FANDOM



POST:

if every human were to die tomorrow and lets say all conciousness vanish would the number 4 also disappear? Does the number 7 exist in actual reality or does it only exist because somebody knows about it.

chaos theory Edit

{{{ On Feb 12, 5:43 pm, Burkhard wrote: > Nothing. Good thing than that it is not a statement of science. I'm > still lost what exactly it is you are looking for.

> The way in which a fertilised egg grows into a human is not an issue > of evolutionary biology, but any standard biology textbook gives you > the picture.

Mathematical biology dealing with Chaos theory from Rene Thom and others actually view the way embrios expand into chickens as happening in some abstract topological partial differential equation space. Highly complex math first describes what happens in some abstract domain before the physical implementation takes place physically. There are specific reasons as to why embrios look differently at different stages of development due to where the heart, liver must be placed. In each case there is a complex mathematical algorithm that "guides" these steps. Rene Thom said that developmental biologists are trying to solve a problem they can't define.


> The cause and effect essentially are biochemical reactions at the cell level. A Japanese walking robot is implementing IPC using wires , actuators hydraulic fluid etc. A human implements IPC (subconsicously) using carbon(sort of this isn't some dogmatics statement, try and get the drift of my argument). The physical medium isn't the issue but the abstract idea that is behind the physical implementation, whether carbon or copper.

>You might e.g. observe that some of them have more hair > than others. The reason for this, in cause and effect terms, are the > biochemical reactions on cell level that form proteins. And you have electrical reactions in the Japanese walking robot, but the reactions isn't the algorithm, the algorithm is separate from either carbon, copper or hydrolics. Information is information it isn't matter nor energy. We are dealing with an information theoretic construct first and then only follows the physical. All things physical , all rocks , all atoms first existed in a powerful Mind before it existed in reality.


}}}

lasjkdf Edit

{{{ On Feb 12, 8:15 am, "David Hare-Scott" <sec...@nospam.com> wrote: > Your prose has a strong resemblance to that of diagnosed schizophrenics of > my acquaintance. Is that your problem? It is possible because I am writing these posts as I am talking in tongues at the same time by the what I perceive to be the power of the Holy Spirit to the Lord Jesus. I could be crazy but 100% don't believe that I am . In a PHD dissertation at Wits university they found that tongue speakers in fact don't suffer from psycophatological disorders. 99% of tongue speakers though aren't speaking a language but engaging in alliteration via learned repetitive behavior.

Let me try and repost the IPC issue again: How does saying a chicken is adapted to its environment explain how the IPC(inverted pendulum control ) algorithm get transmitted from egg to chicken. The algorithm is like the number 4: neither here nor

there its existence is only in some conscious entities head.. 

Where exactly does this control algorithm reside for the chicken - in which Mind does it reside? If the algorithm resides in the blob of chemical in the egg, what does the transition matrix looks like that maps this algorithm into a clucking Chicken. This is was somewhat addressed in Botanical gazette 1909.

The neo-Empedoclians refuse to answer the question because it would sound way stupid to say that there was a Malthusian battle between two algorithms , the strong outwitted the bad you see! The strong algorithm become the IPC one , while the weak algorithm was discarded as per Malthus as interpreted by Darwin:

Darwin wrote: ".....MalThus 1838 - "...favourable variations would be ...preserved, and unfavourable ones ... destroyed. The result of this would be the formation of new species. Here, then, I had at last got a theory by which to work" (Charles Darwin, Autobio:120)............"


}}}


asdf Edit

{{{ On Feb 10, 9:36 am, "David Hare-Scott" <sec...@nospam.com> wrote: > > How does saying an animal is adapted to its environment help in > > explaining anything? > > There is no connection. There is no useful analogy. There is no analogy at > all.

You didn't asnwer the qeustion, let me reformulate it differently: How does saying a chicken is adapted to its environment explain how the IPC(inverted pendulum control ) algorithm get transmitted from egg to chicken. The algorithm is like the number 4 is neither here nor there, where exactly does this control algorithm reside for the chicken. The neo-Empedoclians refuse to answer the question because it would say way stupid to say that there was a Malthusian battle between two algorithms , the strong outwitted the bad you see!

Thus the question is ignored no matter how many times I ask it , my core concerns aren't addressed.

}}}


post 30 Edit

{{{

On Feb 10, 9:12 pm, "Kleuskes & Moos" <kleu...@xs4all.nl> wrote:
<snip not getting my point>

From H.Osborn's book "From the Greeks to Darwin" available at Gutenbergpress.com or org whatever.

=== p.245 ===
"...Remarkable as this parallelism 1 is, it is not com- plete. The line of argument is the same, but the point d'appui is different. Darwin dwells upon variations in single characters, as taken hold of by
Selection ; Wallace mentions variations, but dwells upon full-formed varieties, as favourably or unfavour- ably adapted. It is perfectly clear that with Darwin the struggle is so intense that the chance of
survival of each individual turns upon a single and even slight variation. With Wallace, Varieties are already presupposed by causes which he does not discuss, a change in the environment occurs, and those varieties which happen to be adapted to it survive. There is really a wide gap between these two statements and applications of the theory. ...."

"....With Wallace, Varieties are already presupposed by causes which he does not discuss, a change in the environment occurs, and those varieties which happen to be adapted to it survive...."

"... a change in the environment occurs, and those varieties which happen to be adapted to it survive...."

rephrase: 
"...... those varieties which are adapted to their condition of existence survive...."

The sentence is an obvious tautology, the fact that the varieties are in a condition of existence implies they are alive otherwise they wouldn't have existed now would they? 

}}}


asdf Edit

http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_frm/thread/d5724a415b1845b6/5bc7412a2691003a#5bc7412a2691003a

On Feb 8, 11:50 pm, "David Hare-Scott" <sec...@nospam.com> wrote:

> In fact SQL is deliberately intended to be independent of its > environment, for the environment to have no effect on it and it to have no > effect on its environment..

SQL is the coda or semantics that conveys the idea of a master/slave database relationship or dictionary key:value pairs in Python. By saying SQL, signal sender and signal receiver understand a set of algorithms that achieves key:value iteration or database mapping. That's the concept , saying that "..SQL is intended to be independent of its condition of existence...." is just as meaningless as http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colorless_green_ideas_sleep_furiously and "...SQL is adapted to its condition of existence..." Your sentence is grammatically correct though.

SQL as isn't separate, independent or adapted to anything. You can't be adapted or independent from your condition of existence because your "existence" is who you are. Cheese isn't "adapted" to being cheese, cheese condition of existence or environment is defined by its attributes (soft, tasty , yellow etc.)

http://download.oracle.com/docs/cd/B14117_01/appdev.101/b10807/13_elems011.htm "...A cursor variable declared in a PL/SQL host environment and passed to PL/SQL as a bind variable. The datatype of the host cursor variable is compatible with the return type of any PL/SQL cursor variable. Host variables must be prefixed with a colon......"

Explain how saying "....SQL is either adapted, independent,separate , linked or in love with its condition of existence......" relates to the Pragmatics of the above SQL tutorial. ?


kjhk Edit

{{{ On Feb 9, 10:56 pm, "David Hare-Scott" <sec...@nospam.com> wrote: > > Explain how saying "....SQL is either adapted, independent,separate , > > linked or in love with its condition of existence......" relates to > > the Pragmatics of the above SQL tutorial. ? > > I cannot explain the inexplicable. The above it totally sense free and can > neither be affirmed nor denied.

When we say "Select * from table1" that has a specific understood meaning in the SQL environment or condition of existence by people familiar with SQL script. In other words you a signal sender and me as receiver both have an idea as to how this relates to selecting data from a table. The term "Select * from table1" reflects a condition of existence in somebodies mind.

My point is that in any reference frame any concept can be phrased such that it superficially sounds meaningful but in actual fact is just as meaningless as "Julio cranks his wooden cheese". Chomsky is providing extreme cases to make his point, trying to show that at more mundane subtle level, terms and phrases are being used which makes no sense.

Thus I ask what possible meanings do you think could the sentences below have in terms of the goal of database design between two developers setting up a product list for a client. In what way does it increase their capacity of SQL proficiency.

"....SQL is either adapted, independent,separate , linked or in love with its condition of existence......" rephrase: "....SQL is either adapted or independent of its condition of existence......" or "....SQL is adapted to its condition of existence......" or "....SQL is independent of its condition of existence......" or "....SQL is adapted to its environment......"

How does saying an animal is adapted to its environment help in explaining anything? }}}


sdf Edit

{{{ On Feb 9, 10:56 pm, "David Hare-Scott" <sec...@nospam.com> wrote: > > SQL as isn't separate, independent or adapted to anything. You can't > > be adapted or independent from your condition of existence because > > your "existence" is who you are. Cheese isn't "adapted" to being > > cheese, cheese condition of existence or environment is defined by its > > attributes (soft, tasty , yellow etc.)

> This is mostly metaphysical mumbo jumbo. SQL is and was designed to be > independent of its environment. In a specific sense yes just like a Python code running in a Windows environment achieves the same result as a Linux environment. The code is thus independent of its environment. I understand this, the problem is that I can't really convey what I am trying to say using just one word "environment".

What multiple senses and interpretation could one think of the sentences below: 1) "Select * from table1" is adapted to its environment or 2) "Select * from table1" is independent of its environment.

"....The code is thus independent of its environment...." makes sense in one context but in another could be meaningless. }}}



asdf Edit

http://www.docstoc.com/docs/DownloadDoc.aspx?doc_id=19966760 Cambridge University press

"....Viewing evolution as change in gene frequency can produce reasonable results in terms of producing an FF&F(Fit of form and function (FF&F). For example, consider the case where the fitness conferred by a gene on an individual is density independent (independent of the population size) and frequency independent (independent of gene frequencies).

In this case, the gene dynamics favor the genes that confer the highest per capita rate of growth on the population. In the situation where the fitness conferred by a gene is density dependent and frequency independent, then gene dynamics favors genes that maximize the population’s size. In both of these cases the gene dynamics favors survival of the fittest if fitness is defined either as population growth rate or population size. However, as soon as evolution is frequency dependent, that is the fitness conferred by a gene on an individual is influenced by the frequencies of other genes in the population, then the linkage between the consequence of natural selection operating on genes and some corresponding measure of fitness at the population level disappears. The endpoint of the gene dynamics no longer optimizes any obvious measure of ecological success...."

"....In both of these cases the gene dynamics favors survival of the fittest if fitness is defined either as population growth rate or population size...."

Which is meaningless, lets rephrase:

"....In both of these cases the gene as a cybernetic algorithmic processing abstraction favors survival of the fittest if fitness is defined either as population growth rate or population size...."

Suitability(what Darwin meant with fitness) isn't defined as growth rates of anything, it is context dependent subjective contrast between two or multiple states, that can't be measured on a scale like magnetic flux is measured in Gauss units. If magnetic flux is measured in Gauss would suitability then be measured in "naturals"?


"....the fitness conferred by a gene on an individual is density independent and frequency independent...." replace fitness with "suitability" "....the suitability conferred by a gene on an individual is ... frequency independent...." replace fitness with "color" "....the color conferred by a gene on an individual is ... frequency independent...."

Your skin color back in the 1800s on a scale of "suitability" would obviously be white in a white dominated world where white people decided who becomes slaves and who not.

"....In both of these cases the gene dynamics favors survival of the fittest if fitness is defined either as population growth rate or population size...."

replace fitness with "white" and rephrase: "....In both of these cases the gene dynamics favors survival of the whitest if fitness is defined either as population growth rate or population size...."

Ad blocker interference detected!


Wikia is a free-to-use site that makes money from advertising. We have a modified experience for viewers using ad blockers

Wikia is not accessible if you’ve made further modifications. Remove the custom ad blocker rule(s) and the page will load as expected.