Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   All about Brad McFall II.
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5032 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 1 of 39 (385804)
02-17-2007 8:56 AM


All about Brad McFall II .
(Any one who wants to ask me any question in a less serious mode that does not have specific references to a particular topic may query me here but if I can recall having discussed (it) before elsewhere on EVC I may link otherwise.)
I was going to post this thread in continuation of
http://EvC Forum: What to do with Brad? (Yet another Brad McFall topic) -->EvC Forum: What to do with Brad? (Yet another Brad McFall topic)
especially as this post is in response to Martin’s differentiation of East and West
EvC Forum: Mimicry and neodarwinism
, and in that prior one Adminnemooseus focused on the issue of “location” in evCcyberspace and Lam’s avatar is North America (while it was Lam’s post that started the the now defunct thread “All About Brad . ”) but since members still have access to post in the Coffee House and I would rather have a non-serious threadline to post in, where it is me myself that may be at issue and as this response today does not seem to me to be an issue of Board Administration, I am starting a new one here. By the way, here in Collegetwon, Ithaca a Starbucks just opened across the street from my ”normal’ browsing spot.
In his essay on Logic, Kant distinguished
Apothegms - definition of apothegms by The Free Dictionary
from aphorisms and this difference probably can deconstruct this thread if need be.
“Empty nest” and “empty niche” would be two different things to me. While a student at Cornell, Simon Levin
http://www.eeb.princeton.edu/~slevin/
, suggested I meet up with GE Hutchinson
http://lakes.chebucto.org/PEOPLE/hutchins.html
the author of a most modern concept of “niche.” I declined because I could not find the different sizes of manufactured tri-cycles nor the supposed difference of beetle environments from the looks of beetles themselves (no matter the size) of any real value to my own notions of “endemism.” Back then I really did think that the notion of ”niche’ was as empty as the crevice that a salamander might squeeze into OR was considered the view down the Gorges in Ithaca NY which were different than the “Cretaceous” landscape of New Jersery I had collected most of my specimens in.
In the link you provided
Page not found - www.fritzwagner.com
one may read:
quote:
You get some funny situations. In California now there is a fight between literalists or providentialists, and biological theorists. And you get in the textbooks both Genesis and Darwinian evolutionism as two "theories" of evolution. You see what that really means? The fundamentalist theologians in California (fundamentalism was well established there at the beginning of the century) don't know what a myth is. They believe it is a theory. They're in ignorance.
And the biological theorists don't know that Kant has analysed why one cannot have an immanentist theory of evolution. One can have empirical observation but no general theory of evolution because the sequence of forms is a mystery; it just is there and you cannot explain it by any theory. The world cannot be explained. It is a mythical problem, so you have a strong element of myth in the theory of evolution.
But I MUST say that whatever the notion of “niche” is it IS NOT ”empty’ with respect to the notion of “biological theorist” presented in these two paragraphs. Diversity may be “just there” but as Kant DID SAY there are immediate consequences related “to the first figure” and I THINK (I could be thinking wrong, that is always a possibility) that these consequences are found in the purposes put to different ordinations of normal forms in databases set theory wise. My herpetological observation has been that whatever the functional shift was that physiologists attempt to master when discussing the difference of cold and warm bloodness there IS NOT the enumerative diversity we see “at first glance” when stepping outside into nature. This view has not been mastered in the standard literature and is why my own view still stand a bit too far out. I believe time will smooth over the rough edges.
In the last
http://axiompanbiog.com/method.aspx
page on
http://www.axiompanbiog.com
I have started to present the details of how gene trees and species trees (crossing thus “habitats and niches”) may be related with a human simulation that involves a thought as complex as the “moving stars” of years ago.
This would enable the principle to remain and yet the purposes be reduced to simple mechanical actions of the model. I have not completed the work. Probably because it is not done, John Grehan has suppressed a post I attempted to reply to
http://www.sebasite.org/
On.
https://lis.snv.jussieu.fr/wws/info/biogeography
I am dealing with something really restrictive here.
The problem with the two paragraphs is that “hypothesis non fingo”and any idea of “theory” are very similar with regard to “popularization.”
Now as far as there being some place to “escape” to in the US, this is not strictly true even for me, there is time to mature but really no other place to go. I will explain this part of “my story” if you are really interested in particular details of my own life. All that has happened is that through bad choices I am no longer fit enough to become an astronaut. Entropy wins.
You also
Page not found - www.fritzwagner.com
provided
quote:
The pure typical case of a transcendent explanation is Linnaeus' theory, according to which God created at the beginning of the world the various animal species and endowed the individuals of each species with the ability to bring forth their own kind; in fact, the species was the quintessence of the individuals who have descended from each other through procreation; in theory the species was coined by God's creative hand. When fixity of the species was understood in this way, there was hardly any reason to look for the inner causes of the individual's character; the reference to God as the transcendent creator of the world in its thusness was sufficient.
Of all the theoreticians of biology of his day, Linnaeus was most deeply immersed in the Christian worldview. Linnaeus believed that the world actually had a definite beginning; there was a day and an hour when the world, in the organization of its existence, emerged from the chaos through God's creating hand. When this belief died, the teaching of the species and its duration became questionable, leading to those transformations in the theory with which we must now concern ourselves.
Now I must say that when I first tried to get my head around the fact that the common milk snake had 13!!!!! Different names aka Linnaeus, I could not fathom how this was so. I still do not. This however has not kept Gould from extending evolutionary theory WITHIN the naming and necessity that taxonomists do every day. It matters MORE about the notion of sex in plants than it does the linguists whether deep or not that keep thi going NO MATTER WHAT the relation is to Christianity. Williams in his “classic” on adaptation kept the difference of sex in plants and animals separate. We still have no name for this as we do as much for discussions on “adaptation”.
If a “species” is more than something a German women adds to soup then this IS NOT what we “theorists” need most to concern ourselves with today. Kant said we should laugh at the science not the man. Perhaps THAT is what we do better here. The notion that is still laughed at but survives is more fit for fact than tit for tat.
The continuation of my ideas on technobiology without as much academics applied is found at
http://www.aexion.org

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by Brad McFall, posted 02-20-2007 7:15 PM Brad McFall has not replied
 Message 3 by Brad McFall, posted 07-06-2007 12:09 AM Brad McFall has not replied
 Message 4 by Brad McFall, posted 07-06-2007 12:12 AM Brad McFall has not replied
 Message 6 by Taz, posted 07-06-2007 1:26 PM Brad McFall has replied
 Message 37 by Brad McFall, posted 01-31-2008 7:36 PM Brad McFall has not replied

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


Message 2 of 39 (386300)
02-20-2007 7:15 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Brad McFall
02-17-2007 8:56 AM


Change of Avatar? - any suggestions??
At the end of the last thread on me there was some back and forths to which I did not respond but not for any particular reason. Thanks to the 11 or so of you who looked at this thread but did not respond. Microsoft told me how many linked over.
RickJB said
EvC Forum: All about Brad McFall.
in the Lam All About Brad McFall thread:
quote:
Re: Behold! The Lithican Times
Brad writes:
A future without the web....
Heh. Amazing how quickly such an idea has become almost unthinkable to so many people in the space of just ten years or so...
Yes that is unthinkable for indeed the web has served me well enough despite my difficulty in getting onto a Biogeography discussion forum whereas instead I got some correspondence from Dr Jorge Llorente
of the National Autonomous University of Mexico
UNAM
wherein was a paper:
and a cover to a volume
that in proper colors appropriately makes a print of my clover avatar also somewhat UNTHINKABLE to me by extracting the "Extra" black space(representing the rarity of the four leafed modification) made by scanning the clover itself.
Very interesting was a letter from Croizat to the American Museum protesting the publishing of a paper by Mayr and Phelps decrying barriers to "the progress of American knowledge". I found this barrier unfaceable by Ernst personally myself later.
So I guess I can not say that I would like a world without the internet anymore. The paper I got in the mail points towards a "geographical analysis of scientific change" which is what I was hoping MartinV would look into.
The content of the volume
is helpful to those who may like to broaden their ability to apprehend comparative biology, as for instance, the various relations that preserve order may be used as guides when looking a purely anatomic structures in addition to one where temporality is to have been inferred. I have not tried it but it looks interesting to view meristic variation as terminally developing various order preserving transforms.
The junction of this work and creation/evolution probably lies in attempts to so visualize anatomy such that details of pre-Tertiary life might be thought to have been thought through. Creationists typically think, it seems to me, that claims to understand distributions based on an Ice Age are wrong but Panbiogeographers are pushing back the mentality to earlier horizons, however as far as I can tell the real difference of Creationism and Evolutionism though written as a Cambrian difference would be resolvable in Permian time if all the words were taken care of, no matter what the disagreement is over climatic fluctuations is and continues to politically be. A concrete visualization would be the translation and space and form-making of pond turtles (Clemmys) on the West and East coasts of the US. It may even be possible to bring back Aggasiz's ideas if this was tried.
In the light of all these on-line things going on, I am thinking of changing my AVATAR...
Does anyone have any suggestions or requests?? I am tired of looking at "sprint" commericals but I am not dead set on changing it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Brad McFall, posted 02-17-2007 8:56 AM Brad McFall has not replied

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


Message 3 of 39 (408921)
07-06-2007 12:09 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Brad McFall
02-17-2007 8:56 AM


reevc
I have rerouted my response to Monk
EvC Forum: NY Times article on evo-devo
on the aspects of Conway's thought process and my own that need not bear directly on the question of countering Dwise's statements here.
If there is significant interest in starting a thread on Conway or Kant then I that would be better than focusing on my own methods of thinking.
quote:
Perhaps you should first decipher the Conway manuscript before using it to posit something from Kant.
Ok, NOW I see what you were complaining of.
Yes, I would have liked to have read a bit more about Conway himself and his philosophy before I attempted to say what I did. I take it you feel that I might have used the intelligence of someone already established as a great and valuable thinker and via a simple cut and paste succeed in making his reputation one with mine? Right?? Sure that would be wrong. It would be really wrong in most cases if someone went simply to, and found a quote, in this case from Conway, that said something like, "I think that mathematicians should do practical things and I think the recent work of Kitcher and others that claim math is an empirical endeavor to be correct" ( I know there is some evidence for the first part of that sentence).
But in what I did with it, it does not matter even if Conway holds to a different philosophy than me and what I did. That is the great thing about MATH, once you "see" it, that is all there is to it. It is true or it is not.
quote:
That's true. The article you quoted notes that the Conway manuscript appears as gibberish and has not yet been understood by scholars.
Perhaps you know more about manuscript than I do. What do scholars expect to be able to understand? What parts of it are “gibberish”. Do they assert that the names given to the partial 3-D “objects” are gibberish because they are only partly helpful in helping these scholars to memorize the symmetries?? Do they fail to see the usefulness of his multiple signs/names and symvbols for the same things??? Why is it that one can see on the internet that some people have substituted an x for an o in calling in effect, the wonder, a miracle????
????
Now there are two parts:
(What did I think Conway was trying to show (also whether that WAS what Conway was trying to do with his papers (but this matters not again for my particular use case AS MATH again.)
and
What did I actually show by myself and then with the use of Conway's notes (or, and it does matter, what I thought I showed whether I actually did (or did not)).
I found the drawings in the left hand column of Conway of the 1-D symmetries to be continuous via Heyda's physics
(if one was to calculate the torque given by the human hand on the OUTER SPHERE of the power/dnabee ball) , with his partial 3-D drawings INTO the geometrical sphere. I recognized that by designing a digital input output system to record the Euler angles from Heyda’s “every day physics” a complete system could be construced with only minor choices on which symmetry groups could be used in different parts of the plan. The permanences seemed bound by the forms of what I assumed were gibberish to others. These were NEEDED by my prior drawing. I took it that since the authors of the paper on Conway did not mention these partial 3-D drawings, this is WHAT they must have meant mostly as “gibberish”
Now as for Kant and all of this lets start from SuberGeometry and Arithmetic are Synthetic and I can really try to show you, as phenotype and genotype are actually not soma and genes, that if the whole data access system were built (perhaps it may be said to read and write transilient variations) and expanded via Conway’s already fractally extendible thought ( I will explain how Conway’s moving among the different geometrical dimension objects permits this which was only 1-D and serially programmable by me prior) that computers could actually permit humans to create synthetic a priori instantiations BECAUSE we have falsely sundered the genotype and phenotype were the separation is actually only catastrophically divided by continuousness nonthenevertheless. One would have to show that epistasis and genetic homeostasis benefit however even though one may pursue the technology before the empirics are available. Perhaps it will only enable a better use of group theory in biology in an end and not be as glorious as I say. But that would in itself of significance worth talking about. The error would have been finding a saltus where instead the relation of the plane, the line and the sphere (not 3-D space) remains.
From that understanding one may begin to realize why I feel this operation is one of math as a synthesis because I would be using geometry in biology as Kant used it in his time. The actual philosophical discursion would have to put the question to places in nature where the view of this bio-geometry might be contra position to other maths non-Euclidian wise of physics. I do not know just where in the various levels of organization these theoretical conflicts might experimentally be tried in. It will depend on a more permanent and actually existing data input out put system than the one I cut and paste that still has some variables but not enough to permit unconstrained 3 degrees of freedom of motion.
For me Conway made group theory visualizable. Without thinking across the dimensions and only thinking in terms of the symmetry groups on the sphere I had been unable to do this. I did not complete a group theory class at Cornell because I could not "see" what was being prooved on the black board. I now know why I could not and perhaps I would be able "to see" it now.
Are the scholars expecting something great from these manuscripts?? The interesting thing about algebra is that one DOES it with symbols. These pages appeared to me to be a bit a of a rossetta stone. I can learn the symbols easier with it than without it, but more importantly he provided me clues to the spatialization of my intution that I was planning on only having access to a posteriori. He has given even more room for the a priori in my mind, whether that was his intent in his or not.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Brad McFall, posted 02-17-2007 8:56 AM Brad McFall has not replied

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


Message 4 of 39 (408922)
07-06-2007 12:12 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Brad McFall
02-17-2007 8:56 AM


reevc
sorry, double post
I guessed wrong when I got a server not found response.
Edited by Brad McFall, : double post

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Brad McFall, posted 02-17-2007 8:56 AM Brad McFall has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by Phat, posted 07-06-2007 2:29 AM Brad McFall has replied

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


Message 7 of 39 (409276)
07-08-2007 12:23 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by Taz
07-06-2007 1:26 PM


real life vs reality
Hi Taz,
No, I do not really talk like this, "any one who wants to ask me any question...may query me here but if I can recall having", but it is true that this "any one" mentioned is the same as "any taxanomic and niche matrix" in the sense I am trying to correct below.
“Lewontin, dissatisfied with the theoretical results possible using single locus and even multilocus state space types, suggests an entirely different state space type.^6 The intention is to treat the entire genome as a whole, rather than as a collection of independently segregating, noninteracting genotypes of single loci. Ernst Mayr stresses the importance of the interaction of genes and the homeostasis of genotypes (i.e., the large amount of linkage) in evolutary processes. The genome will respond to selection pressures as a whole says Mayr, instead of as an aggregate of individual loci (1967, p. 53). In our terms, if evolution works this way, any accurate model of evolution cannot utilize the single locus state space type. Following up his claim that the construction of a dynamically sufficient theory of the genome with many genes is “the most pressing problem of [population genetics] theory,” Lewontin suggests an alternative approach utilizing a completely different set of state variables (1974, p.271).(The Structure and Confirmation of Evolutionary Theory by E. Lloyd 1988, 1994)
However, even by the mid80s when attempting to get information from Richard Lewontin (personal observation) as to what this different state space type would be in terms of concrete traits his notion of the kinematic underlying any better dynamics was NOT one that would differentiate locomotion of fish and snakes within his evironoment/ organism couple(d) differential equations. That notion of motion seems contrary to that necessary to establish a homeostatic or co-ordinated whole view of many interacting but yet independently segregating single loci phenotypic correlations.
Recently, Odling-Smee, Laland and Feldman have attempted to provide a more ordinal notion of this antecedent state of population genetic theory in their coopting of ecosystem engineering to the purpose of niche construction. G.E Hutchinson had broadend the notion of the niche space and taxanomic space when species are necessary(Population Biology and Evolution edited by Richard Lewontin) and the invocation of ecosystem engineering to inform niche construction provided a visualization for treating genomes as a whole when niche constructability is involved. This work provides a cardinal improvement in layering the superfludity of the one locus approach. The incorporation of entropy via Maxwell’s demon however restricts the range of the type of orders this gene interaction “system” can produce and does not holistically reach the level that Mayr required for bean bag genetics to govern systematically some aspects of natural history.
The modeling of niche construction, so far, is thus unable to achieve the shape that Llodyd intented the direction the “different state space type” to take progressive population genetics dynamically to beyond single and multi-locus models. This is obvious where the 2-D result, among any taxanomic and niche matrix lead to the statement that (page 143, Niche Construction) “ Note that these polymorphic equilibria are neutral in the sense that perturbations away from such an equilibrium followed by subsequent evolution will result in convergence to another point on the curve.”
There seems to be some confusion in the TEACHING of evolution that leads to this kind of error. In 2001 Cornell’s Evolutionary Biology Class was teaching
This perspective demonstrates that the curve arrived at is a political rather than a biological consequence as there seems to be no room for divisions of the phenotype (above mentioned) into categories that are causally dependent on a whole that does not return to the place of the drawn figure yet is also not “a collection of independently segregating, noninteracting genotypes of single loci”.
The possibility of visually utilizing Conway’s symbols (on line manuscript) for relations among symmetry in the line, plane, partial 3-D and sphere can instead correct the teaching of evolutionary biology such that the most pressing problem of the theory (getting the correct model match to nature) can be diagrammed without having to use words to do the interpolation.
So the problem in real life is that my version of biological thinking as a reality is at odds with mental facts if there is a simple difference of physical and mental (but I doubt that(regardless of American politics), as to possibe obsevation of and acquaintance with mental entities.
I usually do not talk off line in as much detail as I do on because my contribution to society, outside of things that every other average person does, if expressed, covers many years and yet we live day by day, while it is rare to find random people with an interest even as broad as on EvC.
I am a "normal" guy mind you. After I thought up and pasted together the Conway page above, satisfied, I went out for a beer, had two, was walking back home past a club and a co-worker insisted I come in.
I ended up drinking another 4-5 and dancing with two girls so close to me that there really was no way to turn. I used to do this every Friday when I was younger and healthier.
Neutrality seems to uncover psychology, politics and the rear anti-eugenic biological apology as one teaching. This elite position needs to be dismantled before my every day life becomes my life's work beyond myself.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Taz, posted 07-06-2007 1:26 PM Taz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by Taz, posted 07-08-2007 5:35 PM Brad McFall has replied

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


Message 9 of 39 (409369)
07-09-2007 12:35 AM
Reply to: Message 8 by Taz
07-08-2007 5:35 PM


Re: real life vs reality
Well, sure, you probably wanted me to assume that I talk differently in person than on EvC.
If I was a proffessor like my brother, I probably would get the opportunity to talk like/as I think.
It is not so much that I get sidetracked or have "random" thoughts. It is that I would prefer my life to be lesiurely enough, for me to follow up a mental process to conclusive fruition, but not being rich, the necessities of life bear in, and rather than say *something* I tend to say nothing.
Sometimes this causes the appearence of my avoiding mentally, the given social or work situation particulars, to become apparent but usually the vissitidues are such that I can simply make timely choices to avoid anything but chosen behavior. This is really not as much an issue to me as you might make it out to be. I have never really felt the "sympathy" posts that others have made on EVC, thinking, there is something mental here, where in fact it is simply that I have a very causal physical perspective hard to express in print. I often simply have to sprint through it, leaving jargons to be the doors shut in the process of becomeing all gone.
I mentioned "mental entites" as a means to draw you into a discussion of Bertrand Russell's essay "On the nature of acquaintance". I can open up this avenue of conversation if you would like.
The essay of BR rotates around 6 questions: "(1) Are faint and peripheral sensations included in 'experience'? (2) Are all or any of our present true beliefs included in present 'experience' (3) Do we now 'experience' past things which we remember? (4) How do we come to know that the group of things now experienced is not all embracing? (5) Why do we regard our present and past experiences as all parts of oneexperience, namely the experience which we call 'ours'? (6) What leads us to believe that 'our' total experience is not all-embracing?"
I think that James' view that Russell presented and the discussion of being lead or not to the Harvard delta to really be erroneous. Russell wrote of James, "Finally he(JAMES) comes to the alleged introspective certainty of consciousness. But his introspective deliverance is not the usual one. In himself, he says, 'the stream of thinking (which I recognize emphatically as a phenomenon) is only a careless name for what when scrutinized, reveals itself to consist chiefly of the stream of my breathing. The "I think" which Kant said must be able to accompany all my objects, is the "I breathe" which actually does accompany them."
I have a much more intricate "breath" than James thought by way of elite training, but living near the Cornell campus, I need only breath actually and thinking I thought something others around me did not, whatever "random" thoughts I may have been having I disappear myself like the gossamer of superman's ghost and only fiction remains.
Russel went on to distinguish mental facts and mental entites. I took that quickly that mental facts are what psychiatrists get paid to diagnose and the entities are the actuall brain things going on, but then again I have had some peculiar ideas of the nervous system, so perhaps I should not anticipate that synapse crossing when we come to it.
I have had a lot of experiences that others have not that I can draw from to make small talk. I generally have not engaged in this on EVC.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Taz, posted 07-08-2007 5:35 PM Taz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by Taz, posted 07-09-2007 2:26 AM Brad McFall has replied

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


Message 13 of 39 (409575)
07-10-2007 9:55 AM
Reply to: Message 12 by Taz
07-09-2007 10:05 PM


Re: real life vs reality
I'll try to get back to Bertrand Russell's use of the relation "hate", just to have a Hoot later. I dont know if the opposite must be LOVE.
I will be out of town shortly and while I can chat any time you see me on line, I probably have to take a rain check and chat sometime next week. I'll let you know when I'not working later.
Edited by Brad McFall, : obverse

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by Taz, posted 07-09-2007 10:05 PM Taz has not replied

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


Message 14 of 39 (409580)
07-10-2007 10:19 AM
Reply to: Message 5 by Phat
07-06-2007 2:29 AM


Re: All About Eccentricity
1) I have been working at a local grocery store here in Collegetown after getting the AS in Computer Science while working on-line. I would say that the same difficulties in communication are still there, in public, but these are really only ones of desiring perfection and not finding it. It may be hard to guess given all the mistakes I permit in my posts to imagine that I have some strict astehtic vision I strive to maintatin and sustain, but I do.
So, what happens during work, is that I observe a lot things that need changing but there is often little time to discuss this with co-workers, so.... what actually happens is that I end up talking very fast and giving way too much information to who ever is the manager on duty at the time. Their response is for me to "slow down". This is supposed to be a symptom "pressure of speech" but in truth it is nothing more than the actuality that I can often remember an extensive amount of things that I can quickly "get off my mind."
As I said to Taz, the solution to this is always to say nothing and breath. It is an easy thing to do.
In truth I do not find this as symptomatic of anything psychological. I have restricted my attention consiousouly to objects of biology over the years and as such I am a bit of a narrow thinker compared to the average cosmopolitan citizen. I think it is that narrowed mentally initiated thought process that results in the appearence of difference to others. That is just what makes me an individual, nothing more nothing less. If there is anything that singles me out from others it is that I grew up in a sheltered and well cared for household where learning was taken as the default. I simply try to learn every day.
2) Now starting in High School I began a thought process on how to extract energy from biological form that I held as a premium. If there were things happening in my life that prevented me from following up on this thought I would choose decisions that would not prevent me from keeping the introspection going. This was sustained for well nigh up to two decades. Having done this enabled me to really actuallly mentally focus for long times. I do not know if others do this. That began in high school.
But I was not particularly isolated. I ran track, played in the band, was almost student council president, conducted numerous 4-H meetings, played with a group of close friends, had a girl friend, and was an Elder in the Presbyterian Church among other things.
3)I hope this summer to produce a paper showing that conservation biologists who use simple species abundances and political boundaries to create maps forging hierarchies of contaniers of priorities may not represent the actual distribution of natural needs for preservation of genetic diversity using 3Item analysis.
The French authors working on this have not responded to my request for a program even though Dr. Gladyshev in Moscow has acknowledged reciept of e-mail. I will try to use my recent epiphany on frieze patterns to suggest a better and truer alternative(I have to figure out how Conway got some binary trees patterned). If all goes as planned I will submit it to "Systematic Biology". It will be a negative paper, but then again a lot of them in that Journal are.
It is often the positive passion that gets in the way, so in this current instance, the negative correspondence is much easier to get the words around.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Phat, posted 07-06-2007 2:29 AM Phat has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by mike the wiz, posted 07-10-2007 10:59 AM Brad McFall has not replied

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


Message 18 of 39 (410598)
07-16-2007 7:51 AM
Reply to: Message 17 by mike the wiz
07-11-2007 12:50 PM


Re: All About EvC
Hi Mike,
I'll answer your other post later.
It may be that I have lost my bet. I just don't know yet.
Yet, I doubt that I have. Why? (gibberish...Pascal>Leibniz...)
I have simply wanted to know if it is possible to look at distributions of creatures on Earth in today's society as the ancients looked at the stars?
My website (Axiomatic Panbiogeography), according to an independent reviewer notes that this is only the second website on panbiogeography in existence. There I have placed my bets that one can use group theory to sort the differences among gene and species "trees". No one has told me that I lost this bet to a better thesis.
I may indeed owe my children something, but that is hard for me to say.
Thanks for mentioning Matchett, or however you spell his name. I'll respond to that later.
Indeed, I am optimistic about the future.
I did not "run" away, this past week, I just spent time doing normal things with family, i.e. nothing intellectual necessarily.
As for always being able to write clearly in precise conscription, that should always be the goal. Some of the unclarity comes while I am less confident, but tis true, those less clear posts ARE the ones I put the most thought into. If I do not put everything "out" there sometimes, I can not expect the same in response, when I call for it.
Sometimes, I want to drag the converstation into "metaphysics", sometimes... I just want to be understood.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by mike the wiz, posted 07-11-2007 12:50 PM mike the wiz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by Phat, posted 07-16-2007 8:48 AM Brad McFall has replied
 Message 32 by mike the wiz, posted 07-23-2007 6:35 AM Brad McFall has replied

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


Message 19 of 39 (410599)
07-16-2007 7:57 AM
Reply to: Message 10 by Taz
07-09-2007 2:26 AM


chat time
Taz, I tis back.
I am off work Tuesday. If you post a time today to talk tommarow, that too should come true.
Till then(or not),
Brad.
I will be in South Carolina for the duration of next week and it may be possible to talk then as well.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Taz, posted 07-09-2007 2:26 AM Taz has not replied

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


Message 28 of 39 (410776)
07-17-2007 9:19 AM
Reply to: Message 20 by Phat
07-16-2007 8:48 AM


the baby, bath water, & clothes
I have an interesting, though somewhat “whimsical” take on the clothes question I will answer later. I will try to explain how the zipper
(see picture development here(see "crosscap final etc."))
in
quote:
a . new proof,
(PDF)
quote:
discovered by John H. Conway in about 1992, which retains
the constructive nature of [5] while eliminating the irrelevancies of the standard
form.
forms for the surface of the human body what were clothed in the standard form, thus “disproving” that older saying that the emperor does not wear clothes.
Sorry EvCers, there are so many responses I can not reply in real time to them all.
I have read the answers.com result for searching under “panbiogeography”.
I think the harderst thing about defining or bounding the domain that Panbiogeography (as an independent biological discipline) is that Leon Croizat wrote many books and papers, only one of which was titled, “Panbiogeography.” So Panbiogeography may refer to what is involved in the contents of that one book or as often happens when people not dedicated to the discipline itself, attempt to explain, it is referred to as, anything resulting from Croizat’s work that bears on geographic distributions.
The book “Panbiogeography” deals with the distributions of animals and was written after he wrote one on plants. He then wrote a general book on plants and subsequently a work titled “Space, Time and Form”. That is as far as I have read his largest works. The rest of his life he concentrated on writing Spanish titles while composing some smaller papers for the English world. I suppose that is why Answers calls it “intricate”.
It really is not all that. The truth is that no one had tried to create a discipline where geographic distribution was the first but not the last preoccupation of the biologist. I was particularly looking for such a whole discipline at Cornell and only found it in Croizat’s writings, yet no one knew much about his work there in Ithaca. The biophilosopher Hull has recognized Panbiogeography as a fourth “offshoot” among the triple of phlylogenetics, phenetics, and cladistics.
The other two sentences in the Answers' answer will take a bit more effort to describe so I will do that also later. “Connect the dots” refers to the modernization of Croizat’s work, largely at first in New Zealand, where “minimal spanning trees” were applied to distributions. Croizat never invoked this specific algorithm by name. As for what biogeography is or was, that requires one to discuss Darwin vs Lamarck a bit.
I would say that the Answers.com could have written a more positive entry.
Edited by Brad McFall, : last sentence

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by Phat, posted 07-16-2007 8:48 AM Phat has not replied

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


Message 30 of 39 (411281)
07-19-2007 9:20 PM
Reply to: Message 29 by Rrhain
07-17-2007 11:07 PM


Re: All About Darwin,economics and uniqueness
John Grehan has recently posted to SEBA
http://www.sebasite.org/
A copy of an early version of Croizat’s most cited paper. I have uploaded here
http://aexion.org/product.aspx
as
/Documents/croizat1974ms.pdf
For any one interested if answering “Are homologues parts of semaphorants or parts of holomorphs?”
quote:
/Documents/hierarchicalhomologyPDF.pdf
This artilce by Nathanael Cao, Rene Zaragoeta Bagils, and Regine Vignes-Lebbe
http://axiompanbiog.com/comparisons.aspx
per main massing, it is very instructive to compare the paper as written by Croizat alone with that co-authored in 74.
1974 paper
Rhain, I can explain in detail how Darwin’s ideas as criticized by Croizat (Center of Origin, Active Migration, Means of Distribution, Essential Permanency of Continental Outlines) in the above PDF are a result of what improper economics Croizat named as a medieval involution. Gould can be read in this stew as well. He tries to keep the random jiggling back to worms of the Cambrian rather than settle the score with Croizat at the Jurrasic/Cretaceous.
It is the apparent need of an evolutionary defense to NOT specify a specific history (Gould extended out to the longest time scales) so as to keep criticism at bay that prevents evos from turing the holomorph space into the form of a semaphorant bird Croizat lays at Mayrs essentialistic numberism.
Sure this does not make much of “clear” response to you but then again you did not seem to relate what Phat was saying to anything I have said, so I just did.
In the Croizat paper, he writes of "natural process" that Darwin got wrong in his opinion. It would take some doing to show that Kant's ideas of natural purpose can be drawn INTO the very process that is supposed by Darwin to overlay the entire example of plants and animals other than us but I could do that.
Darwin had so...ooo unique (human in Phat's sense) a view that life is telling him, in his grave, that he was wrong. Instead Darwin (not Phat) brought in "miracle" instead. READ THE PDF for yourself. Croizat found out where improper creationist rethoric covered lack of scientific knowledge. Gould, however follows paying in kind under the table, and has subtly replaced "production of species" in the extremes of fans of Darwin's "diversity" for Croizat's "wing" disperal (this is why the obscure technical question about the concept holomorph vs the part of individual organism life cycle semaphorant is needed, sorry). Evolutionary biology is not a tolerant world even if it is like electrical engineering.
Edited by Brad McFall, : forgot a link

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by Rrhain, posted 07-17-2007 11:07 PM Rrhain has not replied

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


Message 34 of 39 (420429)
09-07-2007 7:35 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by mike the wiz
07-23-2007 6:35 AM


Re: All About EvC
Hi Mike;
Well for want of a beter place I am posting to you here.
I guess EvC isnt all that much better a place for me to get my ideas out. Adminmoose knows this well enough. I was just getting up to steam when Mod shut down
quote:
http://EvC Forum: Definition of Evolution -->EvC Forum: Definition of Evolution
as Ray and Razd could not come to agreement anyway. If anyone else wants to resume some things considered off topic there and there is no objections from the Mods I will continue the Mayr questioning here.
I think some plausibility for Razd’s relationships comes from Lloyd’s observations such
Some authors, when discussion genetic changes in populations, speak of the system in terms of a phenotype state space type (Lewontin 1974b, p.9-13). This makes sense, because the phenotype determines the breeding system and the action of natural selection, the results of which are reflected in some way, in the genetic changes in the population. In his analysis of the present structure of population genetics theory, Lewontin traces a single calculation of a change in genetic state through both genotypic and phenotypic descriptions of a population. That is accorinding to Lewontin, population genetics theory must map the set of genotypes onto the set of phenotypes, give transformations in the phenotype space, and then map the set of phenotypes back onto the the set of genotypes. We cannot expect, then, that descriptions of state in population gentics would be framed in terms of both genotypic and phenotypic variables or parameters. But this is not the case - the description can be in terms either genotypic or phenotypic variables, but not both. Dynamically, then, it seems as if population genetics must operate in two parallel systems; one in geneotype state space; one in phenotype state space (Lewontin 1974b, pp 12-13)”
(p37)
But note that Lloyd
quote:
The Stucture and Confirmation of Evolutionary Theory EA Lloyd Princeton 1994
considers in the deterministic models, that the initial conditions of the population are represented by an ordered set of values of variables, i.e. a vector.
I am requiring use of quaternions from here on out.
'Lewontin explains that such independence of systems is illusory “ and arises from a bit of sleight-of-hand in which phenotype and genotype variables are made to appear as merely parameters that need to be experimentally determined, constants that are not themselves transformed by the evolutionary process “ (1974b, pp.12-13) . Thus information regarding values of phenotype variables is smuggled into the genotype models through parameters.'(p37 op.cit.)
quote:
But Lewontin seems to be saying more than this.
The case he is considering involves the following problem. In one case the gene frequency, Q, of a certain allele is calculated using a series of randomly fluctuating, uniformly distributed values of the selection coefficient. In the other case, the same procedure is performed using the same set of selection coefficient values, except in reverse temporal order. The resulting values of Q are different for the two cases.^12 In other words, in general, if the curves representing the path of the selection coefficients of each population through time are not identical, even though they have the same mean, variance, and any other statistical measurement, the model outcomes will not necessarily be identical, due to the difference in temporal order of the values (Lewontin 1967, p84). Thus , if a possible worlds representation were possible, it would seem to contain more information about the system, because the time histories are preserved in a certain sense. If this is so, then there would probably be problems translating between two possible types of systems, i.e. , possible worlds and instantaneous state space (analogous to Heisenberg and Schrodinger pictures, respectively, in quantum mechanics). Are biological systems different from physical systems in that the descriptions of the systems, conceived as both a function of time and independent of time, are not both represented as two aspects of the same system in a Cartesian space? Lewontin explicitly claims that the gene frequencies of populations do not follow the law of large numbers (1967, p84). In any case, this poses an intriquing problem for future foundational research.”
(p 40 op.cit.)
Now Gould has no problem discussing the “vector of progress” while asserting no matter of Darwin, that D had decided that there was no ”progress’ in evolution (to Gray in the US etc.). This happens for Gould because he uses Nietsche to get an exaptation from apt aptations via very quirky functional shifts (Gould's use of terms ”gliding’ and ”fecund’ can be read as underground references for Provine, but I may be wrong).
Where a design can subvert Gould’s wordings happens IF the exaptation of snail umbilicus (has not a parasite as in Darwin’s umbilical area) is but an adaptation in the space that no cross-level spandrels had potentially enlarged the theoretical connectivity of evolutionary theory/biology. It seems to me pregnant to use Hamilton’s notion
(the middle of Darwin's drawing and Gould umbilical space is the handle of the game)
of the Around the World Game
as temporality algebraically where Gould insists on geometry (this would be Gould's odd questio to me about what I was eating for lunch when he perfectly well know what a raw green pepper was). I have not done this but if so then it would be possible to address the non-Cartesian aspect with gene combinations in individuals onto gene frequencies with actual phenotypes without smuggling anything in and the reasons for Mayrs’ position would just be an historical step comprehending that cross-level effects generate intuitions rather than sense over understanding.
I will try to get actual clade diagrams of the snails, Darwins’ diagram
and how quaternions can relate these.
The processes will not be more involved than the non-commutative nature of quaternions represented by
And
Gould seems to think that the snails are exaptations because the trait shows up in a few peripheral groups. This may however be a manifestation of the extremes of the Lorenz transform. I don’t know yet. I know for Darwin this was no other than the subjective color perception of yellow vs purple imposed by us on insect vision.
I think.
One should be able to get all of Gould’s snail morphospace this way, phenotypically. Showing how Wright’s deme fits IN Darwins’ species at the question of physics vs biology is a lot harder. This is why giving Gladsyhev his Darwinian instantiation is important. It forces the situation regardless of GOD.
I have been able to visualize curves NOT CURLS in quaternions places (where Lloyd had vectors), I think, but this is from an idea of parental care in reptiles over amphibians. Answering Lloyds question seems possible and also possible to avoid Mayr’s view as well as ambivalence about genotype presentations capturing the actual phenotype shapes. One is not given the luxury to write on Nobokov as Gould DID however. A house in Ithaca is not Darwin’s “new home”.
Here is a test of my own ability. I do not yet know what the “law of large numbers” is, so if Lewontin is merely saying that there is some asymmetry here, despite “the same mean, variance, and any other statistical measurement” then I will agree but the residency of this sheltered ability to intuit biology remands a common environment constraining what parts of quaternions can represent time and what can not and IS contained in the non-commutativity. It seems that “light cone” physics may shed ”light’(sic!) the cone of increasing diversity itself. Why I was ahead of the times in the 80s I will never know but how I am figuring this out these days is quite miraculous, so far to me, mostly. I think they can be represented as both aspects of the same system in a Cartesian space formed from quaternions but this is not the confusion that Mayr represents with words. The Cartesian space is not biological however, it was the albatross instead that Mayr never reduced.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by mike the wiz, posted 07-23-2007 6:35 AM mike the wiz has not replied

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


Message 35 of 39 (420645)
09-08-2007 9:21 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by Taz
07-16-2007 10:16 PM


Re:hair, fur does not make
Darwin made an instructive use of fir trees but Lloyd (who I introduced in my last post in this thread) actual argues about "fur" in an evolutionary context. It turns out I will have something to say about this part of this topic after all.
It spirals in that in the mid70s when Georgi Gladyshev was first making his ideas about thermodynamics and evolution available in Theoretical Biology, Stanley was trying out the first exemplars of "species selection". Lloyd in the course of constructing his 88/94 book The Structure and Confirmation of Evolutionary Theory (Google Books) tries to establish how one is supposed to think of more than one level of causality in biology but this is afforded WITHOUT a consideration that while species selection was being argued for(which IS also Wright's idea(two level theory according to Gould)), a higher level downward cause might not rather be adaptive and extant regardless of the sieve (Lloyd used Goulds recent distinction of aptation and adaptation)as seems to be the case with Gladyshev's law. This seems to be due to an artifical seperation of laws of changes and changes of lawlike behavior in the chapter divisions.
It seems that constant parameters, additivity, fur and quaternions can be contained in a evo bio thought. More on the connection if there is interest beyond the angle (Euler).
Edited by Brad McFall, : qualification for comprehension

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by Taz, posted 07-16-2007 10:16 PM Taz has not replied

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


Message 36 of 39 (442068)
12-19-2007 9:32 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by Fosdick
07-09-2007 8:59 PM


Re: real life vs reality
This is in response actually to
EvC Forum: Is time merely a concept?
in the thread on Time. I dont see this as really about me but about something not exactly on topic in that thread.
Ok, what is it about evolution that is such that I might be able to say it cannot or has not been communicated over the phone?
Well, let’s say its ones’ ability to apprehend some transition from an evolution mentality (objected to in general, in general by creationists) to one of expectability. Just what to expect becomes a matter of intuition.
I was already expecting something from my Grandfather as written in 76 (the book I say was given me was actually only loaned but then given me after I said it was mine).
And seen in other letters of 79.
My ability to write on a 9th grade level continues today - notice “by” for “bye” etc. The grammer of my contemporaneous posting has nothing to do with what to expect from someone who has an idea of evolution in mind.
I use the word “mentality” in Penrose’s sense.
Where this can be attributed to an individual mind or that of “a Plato reality” aka Penros etc. which is what I expected to be communicating to my grandfather in writing (I realized that what I was talking with my grandfather about was not something that had anything to do with anything that the phone rang about (knowing that my father worked for ATT (the phone for me)) who had studied bacteria
And wrote this
For his PhD thesis over 40 years before.
Which really may not be an assumption but the adoption that Darwin’s view on diversity is a “roll” between two poses.
(to be depicted later)
This is unlike the attempt at combining quaternion hierarchies with Gladysehv’s law in the time thread as one must also find a hierarchy in phylogeny (finding a Kind is harder because this seems purely geometric to me) which I think most often in applying Cantor's thought process to Croizat’s method (but is not not (not a typo) unavailable to other thinkers not using this approach (insofar as I can not yet expect people to have more than a mentality about what I tend to expect anyway)
Once one has this mentality then it is possible to find a counter example but one must first get the example I am working up. I do not find that chemical and biological evolution need to be kept separate logically as I do not find Gould’s logic as anything other than a glorious accident so far. I had not realized that attention to levels of organization is historically subordinated to the difference of atoms and molecules and I do think this is likely something rather new to the literature if extant outside the net at all.
Anyway there you go quasi- if you are still complaining let my equilibrium know.
Expectancy was narrated by Blum in his Times Arrow book.
http://www.amazon.com/...lution-Harold-Francis/dp/0691023549
Edited by Brad McFall, : No reason given.
Edited by Brad McFall, : No reason given.
Edited by Brad McFall, : some logic

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by Fosdick, posted 07-09-2007 8:59 PM Fosdick 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