A new approach to evolution

[jeremyp]

Microscopic, rational thinking while very useful in certain ways, has been responsible for many of the short sighted inventions and activities in recent centuries.

Whereas unevidenced woo has been responsible for nothing, except shysters bilking marks.

[Sriram]

Which makes your unsubstantiated assertions that we need to stop doing science and start accepting woo-claims instead even more ridiculous. You can, potentially, displace science, but you need a BETTER methodology, not 'no methodology at all, just trust me guys, I'm special'.

O.

Where did that come from? You people are deliberately misunderstanding. A straw man as you people keep saying.

I have never said that we should stop doing science or anything of that sort. That is nonsense. Science has its place and its usefulness. But scientism is wrong.

There are realities beyond the physical that cannot be proved or shown physically using standard scientific methods. These realities need to be acknowledged and bridged with the findings of science to create a total picture. 

That is all it is about!

[Outrider]

Where did that come from? You people are deliberately misunderstanding.

It came from your complete failure to provide an argument in support of your assertion, and the subsequent cry to arms for a programme to cut short science as finished and accept woo as the furtherance of human knowledge.

A straw man as you people keep saying.

I'm reasonably confident that, whilst done in a sarcastic tone, the summary of your posts is accurate.

I have never said that we should stop doing science or anything of that sort. That is nonsense. Science has its place and its usefulness. But scientism is wrong.

But you are suggesting that science doesn't have any capacity to move us forward with evolutionary biology because to do so it would have to forego evidence and testing and measurement and instead rely on unsubstantiated beliefs of panpsychism which are, arbitrarily, beyond science's remit.

There are realities beyond the physical that cannot be proved or shown physically using standard scientific methods.

There might be. If you want to show that there are you need to demonstrate that, not just claim it. If, for whatever reason, you think that these concepts are beyond science's capacity to investigate (despite their stated impact on the physical world) you'll need to provide an alternate methodology rather than just 'feeling' like it's true.

These realities need to be acknowledged and bridged with the findings of science to create a total picture.

No, these claims need to be justified before they can be counted as a depiction of reality. 

That is all it is about!

Just that. Just that you have post-science reality to share with the world, but they'll just have to trust you because you have the square root of shit and shower-gel by way of a justification for your claims. That's all!

O.

Moderator editing to make quotes work

[Sriram]

 

Why are you people getting so upset about me wanting to see the big picture?! Whew!!

[Outrider]

Why are you people getting so upset about me wanting to see the big picture?! Whew!!

We all want to see the big picture. We're getting 'upset', to the extent we are, by the fact that you are claiming to have a big picture, you can't explain it without resorting to woo, and you suggest some combination of physiological or spiritual ineptitude on the part of people who don't agree with the unsubstantiated claims you're making.

O.

[Sriram]

We all want to see the big picture. We're getting 'upset', to the extent we are, by the fact that you are claiming to have a big picture, you can't explain it without resorting to woo, and you suggest some combination of physiological or spiritual ineptitude on the part of people who don't agree with the unsubstantiated claims you're making.

O.

Unless you come out of this concept of 'woo'....you can never see the big picture. The two boxes syndrome!

https://tsriramrao.wordpress.com/2018/03/03/the-two-boxes-syndrome/

Anyway....have a good  day.

[Outrider]

Unless you come out of this concept of 'woo'....you can never see the big picture. The two boxes syndrome!

https://tsriramrao.wordpress.com/2018/03/03/the-two-boxes-syndrome/

Anyway....have a good  day.

It's not woo because of the formulation, it's woo because you assert it and then can't offer any validity to back it. It's not woo vs reality, it's woo vs science, it's in the (lack of) way that you justify your claims, not the nature of those claims.

O.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Sriram,

More corrections for you to ignore…

Unless you come out of this concept of 'woo'....

Why should anyone “come out of the concept of woo” when woo is precisely all you offer here?

“Woo” is:

“...a pejorative term for pseudoscientific explanations that share certain common characteristics, often being too good to be true (aside from being unscientific). The term is common among skeptical writers. Woo is understood specifically as dressing itself in the trappings of science (but not the substance) while involving unscientific concepts, such as anecdotal evidence and sciencey-sounding words.”

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Woo

An uncannily accurate description of your efforts here right?

…you can never see the big picture.

Just asserting that you can see a supposed “big picture” does not mean that you do any such thing.

Try to remember this.

The two boxes syndrome!

https://tsriramrao.wordpress.com/2018/03/03/the-two-boxes-syndrome/

Your “two box syndrome” idiocy that has been falsified here many times without you even attempting a rebuttal, and just linking to your own error-riddled blog about it doesn’t change that.

[Sriram]

I don't claim to see the big picture. I am trying to see it.

You people have managed to piece together a small picture based on the findings of science and you are looking for remaining pieces related to that picture to complete it. Any pieces seemingly unrelated to the already formed picture is thrown off the table as useless.

I on the other hand, believe in keeping all the pieces, however unrelated they may seem, on the table and make an attempt to fit it in with the current picture. 

[Gordon]

I don't claim to see the big picture. I am trying to see it.

You people have managed to piece together a small picture based on the findings of science and you are looking for remaining pieces related to that picture to complete it. Any pieces seemingly unrelated to the already formed picture is thrown off the table as useless.

I on the other hand, believe in keeping all the pieces, however unrelated they may seem, on the table and make an attempt to fit it in with the current picture.

Sounds like you're doing a jigsaw.

Maybe some pieces you think you have just don't belong, but you're trying to use them anyway, or maybe they don't fit together very easily but you're tempted to force them, or maybe where you think you see a gap you're tempted to just make up your own pieces and colour them in just to get it done in line with what you'd prefer the finished jigsaw to look like - but crucially, you don't have the 'picture on the box' showing what it's supposed to look like, but that doesn't stop you creating your own 'big picture' from the pieces you think you have: whether they actually fit or not, or even whether they actually exist or not.

But if there is no complete 'picture on the box' the risk is that 'big picture' you are trying to assemble doesn't really exist at all outwith your imagination - and even if you think 'reality' is a bit like a jigsaw you can ever be sure you have all the pieces and how they fit together, or that the gaps you think you see can eventually be filled in since there is no 'picture on the box' to work from.

Or maybe there is no overarching 'picture on the box', that will also give an impression of meaning and purpose. So even if you have a few pieces that seem to fit together, for now anyway, the idea that there must be some form of ultimate 'big picture' with no gaps is speculative, unknowable and is begging the question - and that trying to presume one from just a few pieces is a fool's errand.

[torridon]

I don't claim to see the big picture. I am trying to see it.

You people have managed to piece together a small picture based on the findings of science and you are looking for remaining pieces related to that picture to complete it. Any pieces seemingly unrelated to the already formed picture is thrown off the table as useless.

I on the other hand, believe in keeping all the pieces, however unrelated they may seem, on the table and make an attempt to fit it in with the current picture.

OK, but you will not get to an authentic overall picture by dismissing or skewing the pieces that we have discovered to date.  You have to be true to the pieces gathered so far.

[jeremyp]

I don't claim to see the big picture. I am trying to see it.

You people have managed to piece together a small picture based on the findings of science and you are looking for remaining pieces related to that picture to complete it. Any pieces seemingly unrelated to the already formed picture is thrown off the table as useless.

I on the other hand, believe in keeping all the pieces, however unrelated they may seem, on the table and make an attempt to fit it in with the current picture.

You need to show that these unrelated pieces that you allege we are throwing off the table even exist.

[Sriram]

Sounds like you're doing a jigsaw.

Maybe some pieces you think you have just don't belong, but you're trying to use them anyway, or maybe they don't fit together very easily but you're tempted to force them, or maybe where you think you see a gap you're tempted to just make up your own pieces and colour them in just to get it done in line with what you'd prefer the finished jigsaw to look like - but crucially, you don't have the 'picture on the box' showing what it's supposed to look like, but that doesn't stop you creating your own 'big picture' from the pieces you think you have: whether they actually fit or not, or even whether they actually exist or not.

But if there is no complete 'picture on the box' the risk is that 'big picture' you are trying to assemble doesn't really exist at all outwith your imagination - and even if you think 'reality' is a bit like a jigsaw you can ever be sure you have all the pieces and how they fit together, or that the gaps you think you see can eventually be filled in since there is no 'picture on the box' to work from.

Or maybe there is no overarching 'picture on the box', that will also give an impression of meaning and purpose. So even if you have a few pieces that seem to fit together, for now anyway, the idea that there must be some form of ultimate 'big picture' with no gaps is speculative, unknowable and is begging the question - and that trying to presume one from just a few pieces is a fool's errand.

The picture is not available on the box...that is the problem. Perhaps even if it was available, we wouldn't understand it.  Who would have understood a picture with pieces like the big bang, QM, relativity, genetics and evolution....500 years ago?

But we have the need to understand and get a better idea of our lives. That cannot be helped. Point is that this quest is not just about the external physical universe, but is more about our lives, death and absolute morality. You people conveniently dismiss all this as not meaningful and forget about it.  I am not able to do that.

My experiences tell me that life and death do have a meaning and that there is an absolute morality. So....I find that the extra pieces that you dismiss, do have a meaningful place in the total picture. They do fit in somewhere.

The problem is in rearranging the accepted materialistic picture with the additional pieces and fitting them all together in as grand a picture as we can manage with present knowledge and capabilities.   

I am sure it will be done sometime.

[Sriram]

OK, but you will not get to an authentic overall picture by dismissing or skewing the pieces that we have discovered to date.  You have to be true to the pieces gathered so far.

It depends. It need not change dramatically. If however, some pieces of the present picture need to be rearranged to fit in the additional pieces, it needs to be done. Like for example,  including Lamarckism, epigenetics and plasticity in evolution instead of the metaphoric natural selection and random variations.

Such changes could help in expanding the picture somewhat thereby enabling other pieces to probably fit in by and by.

It remains to be seen how well the pieces will fit. As I have said...long way to go. 

[Alan Burns]

OK, but you will not get to an authentic overall picture by dismissing or skewing the pieces that we have discovered to date.  You have to be true to the pieces gathered so far.

There is a big picture, and we do not know just how much there is yet to discover about the reality we exist in.

We have some pieces derived from what we can discover with our physical senses, which is somewhat limited to what can be detected through our physical senses.  These pieces are materialistic in nature because of these limitations.

Then we have the mysteries of the human mind and its capability to contemplate that there may be aspects of reality beyond what can be detected by our physical senses.  In particular, our ability to contemplate such matters goes beyond what can be defined by material explanations alone.  We have a yearning, a desire to seek the truth behind our existence - a yearning which in itself is evidence that the human mind comprises more than the mere consequence of material reactions.  A yearning which is directed from the entity of conscious awareness which is you - not from the inevitable, unavoidable consequence of material reactions alone.  This yearning is evidenced by the many religious beliefs derived from our conscious awareness that there is more to reality than what we see.  Our human nature has a natural instinct to search for God - and there is just one religion which can claim to have encountered God as a living being on this earth.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Sriram,

The picture is not available on the box...that is the problem.

If you want to know what the “picture on the box” represents then you need to assemble the pieces of the jig-saw one at a time. There is no other method – or at least none that you’ve managed to propose here, preferring instead as you do a dispiriting mix of woo, evidence denial and wishful thinking.   

Perhaps even if it was available, we wouldn't understand it.  Who would have understood a picture with pieces like the big bang, QM, relativity, genetics and evolution....500 years ago?

No, but the reason we understand them now (to varying degrees) is due entirely to the patient, evidence-based work of the people on whose shoulders we now stand. None of them are now understood because of pseudo-science, false reasoning and dumb guessing.

Try to remember this.   

But we have the need to understand and get a better idea of our lives. That cannot be helped. Point is that this quest is not just about the external physical universe, but is more about our lives, death and absolute morality.

What on earth would make you think that there’s any such thing as “absolute morality”?

You people…

Why is it that when you begin a sentence with “you people” a straw man will follow as night follows day?

…conveniently dismiss all this as not meaningful and forget about it.  I am not able to do that.

And there is it. “We people” don’t “conveniently forget” any such thing – you’re no more interested in “getting a better idea of our lives” than anyone else. The difference though is that you cleave to beliefs you find most comforting based on very bad reasoning, whereas others set the epistemic bar somewhat higher.   

My experiences tell me that life and death do have a meaning and that there is an absolute morality. So....I find that the extra pieces that you dismiss, do have a meaningful place in the total picture. They do fit in somewhere.

But “your experiences” are worthless for anyone other than you unless you can find some way to distinguish them from bad reasoning, manufactured evidence and dumb guessing.

That’s your problem remember?

The problem is in rearranging the accepted materialistic picture with the additional pieces and fitting them all together in as grand a picture as we can manage with present knowledge and capabilities.

No, “the” problem (ie, your problem) is that these supposed “additional pieces” you claim to exist cannot be shown to exist at all. I suggest you start with justifying these claims without collapsing into fallacious arguments before you make demands about "rearranging" the evidence we actually do have.         

[Outrider]

I don't claim to see the big picture. I am trying to see it.

Perhaps you should start from the bits of the picture that we do appear to know, rather than baselessly presuming that it has no capacity for expansion, rather than throwing it out in favour of ... whatever it is that you think you do or don't know based on... something.

You people have managed to piece together a small picture based on the findings of science and you are looking for remaining pieces related to that picture to complete it.

Yep.

Any pieces seemingly unrelated to the already formed picture is thrown off the table as useless.

No, they're put back in the box to be checked again later - it might be that they will fit when we have a bigger picture, or it might be that they're from a different picture entirely, or it might be that they're pieces of dust that you've mistakenly thought are part of the picture, or it could be that you've presumed there is a piece to go somewhere, but actually there just isn't.

O.

[ProfessorDavey]

Perhaps you should start from the bits of the picture that we do appear to know, rather than baselessly presuming that it has no capacity for expansion, rather than throwing it out in favour of ... whatever it is that you think you do or don't know based on... something.

Yep.

No, they're put back in the box to be checked again later - it might be that they will fit when we have a bigger picture, or it might be that they're from a different picture entirely, or it might be that they're pieces of dust that you've mistakenly thought are part of the picture, or it could be that you've presumed there is a piece to go somewhere, but actually there just isn't.

O.

Absolutely - Sriram's approach is to ignore the pieces we have already fitted into the jigsaw and decide, based on an evidence-free preconception what all the gaps 'must show'.

[Maeght]

There is a big picture, and we do not know just how much there is yet to discover about the reality we exist in.

We have some pieces derived from what we can discover with our physical senses, which is somewhat limited to what can be detected through our physical senses.  These pieces are materialistic in nature because of these limitations.

Then we have the mysteries of the human mind and its capability to contemplate that there may be aspects of reality beyond what can be detected by our physical senses.  In particular, our ability to contemplate such matters goes beyond what can be defined by material explanations alone.  We have a yearning, a desire to seek the truth behind our existence - a yearning which in itself is evidence that the human mind comprises more than the mere consequence of material reactions.  A yearning which is directed from the entity of conscious awareness which is you - not from the inevitable, unavoidable consequence of material reactions alone.  This yearning is evidenced by the many religious beliefs derived from our conscious awareness that there is more to reality than what we see.  Our human nature has a natural instinct to search for God - and there is just one religion which can claim to have encountered God as a living being on this earth.

Can't see that 'a yearning, a desire to seek the truth' is 'evidence that the human mind comprises more than the mere consequence of material reactions.'.

[torridon]

It depends. It need not change dramatically. If however, some pieces of the present picture need to be rearranged to fit in the additional pieces, it needs to be done. Like for example,  including Lamarckism, epigenetics and plasticity in evolution instead of the metaphoric natural selection and random variations.

There you go again, throwing out major pieces of the puzzle and proffering up some minor ones instead.  You will never get anywhere near the big picture thataway, airily dismissing natural selection as a mere metaphor when in fact it is one of the most solid, well evidenced insights in all of science.  All the other processes of evolution that you seem to value more are themselves products of descent with variation plus selection.  This is like trying to understand subduction or orogeny or earthquakes whilst denying plate tectonics which gives rise to the aforementioned in the first place.

[torridon]

There is a big picture, and we do not know just how much there is yet to discover about the reality we exist in.

We have some pieces derived from what we can discover with our physical senses, which is somewhat limited to what can be detected through our physical senses.  These pieces are materialistic in nature because of these limitations.

Then we have the mysteries of the human mind and its capability to contemplate that there may be aspects of reality beyond what can be detected by our physical senses.  In particular, our ability to contemplate such matters goes beyond what can be defined by material explanations alone.  We have a yearning, a desire to seek the truth behind our existence - a yearning which in itself is evidence that the human mind comprises more than the mere consequence of material reactions.  A yearning which is directed from the entity of conscious awareness which is you - not from the inevitable, unavoidable consequence of material reactions alone.  This yearning is evidenced by the many religious beliefs derived from our conscious awareness that there is more to reality than what we see.  Our human nature has a natural instinct to search for God - and there is just one religion which can claim to have encountered God as a living being on this earth.

As for 'yearning' I think there is a widespread yearning to not die and this goes a long way to explaining why religions that teach that we don't really die when we die remain popular even in this supposedly modern age. I put this down as a head game, one of many that we indulge, that we channel to help manage our existential angst.

[Sriram]

What is the big picture you people have created?  The big bang.... with no idea of what causes it in the first place. No idea of 95% of the matter in the universe. Dark Matter, Dark Energy....what are they....do they even exist?  QM and relativity don't add up.

Evolution....based largely on chance and random events. Inheritance is still not understood.  Technology ....yes... it has helped somewhat but also created many problems.

All very well....but what does it all add up to? Nothing. A vast universe with us on a tiny planet with no idea why we are here. Oh...I am not even supposed to raise that question...!

Human mind and consciousness...still a great mystery.  Death....no idea, except some silly definition about permanent cessation of vital functions... All morality decided by unreliable activists and cranky judges.

Important and personally relevant areas to humans such as NDE's, reincarnation research etc. brushed off as nonsense.

Where really are we?! What big picture?!

It is only when we understand consciousness and death will we really understand our lives in the right context. At that point the picture created so far by science will seem insignificant and unimportant.

 

[Alan Burns]

Can't see that 'a yearning, a desire to seek the truth' is 'evidence that the human mind comprises more than the mere consequence of material reactions.'.

And the material definition of  'a yearning, a desire to seek the truth' is .... ?

[Nearly Sane]

And the material definition of  'a yearning, a desire to seek the truth' is .... ?

What's a 'material definition'? What other type(s) of definition are there?

[ekim]

And the material definition of  'a yearning, a desire to seek the truth' is .... ?

A materialist might say that desires arise from the brain cortex and are based upon the attraction of pleasure and the avoidance of pain.  Whatever its origin, the fact that you have included 'yearning and desire' in your previous post surely contradicts your notion of 'free will'? i.e. your will is not free from desire.