The third rampage of evolutionism: evolutionary pscyhology

If one was thinking all that "hardware vs software" in OOP terms one can STILL maintain the difference of rational, formal and empirical psychology as long as one holds that we do not have the "object" of Kantian thought.I didnt quite catch the notion or need for "deep" time but I guess it might be approached aposteriori provided the subject such be given. You questioned this as to "theoretical disarray" or whatever confusions were bound so. Whether this is strickly "memory" as in Von Neumann's idea or programmatic differences of classes and methods is irrelevant to the INDIVIDUALS that would have had to survive the Darwinian algorithm should such change be admitted in the similar. Of course if you insisted on "procedural programming" then all bets are off. The same problem of time would occurr as it does in purely morphological disciplines.

quote:

---

The paper is: Evolutionary Psychology: A New Paradigm for Psychological Science, David Buss, Psychological Inquiry 1995, Vol6No1, 1-30

​

Anyone familiar with the broad field of psychology knows that it is in theoretical disarray. The different branches... proceed in relative isolation from one another, at most

---

I recognized that.

quote:

---

An important new theoretical paradigm called evolutionary psychology is emerging that offers to provide this metatheory.

​

That opener had me reeling from the get go.

---

the object of your post.

quote:

---

I tend to view science as a fact based enterprise which picks up or introduces new and larger concepts

---

basis of any empirical psychology

quote:

---

Essentially we have the brain which is the physical portion or the "hardware" of any mechanism, as well as the mind which is the nonphysical or "software" of any mechanism. While the software may boil down to physical-neural responses, the neurons grow and integrate in nets which provide a greater than the sum of its parts response system which does involve choice of action and indeed changes within neural nets based on additional experience. This makes the response system like software which is limited or constricted by the parameters of the hardware.

---

the notion of a DIFFERENCE in soft and hard ware is traditionally associated with Von Neuman's notion of magnetic memory (aka floopy disk, memory stick, hard drive etc) but what is required psychologically need not be this instantiation as to what specific computer notions apply to what particular brain anatomy (what percent is in or out the study underquestioning)

quote:

---

I hope we are in agreement up to this point.

---

I was pretty much with you up to here. so all is well in cyber talk space...

quote:

---

Some parts of psychology treat the mind or software issues, while other parts investigate the brain or hardware issues. How much the mind collapses into purely brain phenomena is open to debate. Their techniques are obviously different and this seems to be of concern to the author.

---

see % interalia above.

quote:

---

However I am hard pressed to understand how this indicates "theoretical disarray".

---

It doesnt and many evolutionary biologists at Cornell make this same problem where there is only perhaps not an empirical psychology but only a "mind", yours or mine say.But it is possible to think in THIS evolutionary mindset process within a purely psychological dimension within mind that already believes in evolution of the soma. And this is what goes on at Cornell etc but I think your point about PE and speciation to be well taken. I wish that would stop the theorizing but instead it leads to 'disarry' precisely thing in question. This is how it was possible for me to find that evolutionary psychology is not really on any better footing that sociobiology.Nonetheless it is studied that way at Cornell even though the only issue was a question put as to the biology by Tinbergen when the laboratory of ornithology opened as to ASK A QUESTION in the animals "perspective". Now it is not a bird but a human who already believes in evolution.I simply said that this only works if the OBJECT in Kant is not admitted existence in the same query. This is not hard to keep going on most campuses even Cornell just now.

and that how it was that Gould could notice that Dawkins 82 is not the same selfish one of "The Selfish Gene". I agree.

Because "evolutionary psychology" is a 'higher' level than simple individual organismic survival (of course this might be population wise argued) it matters less how selfish the genes are than Gould's point, "If a gene increases in copy number within a genome by duplication and lateral spread( gene selection in the genuine sense), phenotypes of organisms may or may not be affected. But selection on higher-level individuals alwayssorts lower-level individuals within. If ugly organism outcompete beautiful conspecifics..."(my comments only reply to the issue of a continual hierarchy not a discontinuous more, those are subect to any criticism) Selfishness attempts nonininclusion. There could be some information on that but I have not seen it nor the risk it poses.

You have thought
could it be compressed data? Compression and encryption are nearly the same thing; I could imagine the brain of a young child "unpacking" data from the junk DNA and compiling it in one part of the brain and then implementing it as a routine
and so have I. I dont think that De Beer was correct to notice that any objection is obviated simply by there being a defined teleonomic in teleomatic biophilosophy, as IF IT IS NOT a compression, and I have thought that as well one might find kinetics to support + to >> in two different directions "proximately" approximately. There is deceptive evolution, in the sense of survival strategies but I would never consider the existence of encrpted evolution EVEN if Wolfram was universally, actually and developementally correct. "Compression" gives the correct intuition, encryption you are correct did not, not at least for me for then I would find that NP complete issues in graph theory sink ALL CURRENT elite biology. That ispossible but MORE UNLIKELY to me than that there is a GOD.