In 1784 the Scottish geologist Thomas Hutton published his "Theory of the Earth", in which he studied the stratification of sediments. Hutton showed that the stratification of sediments were related to all kinds of processes, which still were happening in the sea, lakes and rivers.
A hundred years in 1833 later Charles Lyell claimed in his "Principles of Geology" that old geological conditions were equal to those of today. In France Jacques Boucher de Perthes was digging in the valley of the Somme and publiished an article on his findings: bones of extinct animals and humen artefacts, like stone axes. He even dared to say that earth and mankind had to be older than the 6000 years the Bible suggested.
What do I want to show with these examples, and I could add dozens more? First, 1784, only 9 years atfer Hume's death; Scottish, geological research. The first real achreological excavation is ascribed to Thomas Jefferson in 1784. A hundred years later archeology is that far that it begins to date finds by stratifications in the ground.
What I want to say is that Darwin didnt drop from the blue sky at all. In all kinds of ways dozens of intellectuals contributed to the debate. We study 100 great thinkers, but as I said last time: this is an artificial way of interpreting history. These great thinkers are the top of waves only.They are carried by a vast and creative undercurrent.
Like the Enlightenment is not just Descartes, Rousseau, Voltaire, Locke or Hume, history is a complex process, in which we see society change all the time. And it is after this period the European mind started to develop classifactions for everything. Think of Comte's three stages of science.
Or think of Linneaus, who died in 1778 and developed an impressive classification system for plants. Also in philosophy was classification popular, think of Kant with his categories. And in archeology scientist also began to develop classifications of archological finds: Stone Age, Iron Age, Bronze Age and so on and most important: at the top of the classification stood the white European, guided by ratio and science. Every society that didnt meet these standards was regarded inferior.
And in this world a man like Charles Darwin emerges. The battle about creationism, the historical correctness of the Bible, the real age of mankind was already raging in those days.ˆOn the Origin of Species", published in 1859 would give the final push.
Philosophically Darwin focused on five distinctive themes: (i) probability and chance, (ii) the nature, power and scope of selection, (iii) adaptation and teleology, (iv) nominalism vs. essentialism about species and (v) the tempo and mode of evolutionary change.
Stephen Jay Gould (2002) refrased these issues in more philosopical terms as: [1] the role of chance as a factor in evolutionary theory and the theory's apparently probabilistic nature; [2] the nature of selection; [3] the question of whether selection/adaptation explanations are teleological; [4] the ontological status of species and the epistemological status of species concepts; and [5] the implications of Darwin's insistence on the slow and gradual nature of evolutionary change.
I only mention these issues in this way to give you a feeling of the huge amount of questions there are and to illustrate that the evolution theory is not just some simple and complete description of historical development of organisms. Not to mention some damaging objections Darwin had to face.
Just to mention a few: (1) Darwin had no direct evidence for the effectiveness of natural selection, let alone for the origine of a new species; (2) Darwin could not show a single species that was transitional between two known species; (3) Complex organs, such as the human eye, could not have evolved in stages, since it would have been useless at any preliminary stage and hence would have given their possessor no selective advantage.
It is far beyond the scope of our class to address all these issues. Besides, the main goal of this class is to give you an insight in the historical development of mind, a glance on this immense area of philosophical research.
Let me end with words from Darwin himself. He had moods in which it seemed difficult or impossible to conceive that "this immense and wonderful universe, with our conscious selves, arose through chance."
In the end, however he concluded "that the whole subject is beyond the scope of man's intellect....The mystery of the beginning of all things is insoluble by us; and I for one must be content to remain an Agnostic."
The Discussion
[13:28] herman Bergson: So far one Darwin...
[13:28] hope63 Shepherd: we are deeply involved in the how science and philosophy will coordinate in the future
[13:29] Alarice Beaumont: I have a question
[13:29] herman Bergson: Go ahead Alarice
[13:29] Alarice Beaumont: to number 2 you mentioned
[13:29] Alarice Beaumont: i thought darwin found the species on the galapagos islands and therefore had evidence
[13:29] Alarice Beaumont: the sparrows!
[13:30] Alarice Beaumont: I'm wrong then?
[13:30] Lian Hornet: he found different species of finches with specialized beaks
[13:30] Stanley Aviatik: but not crows
[13:30] Lian Hornet: but not direct evidence of a species actually observably changing
[13:30] herman Bergson: I am not sure but I have a vague recollection that he found one species but all adapted to their own different biotope
[13:30] Alarice Beaumont: yes.. right
[13:31] Alarice Beaumont: oh ok Lian
[13:31] Gemma Cleanslate: i think darwin did very well with his theories with the knowledge that was available at the time. He i so often criticized for being so wrong!!
[13:31] Gemma Cleanslate: hi Rod and it!
[13:31] herman Bergson: Yes with modern DNA research much more can be proven
[13:31] Alarice Beaumont: so he just developed a theory how it happened!
[13:31] Rodney Handrick: hi Gemma
[13:32] hope63 Shepherd: but he must be wrong: according to millions of americans:)
[13:32] Gemma Cleanslate: oh yes
[13:32] Lian Hornet: hahaha.
[13:32] Gudrun Odriscoll: they have not evolved
[13:32] Gemma Cleanslate: much HAS been proven
[13:32] herman Bergson: Not that discussion Hope..plz..
[13:32] itsme Frederix: Hope the number does not count
[13:32] Stanley Aviatik: millions can be and often are wrong
[13:32] Gemma Cleanslate: :-)
[13:32] Alarice Beaumont: lol
[13:32] Stanley Aviatik: look at hitler's germany
[13:33] hope63 Shepherd: its not a joke -this is a todays problem in our society..
[13:33] herman Bergson: there are more philosphical questions here...
[13:33] Ganymede Blackburn: No, let's look at Darwin. :)
[13:33] Alarice Beaumont: well.. that was emotion and envy!
[13:33] Gudrun Odriscoll: hei what about darwin and evolution
[13:33] itsme Frederix: Herman like which ....????
[13:33] Gemma Cleanslate: well much of it HAS been proven
[13:33] Gemma Cleanslate: some not
[13:33] Lian Hornet: here is a lovely chart of belief in evolution in the west http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/bigphotos/21329204.h tml
[13:33] herman Bergson: One issue was whether evolution is teleologic or not
[13:34] herman Bergson: We are discussing here Darwin. not the believes of whatever
[13:34] Lottie Adamczyk: thank you
[13:34] itsme Frederix: teleologic ... please explain some more Herman
[13:35] herman Bergson: this goes back to Aristotle....
[13:35] herman Bergson: he believes that for instance a seed was potentially a tree...so the TELOS (goal) of the seed is to become a tree
[13:35] Gemma Cleanslate: Thanks Lian
[13:36] herman Bergson: Darwin saw evolution develop by chance and well also not....for there was always the idea that the next development was BETTER in relation to the former stage
[13:36] Gudrun Odriscoll: that would imply purpose
[13:36] itsme Frederix: Well Hegel would have called it teleologic but Schopenhauer not - thats what i gues
[13:36] herman Bergson: yes Gudrun
[13:37] Ganymede Blackburn: You mentioned Gould. What would Darwin have thought of Gould's theory of punctuated equilibrium? Does anyone have any thoughts on that?
[13:37] Gudrun Odriscoll: I m not sure if evolution is purposeful, but we need to put purpose into it
[13:37] Stanley Aviatik: the essence of evolution is that it is not goal seeking
[13:37] hope63 Shepherd: would be natural for him in those days to look for a prupose..
[13:37] Stanley Aviatik: that's one of the hardest concepts to grasp
[13:38] hope63 Shepherd: why that stan..
[13:38] Gudrun Odriscoll: yes, that was his stance, but it just is, the why might be a question never to be answered, but imagined
[13:38] arabella Ella: but ... if evolution is true, is it as linear and progressive as it is made out to be by its adherents?
[13:38] Ganymede Blackburn: Probably the most radical part of Darwin's theory is that it is not progressive in anything but the strictly chronological sense.
[13:38] Stanley Aviatik: agreed
[13:38] Gudrun Odriscoll: I agree Ganymede
[13:39] Ganymede Blackburn: Here he was very much at odds with his times
[13:39] arabella Ella: agree gnay
[13:39] herman Bergson: There are a few issues at stack here....first the issue: is evolution liniear..
[13:39] herman Bergson: and second the historical situation..
[13:40] hope63 Shepherd: herman.. of all the isiis and iiis.. which one of the i.s had the most impact on philosophy..
[13:40] herman Bergson: for maybe as an undercurrent there is this evolution of man.....where getting a mind is seen as the next level...
[13:40] arabella Ella: ??
[13:41] herman Bergson: the whole idea that we evolved from ape to homo sapiens...
[13:41] Lian Hornet: still apes
[13:41] Gudrun Odriscoll: relatives of apes
[13:41] Gemma Cleanslate: :-//
[13:41] herman Bergson: at the end of the Enlightenment they were convinced that the human being is the highest stage of development because of his ratio
[13:42] hope63 Shepherd: how about getting a mind is just the next level of one species,..look other species developped capacities humans dont have..
[13:42] Gudrun Odriscoll: like dolphins?
[13:42] herman Bergson: Well...that is an issue these days.....
[13:42] hope63 Shepherd: like bats?
[13:43] herman Bergson: did we think we were at the top of the foodchain, now we position us at a same level as animals in the sense that animals have rights too
[13:44] itsme Frederix: @Herman, rights - only if they are succesfull in living and survive
[13:44] Stanley Aviatik: only in rerospect - surely
[13:44] hope63 Shepherd: hm.. this means that rights were de facto given to humans .. not the case in reality those days..
[13:44] itsme Frederix: like we could fail
[13:45] Osrum Sands: Rights are a human construct !
[13:45] Gudrun Odriscoll: we give the the rights, because of our limited understanding of the worlds, they have rights anyway. This is a bit patronising. Has a lion the right to eat me, as I have the right to eat him (or not)
[13:45] Gemma Cleanslate: but we have the capacity to learn to do things.. animals do it by instinct
[13:45] arabella Ella: sorry to bring up the gender issue but females had very few rights
[13:45] itsme Frederix: @Osrum yes - so what rights are we talking about - just bloody survival
[13:45] hope63 Shepherd: if we look at animals living in social groups.. righs were more developed than with humans..
[13:46] Gemma Cleanslate: ants!
[13:46] herman Bergson: OK...OK..HOLD ON
[13:46] arabella Ella: bees
[13:46] hope63 Shepherd: they did.'t have to codify them.. they were natural rights..
[13:46] herman Bergson: let me put it in this historic perspective to see what is changing
[13:46] Gudrun Odriscoll: Ants and bees work more like a whole organism, they are a complex social body
[13:46] Gudrun Odriscoll: Sorry Herman, lag
[13:46] herman Bergson: In Darwin's time people were convinced that man was the top of the evolution
[13:47] herman Bergson: and nowadays you see a tendency to see man and animals as equal results of an evolution
[13:48] Ganymede Blackburn: Mostly thanks to DArwin.
[13:48] hope63 Shepherd: some of us.. but not the majority of humans..
[13:48] arabella Ella: ehrm ... you mean humans herman i assume
[13:48] Gudrun Odriscoll: an evolution whoses economic usage is controlled by man (chimeras, cloning, body parts)
[13:48] herman Bergson: yes humans...
[13:49] arabella Ella: ty
[13:49] hope63 Shepherd: tight o.. arabel.. the human species.. not the god created man..:)
[13:49] itsme Frederix: @Herman I suggest we evolve that thought of rights and leave it out, just survival
[13:50] arabella Ella: as i said apologies for bringing up the gender issue ... but some of us have suffered so much discrimination it feels bad to hear 'man' ... 'man' ... etc
[13:50] herman Bergson: yes Itsme....that might be a good description....the present debate is about survaval of all nature
[13:50] hope63 Shepherd: itsme. i think that is a difficult questioin.. there are cul de sacs..
[13:50] Stanley Aviatik: man actually means both sexes
[13:50] itsme Frederix: @Hope so be it
[13:50] arabella Ella: hey Stan does female mean both genders too?
[13:50] Ze Novikov: lol
[13:51] herman Bergson: lol
[13:51] Gudrun Odriscoll: lol
[13:51] hope63 Shepherd: really? thanks for telling me stan..:
[13:51] herman Bergson: Ok we'll talk about humans
[13:51] Stanley Aviatik: no - that has a male syntax like so is discriminatory
[13:51] Osrum Sands: This man wants the right to be a woman !!!
[13:51] Ze Novikov: lol
[13:51] itsme Frederix: @Hope, but I fear (and that is dualistic metaphysic un-evolutionary) we loose the batle
[13:51] Osrum Sands: sorry herman red herring
[13:51] herman Bergson: IN SL you can Osrum
[13:51] Gemma Cleanslate: :-)
[13:52] Gemma Cleanslate: easy and cheap!!
[13:52] Gudrun Odriscoll: Transgender
[13:52] herman Bergson: OK....
[13:52] Ze Novikov: lol
[13:52] hope63 Shepherd: minorities in democracies fight a lost cause itsme:)
[13:52] herman Bergson: An other interesting issue is an epistemological one with deep roots in history...
[13:52] herman Bergson: the issue of species...
[13:53] herman Bergson: a species must be described by its essential features
[13:53] herman Bergson: but how can we when it changes by evolution...
[13:53] herman Bergson: in a platonic way of thinking this would not be possible...
[13:53] hope63 Shepherd: by accdepting that we ccannot swin twice in the same river?
[13:53] Alarice Beaumont: we have to alter the description.... that's progress
[13:54] Alarice Beaumont: yes hope!
[13:54] herman Bergson: and from the christian way of thinking absolutely not
[13:54] Gudrun Odriscoll: Is there one Christian way of thinking?
[13:55] Stanley Aviatik: is there any thinking in christianity!
[13:55] herman Bergson: Darwin idnt support thi essentialist stand....he just saw names of species as tools to classify
[13:55] itsme Frederix: @Herman what are the essentials?
[13:55] itsme Frederix: if language is not enough?
[13:56] Osrum Sands: The Bible / Genesis gives us some whys NOT hows
[13:56] herman Bergson: it is the idea that you have certain knowledge of essential attributes of an object
[13:56] itsme Frederix: phenomenology?
[13:56] herman Bergson: like they tried to reach in phenomenological analysis
[13:57] itsme Frederix: oke next spot is coming up
[13:57] herman Bergson: not my style but they think that essences have real existence
[13:57] itsme Frederix: @Herman but that certainly is an good explanation why Hussserl a.o. started the seach
[13:58] herman Bergson: yes Itsme...but that is for the future..:-)
[13:58] hope63 Shepherd: itsme.. please.. don^t jump ahead ..
[13:58] herman Bergson: also the retionalist thought he could have true knowledge of essences..
[13:58] itsme Frederix: I know but we both came up with it - evolution in thinking progress
[13:58] Gudrun Odriscoll: And Sartre, for the future?
[13:58] herman Bergson: Yes Gudrun...he is on the list too
[13:59] itsme Frederix: @Herman but now description is more the tool
[13:59] herman Bergson: YEs I think so too Itsme
[13:59] herman Bergson: we'll get to that too
[14:00] itsme Frederix: it was also the time for it, geological p.e.
[14:01] Gudrun Odriscoll: sorry I seem to be stuck
[14:01] Stanley Aviatik: up
[14:01] hope63 Shepherd: may be we should talk about today and try to include darwin into our world af thinking.. instead of trying to understand the immense mental and scientific work he did,...in those days..
[14:01] herman Bergson: OK...let me conclude this discussion by picking up a few philosphophical grains
[14:01] itsme Frederix: but if description is the tool (like Darwin used it) deeper inner knowledge is less important! and so is teleos
[14:02] itsme Frederix: a deeper inner even might not exist!
[14:02] herman Bergson: So if I may..:-)
[14:02] hope63 Shepherd: i think after all the efforts of the philosophers to get rid of the church.. he really threw the final stone..( still didn't kill their ideas)
[14:02] herman Bergson: plz..
[14:02] Gemma Cleanslate: please lol
[14:02] Gemma Cleanslate: have got go soon
[14:02] Gudrun Odriscoll: A separation between a deeper inner and a (shallow?) outer might not exist, Dualism?
[14:02] herman Bergson: a few things Darwin left us to think about
[14:03] herman Bergson: one thing is the idea of evolution, if it is by chance....has it a direction?
[14:03] herman Bergson: a second thing is the position of mankind in the whole process....are we the highest stage of evolution?
[14:04] hope63 Shepherd: that would corespond to christian dogmas..
[14:04] hope63 Shepherd: direction..
[14:04] itsme Frederix: hope!
[14:04] herman Bergson: Put these questions into your deeper self and contemplate them..:-)
[14:04] Gemma Cleanslate: yes
[14:04] Gudrun Odriscoll: there are many pathways of evolution, think about extinction of saurus, and not there might be (now) or in future somebody far more sophisticated
[14:05] hope63 Shepherd: lol.. highest stage,.. now who is the one to judge on what is high or low..lol
[14:05] herman Bergson: In the Stanford Encyclopedia of philosophy you find an extensive analysis of all issues here presented
[14:05] Stanley Aviatik: exactly, hope
[14:05] Alarice Beaumont: ok
[14:05] itsme Frederix: you are hope, or do you have othere references
[14:05] Ze Novikov: ty
[14:05] hope63 Shepherd: yes i do:)
[14:05] hope63 Shepherd: modern thinking
[14:06] hope63 Shepherd: success stories:)
[14:06] itsme Frederix: your modern thinking
[14:06] itsme Frederix: your succes stories
[14:06] Gemma Cleanslate: have to go
[14:06] Gudrun Odriscoll: bye gemma
[14:06] Gemma Cleanslate: hopt to be here thursday
[14:06] Stanley Aviatik: bye gemma
[14:06] <3<3<3: Stanley Aviatik bids Gemma Cleanslate farewell!
[14:06] Ganymede Blackburn: Bye, Gemma. :)
[14:06] Gemma Cleanslate: with no problem!!
[14:06] Rodney Handrick: bye gemma
[14:06] arabella Ella: by gemma
[14:07] herman Bergson: Thank you for your contributions...:-)
[14:07] herman Bergson: to the debate..
[14:07] itsme Frederix: Herman THX good points
[14:07] Ganymede Blackburn: May I repeat a question I asked earlier...?
[14:07] Gudrun Odriscoll: Thanks Herman
[14:07] herman Bergson: yes sure...
[14:07] Ganymede Blackburn: It was a bit besides the main issue...
[14:08] Rodney Handrick: good as usual Herman...
[14:08] arabella Ella: thank you so much herman
[14:08] Ganymede Blackburn: You mentioned Gould. What would Darwin have thought of Gould's theory of punctuated equilibrium? Does anyone have any thoughts on that?
[14:08] Stanley Aviatik: Thank you so very much Herman - so la
[14:08] Alarice Beaumont: thank you herman.. was great....
[14:08] Stanley Aviatik: glad I made tonight
[14:08] Alarice Beaumont: bye everybody.. :-)
[14:08] herman Bergson: Thank you all..
[14:08] Stanley Aviatik: bye alarice
[14:08] Ganymede Blackburn: Bye, Alarice. :)
[14:08] Gudrun Odriscoll: Ganymede what exactly is his theory of p.e
[14:08] herman Bergson: I am no expert on Gould Ganymede..
[14:08] arabella Ella: Gany I read Gould some years back and would need to revise it a bit before giving an opinion
[14:09] Rodney Handrick: bye everyone
[14:09] arabella Ella: bye Rodney
[14:09] Gudrun Odriscoll: bye bye rod
[14:09] Stanley Aviatik: bye rodney
[14:09] Ganymede Blackburn: The theory is that instead of a slow, gradual and more or less constant evolution...
[14:09] herman Bergson: Bye Rodney
[14:09] Stanley Aviatik: sorry about the flashes - seem to have picked up something
[14:09] arabella Ella: yes Gany?
[14:10] Ganymede Blackburn: ...there's long periods of stability, where nothing much happens but minor optimizations...
[14:10] Ganymede Blackburn: ...which are punctuated when a species comes under sufficient pressure.
[14:10] Stanley Aviatik: you mean episodic rather than periodic
[14:11] herman Bergson: if this would show in archeological finds...
[14:11] Stanley Aviatik: Does it not show in strata
[14:11] arabella Ella: it sounds as tho it makes a lot of sense even from an antropological viewpoint
[14:11] herman Bergson: I dont know Stanley I have litle real knowledge of archeology
[14:12] Stanley Aviatik: there has always been ice
[14:12] arabella Ella: i think gould was against a view of evolution as linear and progressive
[14:12] Stanley Aviatik: fierce debate within evolution theory on this point
[14:12] Gudrun Odriscoll: Which is good thinking!
[14:12] Ganymede Blackburn: So was Darwin.
[14:12] arabella Ella: we tend to rationalise and impose linearity and progression
[14:13] Ganymede Blackburn: But that's not the point here...
[14:13] Gudrun Odriscoll: Linearity gives us a sense of false security
[14:13] herman Bergson: that might be very well the case arabella
[14:13] herman Bergson: yes..just like binary thinking
[14:13] arabella Ella: so sorry Gany what's the point you wanted to make?
[14:13] Gudrun Odriscoll: I think, Ganymede that there must have been some data, with which Gould underlined his findings
[14:14] Stanley Aviatik: what do we do now that evolution [by natural selection] for our species has ended
[14:14] arabella Ella: ended?
[14:14] herman Bergson: yes Stan....what are we going to do?
[14:14] hope63 Shepherd is Online
[14:15] Ganymede Blackburn: I remember he did have some, but most were easily dismissed as holes in the archaelogical record...
[14:15] Stanley Aviatik: yes - we are no loner goverened by natural selection
[14:15] itsme Frederix: ended? maybe this is the antrogenic epoche man/human seems more succesfull than the environment
[14:15] Gudrun Odriscoll: there is a form of artificial evolutiopn in the human species ..
[14:15] Ganymede Blackburn: It hasn't, Stanley.
[14:15] Stanley Aviatik: we conquer the diseases that forced surival genetics
[14:15] Stanley Aviatik: of course i has
[14:15] arabella Ella: stanley what about the possibility of us evolving into cyborgs?
[14:15] Stanley Aviatik: any human with good / bad genes [not definable] can survive
[14:16] Ganymede Blackburn: It's in a state of diversification. Just because more people survive and propagate, doesn't mean everyone does...
[14:16] arabella Ella: but no reproduce
[14:16] Gudrun Odriscoll: new diseases arise, but there is the idea of a forced artificial evolution in transhuman and posthuman thinking
[14:16] herman Bergson: you think we corrupted evolution Stanley?
[14:16] Stanley Aviatik: today - there is no longer natural selection in operatio
[14:16] Ganymede Blackburn: ...and there's no such thing as good and bad genes.
[14:16] itsme Frederix: Stanly what if genes want to survive (and we are only vehicles Dawkins)?
[14:16] Stanley Aviatik: No - not us - it just happened
[14:16] Ganymede Blackburn: there's only surviving and extinct ones
[14:16] Stanley Aviatik: that's not to value judge it
[14:16] arabella Ella: what evidence do you have Stan?
[14:16] Stanley Aviatik: it just is the case
[14:17] Stanley Aviatik: Surely is blatantly obviuos
[14:17] arabella Ella: just cos u say so?
[14:17] Ganymede Blackburn: Evolution was always random, and it still is.
[14:17] herman Bergson: the facts as they are are the result of evolution
[14:17] hope63 Shepherd: gan.. you get the point:)
[14:17] Stanley Aviatik: For example, diseases that would have been unsurvivable are now able to be lived wih
[14:18] Stanley Aviatik: people who would have orherwise died can still reproduce - and good for it
[14:18] herman Bergson: yes..because our mind evolved to the stage of that knowledge..part of evolution
[14:18] Gudrun Odriscoll: there are actually thoughts that the human species is at the end of their evolution, must look this up again, as I am so involved in this transhuman stuff
[14:18] Stanley Aviatik: all I'm saying is the natural selection element is gone
[14:18] Stanley Aviatik: a least for our species
[14:18] Ganymede Blackburn: It's not!
[14:18] herman Bergson: I dont agree....
[14:18] Stanley Aviatik: Show me where it exists
[14:19] herman Bergson: you first have to define natural then
[14:19] arabella Ella: the next stage will be enhanced humans with new technology and those who chose not to be enhanced
[14:19] arabella Ella: cyborgs
[14:19] Stanley Aviatik: a process without conciuous intervention
[14:19] Gudrun Odriscoll: what great evolutionary changes have happened over the last ten thousands of years in the human species?
[14:19] hope63 Shepherd: stan.. just look into statistics about size of humans through these last 6oo years..
[14:19] herman Bergson: but that is an arbitrairy definition Stan
[14:19] Ganymede Blackburn: what changes has happened in other species in that time?
[14:19] Gudrun Odriscoll: Size has to do with better feeding, there are studies about this
[14:20] arabella Ella: bye everyone hope to c u thurs
[14:20] Stanley Aviatik: not true - evolutionary affects in our species is so miniscule i would take that long for the smallest of effects to show
[14:20] Laila Schuman: baie Ara
[14:20] itsme Frederix: Those who think "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" have never lost their car keys.
[14:20] hope63 Shepherd: but why would we be born with genes making us taller..
[14:20] Gudrun Odriscoll: bye arabella
[14:20] Stanley Aviatik: our brain is of equal stature to cave man
[14:21] hope63 Shepherd: you calculated the neurons?
[14:21] Stanley Aviatik: the facade of technoogy gives us a false sense of evolutionary advance
[14:21] Gudrun Odriscoll: adaption to environment, better feeding, bla bla
[14:21] herman Bergson: I dont agree Stanley...
[14:21] itsme Frederix goes silently away not disturbing this discussion and whispering goodbye
[14:21] hope63 Shepherd: knowledge is not evolution of the species..
[14:21] herman Bergson: we have evolved socially from the cavemen, maybe not much and not all of us, but we have
[14:22] Stanley Aviatik: Absolutely hope - that is post natural selection
[14:22] Stanley Aviatik: socially yes
[14:22] Stanley Aviatik: and post NS - That's all i am saying
[14:22] Stanley Aviatik: We are too arrogant in our self belief
[14:23] hope63 Shepherd: had to.. look of the habitants of the earth 5000 years ago and now.. societies had to evolve..
[14:23] Gudrun Odriscoll: this is called cultural evolution, might be a different pair of shoes. About neurons, they have not increased. The whole neural network stuff in humans (animals) is still discussed. Christopher Koch might be of interest for anybody round here
[14:23] Stanley Aviatik: in survival terms the fruit fly wins every tuime
[14:23] hope63 Shepherd: not in chile:)
[14:24] Stanley Aviatik: Yes, but cultural evolution does not change us - children f today, raised by a caveman wold not have inherited oue morals etc
[14:24] Gudrun Odriscoll: Is Chile too dry, or do they have no fruit there?
[14:24] Stanley Aviatik: lol
[14:24] hope63 Shepherd: or in nz.. cal could confirm:)
[14:24] Gudrun Odriscoll: Stanley, I agree with your last statment
[14:24] Stanley Aviatik: touche
[14:24] herman Bergson: but what is the argument to restrict evolution only to the biological features of humans
[14:25] Stanley Aviatik: Absolutel Herman sir
[14:25] hope63 Shepherd: no.. they have la cordiellera de los andes and the desert in the north and the antarcic south.. and they are oone of the most important fruit exporters on soputh america..
[14:25] herman Bergson: animals in nature learn new behavior paterns too
[14:25] Stanley Aviatik: however, darwin, yor subject tonight was oly concerned with biological change
[14:26] hope63 Shepherd: WHAT'
[14:26] herman Bergson: but also with adaptation in behavior to new environments
[14:26] Gudrun Odriscoll: Guys, if you think about the idea of whatever evolution the father of AI, Hans Moravec has developled, when you would wish that it is restricted to a strictly biological sense. Moravec is interested in a posthuman world without humans, but the extract of some common concsiousness.
[14:26] Stanley Aviatik: Darwin worked soley in tems of biological evolution
[14:26] hope63 Shepherd: i think darwin has had more impact on our thinking than most of the guys we talked about before..
[14:26] Stanley Aviatik: hence - in the frame of natural selection
[14:26] hope63 Shepherd: and not because of biology..
[14:27] Stanley Aviatik: of course biology
[14:27] Gudrun Odriscoll: Behaviour patterns are learned, learning is strictly speaking not evolution, but the ability to learn lies in evolution
[14:27] herman Bergson: ok
[14:27] Stanley Aviatik: true - but learning is not passed on biologically
[14:28] Stanley Aviatik: only the ability to learn
[14:28] Gudrun Odriscoll: Yes, this is true, there are studies that certain monkeys have learned (and not inherited) tthe abiltiy to open nuts with a stone
[14:28] hope63 Shepherd: the real intersting quewsionos. gudrun.. why did wehave an evolution to make us learnm..
[14:28] Stanley Aviatik: Sorry - I'm monoplising this - I shall remain quiet
[14:28] Gudrun Odriscoll: Survivial
|
|
No comments:
Post a Comment