If I were more cynical, I may have begun the last sentence, "Through tragedy or choice,..."
Dawkins annoys me for many reasons, the main being the cult that seems to have gathered around him and presented him as the superhero to the villain of creationism. The whole meme concept always sounded stupid so will enjoy reading Mayr. Dennett I shall look up as well.
Not for the squeemish but it appears navel bacteria are more diverse than we thought. In a test of 500 individuals over 300 new and unique types were found. We are hosts to all sorts of wonders.
Humorously interesting that y'all can't bring yourselves to use 'that word.'
Or 'that word.' So I won't either.
I shall also look into the Dennett book. Looks good so far.
I've evolved from the whole "yay vs. nay" position, too. Now I alliteratively call myself an apathetic atheist and no longer care about that big question.
No harping on it, just fyi.
Or 'that word.' So I won't either.
I shall also look into the Dennett book. Looks good so far.
I've evolved from the whole "yay vs. nay" position, too. Now I alliteratively call myself an apathetic atheist and no longer care about that big question.
No harping on it, just fyi.
Agreed. I purposely just said "not useful for either." It is difficult to imagine usefulness in an advantage context, though. That doesn't mean there couldn't have been one, or more.
Maybe I'm not heeding my own advice!
Life can not predict the future environment but, instead, exchanges information and stores some of it it as genetic redundancy.
But that's a story I made up so I could think think about it.
"Usefulness" doesn't have anything to do with it.
Look at it like this:
Life is a hillbilly with a still and a lot of junk in it's genetic back forty; it has no particular purpose - it expends energy making or acquiring genetic stuff (INFORMATION), fiddling around with it, reproducing itself, and dumping a lot of left-overs in the genome. The result is bricolage: plants and creatures filling up every nook and cranny.
Yes, let's stay away from religion. To sound cool, use the famous quote from Laplace to Napoleon.
Maybe we can meet somewhere in the middle. Teeth seem to be a good example.
"Usefulness" doesn't have anything to do with it.
I think I was wrong to say that...I was concerned with imputing purposefulness when all that might be going on is a lot of screwing around and what we should be concerned with is describing what and how.
I think I was wrong to say that...I was concerned with imputing purposefulness when all that might be going on is a lot of screwing around and what we should be concerned with is describing what and how.
I often find in explaining something it goes from picture to words. Until that time pictures are good enough. I suspect many here can almost CNC make an object in the mind and rotate it etc. I often suspected my bit of the brain for spelling did this instead. I have all the silly OCD skills of spelling for meachanical engineering. My son says and I have no idea if he is right that spelling is part of magic. He pointed out that like belonging to the Masons it was a sign of not all together good powers. I know the Bible was often locked up and in Latin to keep people away. Printing in English was a great liberation. Few who learned written English needed it to become priests. English is set from Canterbury dialect. Caxton dishonestly obtained the process and added the refinement of identical pieces. Mass production started here and not just the pages. In Canterbury dialect some words are pronounced as if modern German, but not now. Right is an example. About 1500 we stopped saying things back to front as the Germans do ( When you are to Oxford going ). Old English is difficult to read, maybe less so if a German or French specailist? I suspect changing to the Protestant faith would be part of that. New ways in both? By the 17th century it is very easy to read and often nicer than now. Jane Austen is almost like baby food for the brain.
An interesting idea which by a factor of 10 might begin to be right if we say 30 000 years. I suspect the proposer has left out how certain substances change perceptions. One thing is true. The discovery of self seems moderm. One must stop for a minute. This assumes that people then who write texts are as now. This is not true. Certain rituals were performed when writting. In no way do text of then relate to lets say the 17 th century. One must remember that to refer to self was not playing the game. Also people in power destroyed texts they thought unfit. What I think the author is saying is people who do not know have fear. Fear is powerful. Great fear might be due to growing intelligence? Growing intelligence a product of evolution. The better hunters had the bigger brains. I only object to the perpetual motion form of evolution, not the concept of evolution. Just like Earth , Air , Fire and Water was almost right. The concept of Elements is very very old if wondering, they got the substances wrong. As far as I know it dates back to the time thhe author imagines as important. Anyone who paints animals more beautifully than I ever could from greater than 30 000 years ago is a fully modern human. Albeit without a primary school education and a laptop. I am sure anyone who sees animals clearly must see a friend and think about himself.
Cave painting - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Thanks Dejan. Very timely advice. UK is a rather good place. I needed reminding.
I was looking at the cave paintings again. I feel really stupid I never notice. Nothing really betters them 30 000 years later. Most 12th century art is childish with no propper sense of perspective, the cave paintings are far more accurate.
I was looking at the cave paintings again. I feel really stupid I never notice. Nothing really betters them 30 000 years later. Most 12th century art is childish with no propper sense of perspective, the cave paintings are far more accurate.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.