Telmo: I don´t know if that process of emergence of levels is the sole effect of a darwinian process. We can't know it. what is clear is that Darwinism has a explanation for it. And this applies too to the social level.
http://www.cogsci.msu.edu/DSS/2006-2007/Wilson/Rethinking_July_20.pdf However a darwinian process is a natural process. In a block universe, there is no such darwinian process (because there is no process of any kind at all). Simply some paths in the block universe maintain the entropy constant against the surroundings. These paths are living beings along their lines of time. Usually the computational models, like any other programs are predictable: they work with your assumptions and produce the results that you expect. real evolution is pervasive . It does not work with limited assumptions and resources and levels. This paper is very interesting. How the evolutionary pressures make stable or unstable the aggregation of individuals to create higher level individuals and what are the mechanisms of cohesion: http://web.pdx.edu/~jeff/group_sel_workshop/michod_roze.pdf 2013/9/9 Telmo Menezes <te...@telmomenezes.com> > Hi Alberto, > > On Mon, Sep 9, 2013 at 10:55 AM, Alberto G. Corona <agocor...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > I think that there are real progress that can be even measured in terms > of > > entropic order. That a man embodies more structure and organization than > a > > bacteria is objective and measurable, and it is a product of more > emergent > > levels of evolution. In concrete the human being includes the eucariotic > > level, the multicelularity level and human society level, that are > > aggregations of coordinated individuals to achieve an individuality of an > > higher level. These levels are absent in bacteria . > > Ok, there's an arrow of complexification, that's undeniable. I'm not > convinced that Darwinism alone explains that. One of the reasons for > my scepticism is the failure of ALife models to replicate unbounded > complexification. My favourite attempt in this domain is the Echo > model by John Holland -- which is beautiful but didn't work in this > sense. There's also Tierra/Avida, where you get a lot of interesting > stuff but no unbounded complexification. > > One idea I heard but don't know whom to attribute to is this: > evolutionary complexification is just an artefact of the simplicity of > the initial state. The idea being that the laws of physics inherently > contain a "pressure" towards a certain level of complexity and that > evolution is just following the path of least resitance, in a way. It > is then conceivable that there is a state of equilibrium that we > haven't reached yet and that complexification will halt at some point. > This is wild speculation, of course, but I like to ponder on this > hypothesis. > > > What is not true is that human beings are more "adapted" than bacteria. > That > > is not true. Because there is no objective and absolute measure of > > adaptation. It ever depends on the concrete environment, and varies a > lot. > > Humm... I think ecologists are able to estimate the likelihood of a > species going extinct. I'd argue that this could be taken as a measure > of adaption. > > Telmo. > > > > > 2013/9/9 Telmo Menezes <te...@telmomenezes.com> > >> > >> On Mon, Sep 9, 2013 at 5:52 AM, Craig Weinberg <whatsons...@gmail.com> > >> wrote: > >> > > >> > > >> > On Sunday, September 8, 2013 4:42:02 PM UTC-4, telmo_menezes wrote: > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> Sent from my iPad > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> On Sun, Sep 8, 2013 chris peck <chris_...@hotmail.com> wrote: > >> >> > >> >>>> >> "Darwinism is not a testable scientific theory, but a > metaphysical > >> >>>> >> research program". > >> >>> > >> >>> > >> >>> > I don't have any problem with Popper's comments here. I see no > >> >>> > reason > >> >>> > whatsoever for 'Popper fans or fans of philosophers of science' to > >> >>> > be > >> >>> > concerned in the slightest. > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> On 08.09.2013, at 22:28, John Clark <johnk...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> >> Yes I know, fans of Popper are not concerned in the slightest with > >> >> their > >> >> hero making that moronic statement, and Popper called himself a > >> >> philosopher; > >> >> and that is exactly how philosophy gets a bad name. > >> >> > >> >>> > People misunderstand Popper here. > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> Apparently even Popper misunderstood Popper because, to his credit, > he > >> >> admitted he was wrong about Darwin; most other philosophers would > >> >> rather eat > >> >> ground glass than admit they were wrong. It's just a pity that it > took > >> >> this > >> >> great philosopher of science 119 years after the publication of "The > >> >> Origin > >> >> Of Species" to figure out that Darwin was a scientist. I guess > >> >> philosophers > >> >> are just slow learners > >> >> > >> >>> > Furthermore, in regarding natural selection as untestable he > >> >>> > followed > >> >>> > in the footsteps of many Darwinists. > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> Should a good philosopher be following in somebody's footsteps or > >> >> should > >> >> he tell him he's going in the wrong direction? > >> >> > >> >>> > It was quite common to think that the concept of 'survival of the > >> >>> > fittest' involved circular reasoning and was therefore > tautological. > >> >>> > ie. > >> >>> > 'fittest' is defined as 'those that survive' and so 'survival of > the > >> >>> > fittest' amounts to saying 'the survivors survive'. > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> Darwin gave a new meaning to the word, "fittest" means passing on > more > >> >> genes that endure (survive) to the next generation than somebody who > is > >> >> less > >> >> fit. > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> Darwin knew nothing about genes. > >> > > >> > > >> > Yes, and evolutionary fitness has nothing do with the quantity of > >> > winning > >> > genes - this is a Eugenicist misinterpretation of evolution. Fitness > is > >> > about the circumstantial appropriateness of mutations, not about > >> > hereditary > >> > supremacy. A sudden climate change makes entire classes of 'more fit' > >> > genes > >> > 'less fit' over night. Evolution is not a race or striving for success > >> > through superior engineering - that is utter horseshit. > >> > >> Yes. A common error is to equate evolution with progress -- one sees > >> that a lot in mainstream use of the terms. I believe that > >> neo-Darwinism is a great scientific theory, and that it does explain > >> the origin of biological complexity, namely humans. But it is easy to > >> misinterpret it or take it too far. For example, by saying things like > >> "human beings are more evolved than bacteria" which is nonsense. > >> > >> Telmo. > >> > >> > Thanks, > >> > Craig > >> > > >> > -- > >> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google > >> > Groups > >> > "Everything List" group. > >> > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send > >> > an > >> > email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > >> > To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com > . > >> > Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. > >> > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. > >> > >> -- > >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google > Groups > >> "Everything List" group. > >> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send > an > >> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > >> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. > >> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. > >> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. > > > > > > > > > > -- > > Alberto. > > > > -- > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > > "Everything List" group. > > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > > email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > > To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. > > Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. > > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Everything List" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. > Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. > -- Alberto. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
