complete organization is clearly defined; thus it must find external conditions that are just as clear and definite, for its external existence is possible only under certain conditions and in certain situations....An animals possesses external usefulness precisely because it has been shaped from without as well as from within, and - more important and quite natural - because the external element can more readily adapt he external form to its own purposes than it can reshape the internal form. We can best see this in a species of seal whose exterior has taken a great deal of the fish character while its skeleton still represents the prefect quadruped (2nd essay on plant metamorphosis, written 1790, in Muller and Engard, 1952,p83).
Goethe's views therefore provide a "test case" for a primary thesis of the book. We should, I believe, recognize the space of our intellectual world as inherently structured, by some combination of our evolved mental quirks and the dictates of logic, into a discontinuous arrary of possible, coherent positions - hence the double entendre in the title of the book. These mental positions express "morphologies," just as organisms do. The chief components of these "morphologies" must reside together and interact to build the "essence" of any powerful intellectual system. The components o fa theory's essence should be recognized as both deep and minimal; with other less important and potentially dispensable principles allied to them in secondary webs subject to "restructuring" by "adapatation." (Thus I advocate a minimal set of three principles for defining the essence of Darwinism, while regarding other components of the ususal Darwinian nexus as conjoined more loo...
But here we find Gould trying to force an intelligibility of his best test case in>>t0 the difference of organic and inorganic biophysics, without relieveing the historical theology of the burden to translate his lofty wisdom and providential care into relative frequencies of material frequency dependence in an actual correalation by assuming the collectivities need not be only arranged in a circle whether or not we have the mathematical purity/mass to integrate the data or not.
As I do not have all of the abilities I need as a physicist and mathematician as of yet I can not be certain that the individuality that BOTH Darwinism and ID relies on, (it would have been a different question (and one I probably would not have tried to answer if the issue was "philosophy of creationism and geneic selectionism")) I can not say if the full resolution that I am working @ is going to come out of society by an individual (me or some else working on similar lines) or by population of newer students in the same objective subjetively replayed by Gould just before his death but seared by the sound of bleating seal at Sea World in the past. Thus without the actual individual it is hard to tell if my ideas on possible taxogeny in plants will work out all of the "poltical" and "national" differences Gould has written on the same subject. I dont know for sure but I surely know some of it. Croizat survives and Goethe does not. It is possible that as I work out the individual values attached to the symbols that the whole physical teleology can not be made to have both extreme ends meet in the circle of this actually but the logic will reside nonetheless and I will be able to show that Gould was over hasty in making a sand castle out of the difference in Paley and Aggasiz's contributions. ID does not individually depart from this goal either, it seemed to me., but Biblical creationism could however. I think the moduluous will still play out in the analysis that this synthesis only pokes at but now, I get ahead of Arach who still wants to say "me too" even though I have posted MuCH information.
The quote is from "The Structure of Evolutionary Theory", Stephen Jay Gould, The Belknap Press Of Harvard University Press, Cambridge and London, 2002 pages 289-290

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by Modulous, posted 05-19-2005 5:24 AM Modulous has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024