Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 88 (8890 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 02-18-2019 1:38 AM
192 online now:
PaulK, Pressie, Tanypteryx (3 members, 189 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 847,623 Year: 2,660/19,786 Month: 742/1,918 Week: 29/301 Day: 1/28 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
1011121314
15
Author Topic:   Behe's Irreducible Complexity Is Refuted
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 22 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 211 of 223 (110280)
05-25-2004 12:51 AM
Reply to: Message 210 by Brad McFall
05-24-2004 5:48 PM


Re: so it would seem
....what?
This message is a reply to:
 Message 210 by Brad McFall, posted 05-24-2004 5:48 PM Brad McFall has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 212 by Brad McFall, posted 05-26-2004 1:43 PM arachnophilia has not yet responded

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 3077 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 212 of 223 (110694)
05-26-2004 1:43 PM
Reply to: Message 211 by arachnophilia
05-25-2004 12:51 AM


Re: so it would seam, enter in you own line
Well, there may be a DELUSION. It would apply equally to creationists and evolutionists but it might/would not be the same thing as I have said about the c/e illusion. The Illusions result from simply not thinking hard enough about the the philosohical surround. A deulsions should it be for instance inciting the current state of war and terror especially in technological changes to biology and compuers from mathematical manipulations in physics etc etc would exist however ONLY if one attempts to relate any life to any universe. This CAN happen in science but more often recurrs in religion.

It is probably possible to discuss the philosophy of science itself on this basis. Instead I simply post to EvC in the hopes that I never get asked this deep a question for I can not use language to reassure myself once I have finished writing a response that there will not be just another reply of the same type.

This delusion if it exists is a part of the social level of discourse but might even become nonexistant if found. Let me try to sketch one such future trajectory. One of the possible issues with a delusion so typed might be what in English Georgi Gladyhev means by the word. Now it is hard for me to say what he means as unlike particle physics which might refer to a bubble chamber photograph Georgi P. Gladyshev means by the use of this word as the article he sent me with the word in its title is in Russian. It may have mostly or only? a cross cultural and not a sociological reference. This I do not know. What I DO know (about the word itself) is that I was involuntarily confined in Florida (the home of swinging CHADS) where a doctor asserted, IN COURT, on tape,...that in my case "there may be delusions there" referencing erroneously MY mental state when I was discussing if trees might be conduits of electro-magnetic radiation. (By the way it was quite conforting to find Georgi seperate out e-m affectations"" from the bulk of his writing) My recent postings trying to assimilate Maxwell's electrotonics (not Newton's fits of transmission and reflexion) into any empirics of Gladyshev's principle by a natural law makes this "discussion" look "case closed" delusional (Doctor's word) indeed but IT WAS NOT. The point however is that the good or bad doctor OBSERVED IT AS DOCUMENTALBLY delusion(al).

After this obervation was made Cornell University Administration (eventually at least in my case) made it a policy or simply mispoke continually that I had to "clear up the psychological issue" before I returned to school. There is clearly a psychological one here if a doctor with powers to INVOLUNTARILY lock up and confine a person (He was arguing for the permission to use electro-schock (probably because I had mentioned the science of...) and state placement in TWO WEEKS in a state I had only visited for a few Christmasses after I left for College at Cornell from New Jersey (Changing a day trip into NYC into a two week permenant "vacation" in Florida)) but there might not be a sociological one. Stupid laws and stupid lawyers are just that, idiots!

So being the "good boy" that I was I smiled at the state's lawyer like I had learned to do when serving cheeseburgers to overzealous likely rich Cornell Freshman gave the doctor a pleasnet demeanor and returned to Cornell expecting that nothing could have changed there as Florida clearly was not UpState NY. Well Cornell insisted that at least this psychology not exist before I return so knowing that I was correct, I eventually found another person whom had had as horrible ( a more horrible ) experience with doctors than I had while on "vaction" in New Orleans from doing paid research at Cornell. I subsequently had two children with this trained psychiatrist from Poland who can talk to a sophiticate's content on Copernicus but Cornell reniged. In other words they were lying to me and I did not need to figure out what was wrong with the psychology I only needed to get ANOTHER DOCTOR (and continue a possible myth and sociological fraud) to say that the first doctor was wrong and that I had gotton better. This however is not easy to do but not something I was interetested in as it corrupts and taits relationships in the process. I did however go around to some other doctors to see how easy it was to get DIFFERENT diagnoses to show how psychologically dubious the economics of involutary confinement might indeed be and itself creating said delusions in the pattern.

Any way let me get to the substance of this post. (and you see all of this is only about the first sentence in the post you asked "what?" about).

I would like to know if the "delusion" in Gladyshev's sense is merely psychological (as above and not- this women may be now feeding"" my son misinformation that I am crazy becuase of "file" she insisted I generate, Cornell's insistence however was ILLEGAL!!) or perhaps somewhat more invasive and systemic to use some biological metaphors and is Sociological instead. Dont forget I said by implicaiton that cross cultural does not necessarily imply any of the psychological missteps I mentioned. I certainly found a whole nother world in Africa in 86 but I did not get culture "shock".

GG' s citing of delusion-

models without sense-
Mach into phillsoophy with relation of inertia to any thing newton-solar system as centermaxwell small measyure of magnetic inertia-not avalibale till the 60s
GladyshevThe burrnig log figure to work now from.From Hot sun to cold earth delusion- eat cold food.

Sociolgoical delusion result of not eating correct foods????????

Any way that could be all in my mind but all of that kind of thing has to go thru minds before a proper distribution of what is religohjs and what is scientific can be reliably discussed. AD WHite of Corenell attempt gerry manders around this but never gets here.

I dont know I am just asking? Getting back a "what" doesnt help me much but only enables me to rephrase my question. I have done this soo many times here on EvC I can not rephrase any initial question any better than I already have.

Georgi made an absolutely percept reception when he stated, applied math of biolgy nonsense

I was very unsure what to major in as an undergraduate but after seeing Serbolline artilces I knew it would be MORE theoretcial biology than experimental biology but on reading THEORETICAL BIOLOGY I was dissapoinetd on how little effort was being made by those partgicipationg in relating both. Simon Levin the best person at Cornell at the time didnt even see that there was an issue here. I can not say that there is a "psychological delusion" but there IS a failing (same thing that Enrst Mayr asked of, if any what, did "bean bag" gentics contribute to natural history. What is unbelievable was that one could PAY to get the degree to do this work and find that State's unwritten prohibition of the power of the people was active against the will of any human! It is hard to realize that as much as one wants to critisize other countries in the very small area that gets discussed as Chruch and State US has some very represseive actualities. I DID NOT experience these things growing up as any tension was CLEARLY JUST a matter of internal family dynamics having NOTHING to do with WORK and SCHOOL. Things have changed were the war is more a terror and problems are mostly disfuntioning. Generations change but so far it is not clear to me that ALL of this is due to a choice of creationism and science just because there is some sense that mental illness is but a group myth metric but I have left that potential carrer (of showing how Aristotle's notion of distributive justice is not even in the current US justice system) for the more interesting relation of Gladyshev to Newton rather than Gladyshev to Maxwell but I have not been able to read all the science back to the before the US states formation. Technology is defintely making this step more difficult as much as I am attempting to uncover a new ecnomic sector regardlless of wrong protocols actually in operation. Fourier wrote in the Theory of Heat, "We should recognize again the same results and all the chief elements of general analysis in the vibrations of elastic media, in the properties of lines or of curved surfaces, in the movements of the stars, and those of light or of fluids. Thus the functions obtained by succesive differentiations, which are employed in the development of infinite series and in the solution of numerical equations, correspond also to physical properties. The first of these functions or the fluxion properly so called, expresses in geometry the inclination of the tangent of a curved line, and in dynamics the velocity of a moving body when the motion varies; in the theory of heat it measures the quantity of heat which flows at each point of a body across a given surface. Mathematical analysis has therefore necessary relations with sensible phenomena; its object is not created by human intelligence; it is a pre-existent element of the universal order, and not in any way contingent or
fortuitous; it is imprinted throughout all nature."(reprinted in Great Books of the Western World Vol45 p183)

Macrothermo seeks the bodies of this order not the infinite order of the bodies. ID and IC is thus a step to this (eVC)last sentence but is not NECESSARILY a superfludity of sufficency as Fourier noted says BSM.

I am seeing less and less reason to doubt the MATHEMATICAL MEANS to recover any Gladyshev insight by reordertyping the equilibria interms of transfinites. Why dont the elite simply take the Gladyshev law at face fact vaule and see to Cantor's assertion,(in Duben p293 Georg Cantor His Mathematics and Philosophy) "The key to this new organic approach was to be found, Cantor believed, in his transfinite numbers, "The elements of the set M in question are to be thought or as seperate; in the intellectual copy of M^_, which I call its ordertype, the units are nevertheless joined into an organism. In a certain sense these ordertypes(Dauben had "order"_"types" and the same in the singular) may be regarded as a composite of matter and form; the conceptually distinct units contained therein comprise the matter, while the order of these elements corresponds to their form.^75" Cantor frequently chose a simple example to demonstrate just how powerful a unifying concept of order types could be. The most diverse things could be could be rendered mathematically comparable with great exactness. For the sake of illustration he liked to compare a painting with a symphonic score.^76"

I seperated the "type" here becuase of the issue of color of artists vs others.

I would like to have a better understanding of what "corresponds" meant in the German.

Andrew Pickering in "Concepts and the Mangle of Practice Constructing Quaternions" finds an obtrusive attempt at revisionism to find that Hamilton had moved over to symbolism but I agree with Andrew that this is NOT, the case. It seems that in the move from a 3 place to a 4 place quaternion system the bridgehead to the creationist KIND exists. Now there have been many advances in math since then so that it is necessary that this is the correct phenomenoligcally layered relation but from a couple WIHTOUT any plane to some metric IT IS! A couple is inadequate to do much science (However let us not miss Mendel here) but with the imaginaries the "area" may be zero or the inverted commutativity. Since Gladyshev was willing to remove levels of organization from a temporal hierarchy I am not sure that it matters which for the verification via his principle (it may) but regardless there is no reason that the symbols used to express what is clearly discussed via Croiazat's method need substitute for DATA! I can not make this any simpler. I will have to go to the grave like this. People just need to get into the library and off the computer and do some reading!!Physical chauvanism and information technology money are not the same things.

There is very little difference between this of mine and GG's " penrose probablism") certainly not enough to keep the student from getting the higher education degree just to teach rich kids becoming doctors and lawyers!!!!!!!! Yes there may be a total contingency as Gould suggested but society can not 0ut BOTH -IN JAIL or IN A MENTAL HOSPITAL-(Criminal and Civil)the learner,to which both apply. Society must choose one or ther other and can not have the cake and eat it (Gladyshev's choice of creationism or science) too. BOTH happened to me and I was the kid who gave other kids something to do (look under rocks for snakes) other than drugs. So far the rich kids prescribed DRUGS are wining the partenal discipline battle. Is it more than a psychological delusion?? I hope not.
SHOULD HIGHER EDUCATION HEED THIS MAXIM IT IS POSSIBLE THAT NOT ONLY WAS THERE NO CONTRADICTION BETWEEN LIFE AND THE 2nD LAW but Figenbaum might have wrongly subjectively sided with Goethe over NEwton (see Glieck's account) for ONLY seeing the $ in Ithaca that were not then in NYC!!!!!!!!! They are still not here but I get phone calls in the effect. The physical properties need not be psychological nor sociological. They may be. May the gentlemen who dont know too much answer!


This message is a reply to:
 Message 211 by arachnophilia, posted 05-25-2004 12:51 AM arachnophilia has not yet responded

    
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 22 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 213 of 223 (113252)
06-07-2004 7:46 AM


anyways, back to the original topic.
i picked up a copy of "Darwin's Black Box" at the library. and along with it a copy of "the blind watchmaker" and "the origin of species"

i'm writing an english paper on the subject, since we may choose any controversial subject we wish. i'm suprised to note that behe doesn't seem to have much problem at all with gross "macroevolutionary" changes.

he even refutes the eye and beetle arguments very early on, by quoting dawkins, of all people, in context. he states that dawkins hasn't really made his case (which any rational reader can see is a ludicrous assertion) and then lets the point go.

what he has a problem with is the development of the parts. the actual photo-sensitive cells of the eye for instance.

This message has been edited by Arachnophilia, 06-07-2004 06:46 AM


Replies to this message:
 Message 214 by Brad McFall, posted 06-07-2004 12:53 PM arachnophilia has responded

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 3077 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 214 of 223 (113316)
06-07-2004 12:53 PM
Reply to: Message 213 by arachnophilia
06-07-2004 7:46 AM


Re: anyways, back to the original topic.
The issue STILL remains with the TRANSITION from the beautiful to the sublime in that organisms NO MATTER HOW they create or construct their environments unlike man only trace and DO NOT INVENT where there is a humanly percieved difference in the desgin by math or dynamics. Even the latest best bet book in biology "Constructing Niches either ripped off my use of "ecosystem engineering" @ the Biosphere Data Project where my posting priveldges seemed to have been shut down or else is all the same refusal that I can cite and quote out of the mistake on Lamark in GS CARTER's "a hundered years of evolution." Ignoring me would be a mistake. and as for Behe's "orginal" unless we can get out of thinking that Lewontin, Hull and May can speak for Odling-Snee, Laland,and Feldman we are still up the same creek but with the paddle without the cause or effect. You simply need work with the words "trace" and "invent" and you or I or Behe can easily see that Glaydsyhev, Behe, me, you? are not acceptable only because the "logic" permits distortions of form for the proper torsion. I need not get mad.

see now http://dream.sims.berkeley.edu/biosphere/phorum31/list.php?f=1

This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 06-07-2004 11:54 AM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 213 by arachnophilia, posted 06-07-2004 7:46 AM arachnophilia has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 215 by arachnophilia, posted 06-07-2004 12:58 PM Brad McFall has responded

    
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 22 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 215 of 223 (113317)
06-07-2004 12:58 PM
Reply to: Message 214 by Brad McFall
06-07-2004 12:53 PM


Re: anyways, back to the original topic.
i seriously do not mean this as an insult, and frankly it probably only make me look stupid, but...

i don't understand a single thing you say.

i used to think i spoke english.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 214 by Brad McFall, posted 06-07-2004 12:53 PM Brad McFall has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 216 by Brad McFall, posted 06-07-2004 1:09 PM arachnophilia has responded

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 3077 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 216 of 223 (113321)
06-07-2004 1:09 PM
Reply to: Message 215 by arachnophilia
06-07-2004 12:58 PM


Re: anyways, back to the original topic.
OK then I understand. Sorry for inflating the tone.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 215 by arachnophilia, posted 06-07-2004 12:58 PM arachnophilia has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 217 by arachnophilia, posted 06-07-2004 1:27 PM Brad McFall has responded

    
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 22 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 217 of 223 (113324)
06-07-2004 1:27 PM
Reply to: Message 216 by Brad McFall
06-07-2004 1:09 PM


Re: anyways, back to the original topic.
nope, still lost.

what are you trying to say?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 216 by Brad McFall, posted 06-07-2004 1:09 PM Brad McFall has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 218 by Brad McFall, posted 06-07-2004 1:41 PM arachnophilia has not yet responded

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 3077 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 218 of 223 (113327)
06-07-2004 1:41 PM
Reply to: Message 217 by arachnophilia
06-07-2004 1:27 PM


Re: anyways, back to the original topic.
In Niche Construction The Negleted Process in Evolution any one who reads English reads on page THREE, "Niche construction may (1) in part, control the flow of energy and matter through ecosystems (ecosystem engineering)..."

As Simon Levin TOLD ME, (The editor of this book in a series)(and he told me to visit GE HUTCHINSON before death), I gathered that the niche DID originate with Hutch's insects perhaps while he was around some limnologists BUT THIS ARTICULATED was already cognized by Agassiz and KNOWN by CARTER many years later as well for the segmented surround. I had no problem accepting that this might be the same thing as man's tricyle bike wheel sizes UNTIL I tried to understand Stebbins' plants and it appeared clearly to me that Nelson's ontogentic criterion of clade construction from the 70s that Patterson criticized in Mabee's American Sunfish who coauthored a an article with Humphries who was in part responsible for having me dissed from COrnell because I could think Carters' deme in work snakes SubSPECIES for any adult character WAS THE SAME ABSENCE that Agassiz castigated Darwinists FOR INFERRING such that infering ANY ECOSYSTEM ENGINEERING (by desgin or in the trace) failed but to have been subtracted in the evolutionary pedagogy AS THERE IS NO CONTROL unless this is first INVENTED. Niche construction can only trace the reality. I will not support the idea that Sunfish INVENT the source of their OXYGEN as this was simply a JAR in a lab.

Now if you dont want to know how I KNOW then you must explain the jacket Cover to this book that thinks NO MATTER WHAT THE DYNAMICS IS that this will change the way evolutionary theory is worked. IT WILL ONLY DO SO BY THE SAME SOCIOLOGICAL FUNDING that is against Creationism AND THE EQUILIBRIUM evaluation of Gladyshev to say NOTHING of my own ideas.

THERE NEED NOT BEEEEEE feedback here but materalists are STUCK with the concept as long as any cross level interactions must use individuals (whehter philosopically divided intor replicators and constructors etc etc etc).

Wisdom and knowledge are not the same. I know as much as the next guy or gal.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 217 by arachnophilia, posted 06-07-2004 1:27 PM arachnophilia has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 219 by jar, posted 06-07-2004 1:45 PM Brad McFall has not yet responded

    
jar
Member
Posts: 30934
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 219 of 223 (113328)
06-07-2004 1:45 PM
Reply to: Message 218 by Brad McFall
06-07-2004 1:41 PM


Re: anyways, back to the original topic.
Brad McFall writes:

Wisdom and knowledge are not the same. I know as much as the next guy or gal.

But you hide it better than most.


Aslan is not a Tame Lion
This message is a reply to:
 Message 218 by Brad McFall, posted 06-07-2004 1:41 PM Brad McFall has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 220 by arachnophilia, posted 06-07-2004 1:46 PM jar has not yet responded

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 22 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 220 of 223 (113329)
06-07-2004 1:46 PM
Reply to: Message 219 by jar
06-07-2004 1:45 PM


Re: anyways, back to the original topic.
alright, i give up. do you have any clue?
This message is a reply to:
 Message 219 by jar, posted 06-07-2004 1:45 PM jar has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 221 by bob_gray, posted 06-07-2004 2:52 PM arachnophilia has responded
 Message 223 by Brad McFall, posted 06-08-2004 12:20 PM arachnophilia has not yet responded

  
bob_gray
Member (Idle past 3058 days)
Posts: 243
From: Virginia
Joined: 05-03-2004


Message 221 of 223 (113336)
06-07-2004 2:52 PM
Reply to: Message 220 by arachnophilia
06-07-2004 1:46 PM


Re: anyways, back to the original topic.
A discussion of this very topic can be found here. It may shed some light on Brad's posts.

www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=page&f=14&t=58&p=5 -->www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=page&f=14&t=58&p=5">http://www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=page&f=14&t=58&p=5


This message is a reply to:
 Message 220 by arachnophilia, posted 06-07-2004 1:46 PM arachnophilia has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 222 by arachnophilia, posted 06-07-2004 3:04 PM bob_gray has not yet responded

    
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 22 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 222 of 223 (113337)
06-07-2004 3:04 PM
Reply to: Message 221 by bob_gray
06-07-2004 2:52 PM


Re: anyways, back to the original topic.
oh jesus, just what i need right now. i can barely convery my own thoughts in a coherent matter.

all nighters, english papers on biology, and writing literary criticism of books you hate for 15 some odd pages really drains one of coherence. as this post probably illustrates.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 221 by bob_gray, posted 06-07-2004 2:52 PM bob_gray has not yet responded

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 3077 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 223 of 223 (113595)
06-08-2004 12:20 PM
Reply to: Message 220 by arachnophilia
06-07-2004 1:46 PM


Re: allways, back to the original topic.
If you are still confused I will discuss under the thread with my name as you have made it from the the thread head to my own head room space place which is not in line with the topic. So to conclude I will note that unlike Kant (AT THAT TIME) I think that perhaps "Hylozoism" might be presentable but the book I cited VIOLATES for Gladyshev's equilibrium approach or any of mine Kant's distinction of NEXUS EFFECTIVUS&NEXUS FINALIS in Nature. Kant had said of Nature between these such (on intertia etc), "There must, then, be a circle in the explanation if we wish to derive the purposiveness of nature in organized beings from the life of matter, and yet only know this life in organized beings can can form no concept of its possiblity witout experience of this kind."(The Critique of Judgement).
This message is a reply to:
 Message 220 by arachnophilia, posted 06-07-2004 1:46 PM arachnophilia has not yet responded

    
RewPrev1
...
1011121314
15
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019