Paleo Diet: Raw Paleo Diet and Lifestyle Forum
Raw Paleo Diet Forums => General Discussion => Topic started by: PaleoPhil on February 05, 2010, 11:46:32 am
-
You know when the food companies get wind of the concept of ancestral/Paleo diets they're going to spend millions trying to counter the concept. I'm guessing that rapid evolution may end up being one of their major counterpoints (after the nasty, brutish and short, aka lifespan, argument and other common points). They'll probably fund scientists to argue that people have adapted to agrarian foods. Here's the sort of thing they may point to:
"The 10,000 Year Explosion: How Civilization Accelerated Human Evolution."
Posted on: January 26, 2009 8:53 AM, by Razib Khan
http://scienceblogs.com/gnxp/2009/01/the_10000_year_explosion_how_c.php
-
We are the laggards, we got left behind, paleo ancestors genes expressed on me and my family. (my father's side, his mother)
My children inherited a lot from me as well.
-
I shouldn't worry, it's a very poor argument. Current studies show practically minimal difference between us and our palaeo ancestors(something like 0.05% or less). The trend seems to be going in favour of increasing complexity of tools rather than the evolution of humans, which means there might be a chance of AIs evolving to go past human abilities/IQ. Granted, it might be possible to genetically modify humans so that they all get photographic memory, savant-like abilities re maths etc. but there's a limit to that for any organic sentient species, for obvious reasons.
-
Actually, we do not need evolutionary arguments to back up RPD...
We have just to acknowledge that neolithic cooked food is definitely toxic when ingested over an extended period for all animals including man and will remain so whatever future evolution might be. There are very serious reasons to believe that it is merely not possible to adapt to such food to the same degree we adapted to raw paleo food.
The "rapid evolution" of man during the past 10000 years is a cultural rather than biological evolution.
-
Exactly, And PP's mention of the giant panda's inability to handle its bamboo diet even after millions of years shows that one cannot guarantee dietary adaptation even to raw foods over hundreds of thousands of years, let alone cooked foods. And since cooked foods are so completely different from the raw diets animals have had over hundreds of millions of years, it's arguable we can never adapt to them properly.
-
Current studies show practically minimal difference between us and our palaeo ancestors(something like 0.05% or less).
What measurement of difference do you refer to? By some, the difference between us and certain vegetable matter is little more than that...
-
What measurement of difference do you refer to? By some, the difference between us and certain vegetable matter is little more than that...
I'm talking about genetic difference, of course. And there's a rather bigger difference between us and plants. I seem to recall that we share 40% of our genes with bananas for example but that is not remotely comparable to a 0.05 % difference.
-
Some articles say we are hybrid humans - part human, part bacteria. Others say our genome turned out to mostly be viruses which hacked their way into humans. Not sure how the constant mixture of viruses into humans affects us genetically. We may look like humans of 10,000 years ago, but the non-human portion of us could be entirely different.
The human great leap forward 50,000 years ago, means aliens probably re-engineered us anyway.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Behavioral_modernity
well it's a thought anyway, if anyone needs a laugh!
-
Exactly, And PP's mention of the giant panda's inability to handle its bamboo diet even after millions of years shows that one cannot guarantee dietary adaptation even to raw foods over hundreds of thousands of years, let alone cooked foods. And since cooked foods are so completely different from the raw diets animals have had over hundreds of millions of years, it's arguable we can never adapt to them properly.
Yes, as in the giant panda example, if it was going to fully adapt so that it's diet would be optimal in the long term (beyond reproductive age), I think it would have done so by now.
-
Some articles say we are hybrid humans - part human, part bacteria. Others say our genome turned out to mostly be viruses which hacked their way into humans. Not sure how the constant mixture of viruses into humans affects us genetically. We may look like humans of 10,000 years ago, but the non-human portion of us could be entirely different.
The human great leap forward 50,000 years ago, means aliens probably re-engineered us anyway.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Behavioral_modernity
well it's a thought anyway, if anyone needs a laugh!
Surprisingly more archaelogical evidence supports xeno or extra origin, such as asteroid or meterological, or xeno intervention, then evolution, evolution just another flawed nazi theory in modern science bleh
-
Surprisingly more archaelogical evidence supports xeno or extra origin, such as asteroid or meterological, or xeno intervention, then evolution, evolution just another flawed nazi theory in modern science bleh
I believe the various large structures in Peru, as well as the Great Pyramid, were constructed by visitors ancient humans considered to be Gods. When Capt Cook first went to Hawaii, he was mistaken for a God and treated well. When he went back, he went at the wrong time of the year to be their God, so he was murdered.
I feel current theory of evolution has large gaps.
-
I believe the various large structures in Peru, as well as the Great Pyramid, were constructed by visitors ancient humans considered to be Gods. When Capt Cook first went to Hawaii, he was mistaken for a God and treated well. When he went back, he went at the wrong time of the year to be their God, so he was murdered.
I feel current theory of evolution has large gaps.
And how exactly would they know to consider capt cook as a god in the first place? Their gods mustve had similar technology
The fact they killed him speaks volumes, the wrong time of year obvious historic nonsense
The fact they had little to no technology, suggests most primitive tribes around the world, must've been highly indentured slaves, or heavily isolated
The large populations of primitive tribes, seems to negate heavily isolated
-
Just a wild guess, but I'm thinking that if advocates of ancestral diets respond to claims of extremely rapid biological adaptation to modern foods with claims of xeno origins, godlike visitors building pyramids, and biological evolution as a "nazi theory," that it will undercut, rather than buttress, their credibility.
-
Just a wild guess, but I'm thinking that if advocates of ancestral diets respond to claims of extremely rapid biological adaptation to modern foods with claims of xeno origins, godlike visitors building pyramids, and biological evolution as a "nazi theory," that it will undercut, rather than buttress, their credibility.
lol since when has the truth ever had credibility ....
Credibility is simply a belief system of convenience, unfortunately for some of us that convenience comes at too high a price, i suggest you question the price you pay for your credibility
& the destructive nature of the adherence to mainstream culture
An open mind is crucial in forums like this, as we are truly on the fringe of society, what is the point of following nature in our diets, but still follow the same cultures & science which brought us our toxic modern cooked food diets, in the first place?
Why should we follow a diet in nature, & not apply the truth of that nature to the rest of our lives?
Surely healing the body, leads to seeing the world as truthfully as possible, even if it means stepping outside of the norm? By applying a raw diet, havent we already proved modern science wrong, & made the first step?
-
Open-mindedness is good, but so are questioning, skepticism, critical thinking and putting hypotheses to the test.
-
Open-mindedness is good, but so are questioning, skepticism, critical thinking and putting hypotheses to the test.
Not when they're grounded in reductionism & its religion modern science & it's enforcer modern society
-
Not when they're grounded in reductionism...
Correct, which is why I avoid reductionism. It's also important to not engage in the error of credulity.
-
Correct, which is why I avoid reductionism.
Kwl, you also have to realise a persons imagination & sense of fiction will always be greater then any truth, as our definitions of truth & methods of physical & spiritual enquiry are steeped in reductionism
Our ability to tap into a sense of fiction is crucial as,
A persons imagination will always surpass any truth, or fact, as it is all encompassing & infinite
By not stepping outside of the gentrification & coloured lenses of the sciences, you cant step outside of the self & see the world around you as it is in its entirity, without an infinite & inquisitive imagination & sense of fiction,
to push you past the current status quo, alternative views & theories, are simply a step in that direction, feed your sense of fiction & allow your mind to experience the fantastic
Everything has a grain of truth, your mind & imagination simply surpasses the need for truth, your ability to create your own reality & theories is alot more useful
-
Fiction and imagination is cool as long as it's not presented as fact. My concept of science is just a tool, not a religion or world. Science as religion is not science to me. Of course, like any tool, science can be used for both good or ill and the very fact of using it effects how we look at things and outcomes, but I find it to be a useful tool. If you prefer not to use science at all it will be difficult for us to communicate on matters of nutrition, health, biology, anthropology, etc.
Everything has a grain of truth,
Do lies and errors have a grain of truth?
...your mind & imagination simply surpasses the need for truth, your ability to create your own reality & theories is alot more useful
Your imagined reality may be useful to you, but it may not necessarily be useful to me. Imagined hypotheses are part of science, except that unlike in dreamworld we put them to the test using criteria we can agree on.
-
Fiction and imagination is cool as long as it's not presented as fact. My concept of science is just a tool, not a religion or world. Science as religion is not science to me. Of course, like any tool, science can be used for both good or ill and the very fact of using it effects how we look at things and outcomes, but I find it to be a useful tool. If you prefer not to use science at all it will be difficult for us to communicate on matters of nutrition, health, biology, anthropology, etc.
Do lies and errors have a grain of truth?
Your imagined reality may be useful to you, but it may not necessarily be useful to me. Imagined hypotheses are part of science, except that unlike in dreamworld we put them to the test using criteria we can agree on.
Yes, all lies & errors have a grain of truth, also lies & errors can actually surpass the truth, & are actually even more useful, as theyre infinite, the truth is a limited instance, a fixed point
Truth is the basic unit or foundation of reductivism, or to deduce
lol why the hell would you want to test something infinite?
Reality isnt real, why would you want to test it?
Reality is simply a agree'd on set of units, like mathematics, an agree'd upon mass hypnosis, where we agree to walk into walls & count atoms
Reality is simply a way of displacing our perception of reality, into units of time & distance & finitism in the form of reductionism
-
"Science" is often just another religion. We are told nonsense by respected scientists, what we know to be false - such as, meat is bad for us, saturated fat is bad, fluoridated water is good. Global warming is unproven speculation promoted as "science".
Part of evolution is true, but this does not mean all the derivative speculation regarding evolution is true. We know Neanderthals share the same key gene for speech "modern humans" do, but then we also are told there are no shared genes, even though only a small portion of the Neanderthal genome has been mapped. Maybe we evolved from primitive primates who ate termites, and learned to scavenge bones. Or maybe not.
We do not know how the universe started, we do not understand time, we do not understand life, soul, conciousness. "Science" does not have all the answers.
-
"Science" is often just another religion. We are told nonsense by respected scientists, what we know to be false - such as, meat is bad for us, saturated fat is bad, fluoridated water is good. Global warming is unproven speculation promoted as "science".
Part of evolution is true, but this does not mean all the derivative speculation regarding evolution is true. We know Neanderthals share the same key gene for speech "modern humans" do, but then we also are told there are no shared genes, even though only a small portion of the Neanderthal genome has been mapped. Maybe we evolved from primitive primates who ate termites, and learned to scavenge bones. Or maybe not.
We do not know how the universe started, we do not understand time, we do not understand life, soul, conciousness. "Science" does not have all the answers.
Precisely, science will never have the answers as nature, is infinite, you cant reduce it to science, or atoms
-
"Science" is often just another religion. ...
Yes, and when it is just another religion it is not true science, which is why I specified that I use science as a tool, not as a religion.
We do not know how the universe started, we do not understand time, we do not understand life, soul, conciousness. "Science" does not have all the answers.
Science will never have all the answers and any so-called scientist who thinks the purpose of science is to provide all the answers is engaging in religion, as Matt mentioned above, not science. Science is a practical tool, not a magical provider of perfect, final answers to all questions. Science is more about questions than answers. Nothing really provides all the answers, though advocates sometimes claim that their religions do.
-
Yes, and when it is just another religion it is not true science, which is why I specified that I use science as a tool, not as a religion.
Science will never have all the answers and any so-called scientist who thinks the purpose of science is to provide all the answers is engaging in religion, as Matt mentioned above, not science. Science is a practical tool, not a magical provider of perfect, final answers to all questions. Science is more about questions than answers. Nothing really provides all the answers, though advocates sometimes claim that their religions do.
This is the thing, how can you use science as a tool, if it's basic premise is reductionism, which is basically institutionilised atheism, the dullest form of religion known to man, at least the hindu's get to have great sex, & the zionists smite everyone lol
-
Yes, all lies & errors have a grain of truth, also lies & errors can actually surpass the truth, & are actually even more useful, as theyre infinite, the truth is a limited instance, a fixed point
Truth is the basic unit or foundation of reductivism, or to deduce
lol why the hell would you want to test something infinite?
Reality isnt real, why would you want to test it? ....
So lies are infinite and contain truth, whereas truth is the foundation of reductionist error and reality isn't real? Why is George Orwell's 1984 coming to mind right now?
Your credibility with me just went down another several notches, and it wasn't mainstream culture that caused it to go down.
This is the thing, how can you use science as a tool, if it's basic premise is reductionism....
Because my type of science does not involve reductionism. There have been and are scientists and philosophers of science who argued against reductionism and for holistic, pragmatic science, such as W. V. O. Quine (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two_Dogmas_of_Empiricism#Quine.27s_holism). Others in this forum have also promoted non-reductionist science.
-
IMHO the word science refers to the exercise of the mind in a way that intends to show truth previously unseen; and of course it can also be used by the corrupt to lie. (after the Greek psy, meaning mind)
It is an act of creation, and a story about Werner Heisenberg who had a choice between becoming a painter or sculptor, or instead a physicist illustrates that - much the same thing to him. So he created that spendid story called the Uncertainty Theorem. (and there's Schrödinger's Cat - I love that story)
Those who created the scam called manmade global warming are not scientists, though they have university degrees, they are merely lying conspirators, as revealed in the hacked emails.
-
So lies are infinite and contain truth, whereas truth is the foundation of reductionist error and reality isn't real? Why is George Orwell's 1984 coming to mind right now?
Your credibility with me just went down another several notches, and it wasn't mainstream culture that caused it to go down.
Because my type of science does not involve reductionism. There have been and are scientists and philosophers of science who argued against reductionism and for holistic, pragmatic science, such as W. V. O. Quine (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two_Dogmas_of_Empiricism#Quine.27s_holism). Others in this forum have also promoted non-reductionist science.
lol stick to your limited state of reality, your credibility went down as soon as you got scared of alternative views, from scaring away the mass sheeple
You obviously havent got a clue about holism, holism is not a science, regardless of how many scientists say it is so
Science in any form, is easily the lowest form of philosophy on the planet
Real philosophy, distances itself from stupidity such as truth and lies, & a beginning & an end
Your own post shows you have no clue, regards real philosophy & how the real world works
Stick to your limited perception of the world, & one of the lowest common forms of enquiry, you're obviously going places ....
-
This is the thing, how can you use science as a tool, if it's basic premise is reductionism
Plain wrong. You don't know what you talk about, a usual.
Please read for instance Bob Laughlin's (Nobel Price of Physics) book "A different universe, the physics from the bottom down" before you post such nonsense.
-
okay guys... can we get back on topic?
-
http://www.rawpaleoforum.com/general-discussion/rapid-evolution-counterargument-against-rpd/20/
OK, GS, I didn't mind the tangent myself too much, because the philosophy of science is one of my subjects of interest and it relates somewhat to the topic, but I will try to bring it back more directly to the topic. So, basically, I interpret many of the above posts as suggesting that the best response to a rapid-evolution-adaptation theory of diet argument against RPD would be to claim that the model of biological evolution is completely wrong, and some seem to suggest that science itself may be a worthless tool--at least as it's generally practiced. If I've got either wrong, let me know.
Tyler's alternative suggestion was to show that the evidence doesn't support rapid biological adaptation to extremely new diets, and I think that's the route that would be more productive. Claiming that evolution is nonsense will not be taken seriously and will just work to get the RPD/Paleo diet defender laughed at, and rightfully so, IMHO--especially since there would be rich irony given that the formulator of the theory of Paleolithic nutrition (Eaton) based it on biological evolution [note: that doesn't mean that I think that one must accept the evolutionary model to benefit from a Paleo-type diet, of course, and it can also be defended from a Creator-made-diet perspective].
I can imagine the critics of Paleo arguing that rapid adaption to drastically new diets can occur during critical points when drastic environmental change in available foods leads to bottlenecks (drastic reduction to relatively small numbers of surviving members of a species), such as the time of the genesis of our own species of H. sapiens, for instance. In addition to Tyler's point on relative genetic stasis since before the Neolithic revolution, I think that the bottleneck point can be refuted by pointing out that there was no severe bottleneck at the time of the Neolithic revolution and artificial human intervention was more of a key factor than environmental change in the natural wild foods available. Also, the research on the diseases of civilization and the effects on human metabolic and immune function of modern foods clearly shows that we have not adapted to them.
...you got scared of alternative views, from scaring away the mass sheeple ....
I suspect that you write some of the extreme things you do just to stir the pot and entertain yourself with the results. To claim that anyone here is "scared of alternative views" is laughable, for all of us on RPD-type diets have already accepted an extremely controversial alternative view. The best response to critiques of RPD is not, however, to attack ALL consensus views and the tool of science itself. That will serve merely to confirm in the minds of our critics that we are crackpots.
I think I see in this thread examples of what may have led some of our critics to suggest that this forum tends towards magical thinking, Paleo re-enactment, so-called "orthorexia," etc., rather than critical thinking, rational inquiry, tinkering, rigorous holistic science, etc. In response to those criticisms I would argue that these anti-science posts are merely extreme examples that will be found in any open forum and I support not censoring them because they are not clearly trollish and this is supposed to be an open forum of amateurs, not a closed forum of professional scientists, so to hold us all to high scientific standards is unfair and not relevant to the forum's purpose. Also, novel and productive ideas can arise that at first seem crackpot (such as our own RPD and one advancement that was mentioned in this thread--bone tissue regeneration from bioelectromagnetic therapy). That said, I do think it is important to encourage critical thinking even among the masses. Also, Lex Rooker's dispassionate and data-filled posts alone are enough to justify the worth of this forum and I would point any critic who thinks we are merely magical thinkers to them.
You obviously havent got a clue about holism, holism is not a science, regardless of how many scientists say it is so
You're right that I don't have much of a clue about holism (and a lot of other things). I'm merely an eager student. Alphagruis seems a much finer exponent of it and I encourage him to write more about it to educate both you and me, if you do not feel yourself omnisciently beyond learning anything.
-
the whole point of science is to conduct experiments repeatedly with the same exact factors and to "know "the outcome...it become reductionary in that to assume we can replicate the exact same factors each time is an assumption that in the chaos of the universe it is always possible for the same exact thing to happen, which, if there are infinite possibilities then yes, it may occur the same, and we may come very close to replicating the same situation as humans, but "nature" in its process is the only thing that can do this replication(cells..etc) extremely similar each time, and although we think we can control this, study this, divide this, abstract this we are still at natures whim as to how well we can control her processes through experimentation
the more we look into it the smaller components of even our own bodies, we will never be able to derive from our earth senses of ,sight, sound, counting, how exactly they begin a process, how they have the "instinct" to form, combine, etc.... their dependence on things that we do not know becomes apparent....
even in an experiment is conducted 1000 times and the outcome is the same, the infinite properties of the universe still scoff at our minuscule efforts and our lazy attitude that this was enough times and is now "known" as the result and that the same thing applies to each perfect and measured situation that these perfect and measured situations always occur, it also scoffs at our youth and the agrandization of our own "lifespan" and sense of time...that we can understand common occurences on the earth enough to predict what patterns occur in this small amount of time on the planet suggests that the universe its self is a pattern and that we can delve smaller and smaller into particles here on the earth, and also further and further beyond into the universe suggests that it is ever expansive!
we can also research the past, compare it to the present, but will never fully know or understand, that is why science is theories not facts and facts in fact do not exist! the best we can do is observe the natural processes as they go along in harmony with the universe...these observations are much better than any "knowledge" derived in a laboratory...
roony communicated something very expansive to me that to "know" you must "unknow the known" become familiar and comfortable with the unknown, and realize that when we decide we "know" something we are assuming that the universe is finite and that we are at all capable in its contemplation with our earth senses....instinct and sentience on the other hand seem more closely related to the energies and conduct of the rest of the universe......if you know the unknown you already know you dont!!!!!!!!!!!!! haha! that is the closest you can come ....
its like the Tao(which i have nto read)
-
Jessica, there is much you wrote that I agree with. I think my idea of science and philosophy actually comes close to Taoism and your descriptions, although I also don't know a lot about Taoism (and I'm hoping to learn more about it, as I have become increasingly interested in it in recent months).
The whole point of real science is not reductionism or to "know" all the final answers to all questions. Real science is more about Taoist questioning, observing, tinkering, trial-and-error, exploring, investigating and learning than it is about absolute final answers. If we knew all the absolutely perfect answers to all questions and there was nothing more to learn, what would we need scientists for? I think the confusion that's sometimes occurring in this thread is due to the conflation of science-as-commonly-practiced with real science. As I understand it, the Taoist doesn't say that Taoism is worthless because it doesn't give him/her final answers to questions. He says the questions have their own value and it's the process of questioning, seeking, learning that is the real joy of life.
The criticism of science for not providing all the answers is a red herring. Can you name anything that provides all the answers? Does even the greatest saint or guru alive today have all the answers? No one will ever have all the answers in this lifetime using any tool, whether it be science, philosophy, religion, theogenic mushrooms or whatever. They may acquire all the answers they feel they need, but never literally all of the answers.
IMHO, Roony's posts in this thread bear more resemblance to anti-science than real science, whereas your post comes close to my own conception of real science. I do like some of his Taoist-sorts of bits but he at times has gone too far here into trashing science in general and making points that are more mere absurdity than Taoist. That said, I do find some absurdities to be stimulating, much like the cheshire cat or caterpillar in Alice's Adventures in Wonderland. Absurdities can unlock creativity in us and perhaps even inspire new scientific hypotheses. As a matter of fact, I thank Roony for stimulating and crystallizing some thoughts of my own on a topic I enjoy. However, even creativity-inspiring absurdities should not be mistaken for the totality of real science. Of course, I could be wrong.
There's also the matter of simple practicality. Experience and common awareness suggest that condemning biological evolution and all science in response to critiques of Paleo/RPD simply will not work, no matter how true the condemnations may be.
It's understandable that people would become frustrated with all science given the way that it tends to be practiced today. This thread underscores the great need for more expounding in this forum on real science. I hope Alphagruis will grace us with some more meaty tidbits about it.
-
There's also the matter of simple practicality. Experience and common awareness suggest that condemning biological evolution and all science in response to critiques of Paleo/RPD simply will not work, no matter how true the condemnations may be.
Biological evolution would be practical if I could use it to understand paleofood, but it negates paleofood.
For instance, if we have evolved to eat something other than what our ancestors ate, why are we trying to eat like them?
-
Biological evolution would be practical if I could use it to understand paleofood, but it negates paleofood.
For instance, if we have evolved to eat something other than what our ancestors ate, why are we trying to eat like them?
Because adaptation to new foods takes much longer than a mere 10,000 years for a body to evolve to. Palaeolithic diets are inextricably intertwined with evolution, so it's pointless to even dispute it as arguing against evolution by definition runs counter to every palaeo notion re adaptation or maladaptation to diets.
-
It's understandable that people would become frustrated with all science given the way that it tends to be practiced today. This thread underscores the great need for more expounding in this forum on real science. I hope Alphagruis will grace us with some more meaty tidbits about it.
I'm rather amused when I read some posts with outrageous nonsense claims about science such as the ones posted by some pretentious idiots like roony (the summum of idiocy was reached with his claims about water as an energy source in an other thread). It is quite funny to observe that such idiots post their ridiculous statements by means of a computer and internet and probably travel with cars and airplanes equipped with numerous devices such as the GPS, all this based precisely on the most advanced science (quantum mechanics, thermodynamics and statistical mechanics, relativity etc) they bash and vomit their gall on all along their numerous posts. This kind of messages does not deserve serious comments and I've got many other more interesting things to do.
Of course science must be criticised as every other human activity and even much more so since it has such a tremendous influence on our lives. I like your posts, Phil, or Jessica's as well as William's and others when they sincerely question what "science" tells us but avoid the sterile but highly attractive pittfall or tendency to reject science as a whole .
As far as I know science remains yet the only method of investigation that clearly works in our attempt to better understand nature and the world we live in.
Yet it's a trial and error method that cannot provide all the ansvers immediately. Nor can it provide any definitive absolute truth. It rather more often indicates what's certainly not an ansver or what's certainly wrong.
Biology is certainly the less mature science because it deals with the most complex systems, we know of. Most biologists now know that the central molecular biology dogma or genetic reductionism is wrong but this does not mean that we haven't meanwhile learned a tremendous amount of things in this framework and that a non reductionist or emergentist and more appropriate theory is not available. It just takes a long time to switch to this new paradigm. And this uncomfortable situation by itself is not yet junk science. Junk science is done when the failure of genetic reductionism is consciously denied by greedy people as in genetic engeneering or many standard medical applications.
To take just an example of what positive effect modern science such as quantum mechanics or statistical thermodynamics has brought about with respect to raw paleo let's consider the raw versus cooked issue. The adverse effects of cooking can only be understood theoretically in terms of molecules and their behaviour upon heating and this is precisely the subject of quantum mechanics and statistical mechanics, i.e. achievements of the 20th century. No way to find out why cooking might well generate toxins with 19th century science.
As to the paleo concept support let me emphasize once more as in my previous post in this thread that we do not even need a specific theory of evolution or even evolution or the gene concept or whatever, we just need to acknowledge that animals or humans cannot a priori adapt to everything, in particular to any arbitrary diet, irrespective of how long they try to do so. A very reasonable and likely assumption, actually.
-
Because adaptation to new foods takes much longer than a mere 10,000 years for a body to evolve to. Palaeolithic diets are inextricably intertwined with evolution, so it's pointless to even dispute it as arguing against evolution by definition runs counter to every palaeo notion re adaptation or maladaptation to diets.
There's plenty of arguments against evolution
The primary one being it's a THEORY, even so called evolutionists admit that
Stop treating theories as science, all you can do is point out evidence MAY coincide, evolution like ALL other theories, are simply works of fiction
Also we've had non reductionist or emergentist, science for CENTURIES, bechamp, naessens etc., it's only people like alphagrius who cant get their heads out the sand they call science to see them, or explore them
Get your heads out of science & stop making excuses for your dogma
-
What do you mean they 'admit it's a theory'? That's what it's called: 'The Theory of Evolution'. Nothing in science can progress beyond theory. It can only remain the most plausible theory until advancements are made which either disprove it, or increase it's strength. It can become a stronger and stronger theory, as more and more evidence backs it up, and counter-arguments collapse. No one is arguing that it is any more than a theory...
The religions were theories. People looked at the world, and postulated that it could be created by a greater power. They took things they saw as evidence of this power to back it up. People became emotionally attached to it, and others used it to control them; and those with the control would try to quash counter-theories.
A theory can be used to understand what's going on. You can use the theory of evolution to that effect. You could say the same about your sight. Is what you see, really what's there? Not necessarily. But it works. You picture things in their different colours, at their different distances. There are probably a load of other ways you could see them, but you are able to use your vision to understand it. Most theories work, and lead to advances in understanding, as they link with more other theories. When they're advances the old theories aren't usually wrong completely, they were just more simple versions.
The human cell is a good example as with each new microscope with more power comes along, they can see more, and their theory progresses. Their last theory wasn't wrong. A colour blind person doesn't see the world wrongly. Their view of the world isn't wrong. It's just different, as they receive different information, and have to form different ways of understanding what they see. They connection, or theories still help understanding, similar to how creating stories can help people remember number sequences.
-
Great, do you really want me to explain the difference between, theory such as string theory & experimentally provable science, such as chemistry?
-
Well the job of theories such as String-theory, are to give us a focus. We can look at these theories and aim to create ways of testing them. Even when we could test them, it'd be a long time before we'd be able to use that knowledge for anything practical... But it gives scientists somewhere to go.
Or what?
-
Well the job of theories such as String-theory, are to give us a focus. We can look at these theories and aim to create ways of testing them. Even when we could test them, it'd be a long time before we'd be able to use that knowledge for anything practical... But it gives scientists somewhere to go.
Or what?
A theory is a fictional, hypothetical model
Real sciences like chemistry & physics, are verifiable by experiment in the laboratory
-
A theory is a fictional, hypothetical model
Real sciences like chemistry & physics, are verifiable by experiment in the laboratory
A fictional, hypothetical model is called a hypothesis, not a theory.
Smarten up, guys. You are spinning your wheels.
-
A fictional, hypothetical model is called a hypothesis, not a theory.
Smarten up, guys. You are spinning your wheels.
I think you went & confused miles, even more lol, poor thing ... lol
-
wtf... It's you who is confused, Roony...
-
I'm rather amused when I read some posts with outrageous nonsense claims about science ...
Ah, well, if entheogenic mushrooms can inspire creativity with random hallucinations, I suppose I should look at absurdities as potential creativity boosters. I'll try to think of Roony as our hookah-mushroom-smoking caterpillar dude.
I like your posts, Phil, or Jessica's as well as William's and others when they sincerely question what "science" tells us but avoid the sterile but highly attractive pittfall or tendency to reject science as a whole .
Thanks! I enjoy your posts very much also.
As far as I know science remains yet the only method of investigation that clearly works in our attempt to better understand nature and the world we live in.
Or at least the best one we currently have. I try as an amateur to use a basic version of the scientist's toolkit. I like it because to a certain extent it works, not because it's perfect (which it isn't).
Biology is certainly the less mature science because it deals with the most complex systems,
Correct, the more complex and chaotic and less discrete the system, the more difficult it is to do good science and the easier it is too fall prey to the temptations of seeking the answers you want, making the results fit your hypothesis, cherry picking the data, seeing what you want to see, fooling people with false results, etc.
we know of. Most biologists now know that the central molecular biology dogma or genetic reductionism is wrong but this does not mean that we haven't meanwhile learned a tremendous amount of things in this framework and that a non reductionist or emergentist and more appropriate theory is not available.
Yes, mapping the genome of several species doesn't seem to have produced the sort of rapid and numerous breakthroughs that some people expected, but I wasn't surprised. Having all the details helps some, but it still doesn't give you the totality of the complex big picture.
To take just an example of what positive effect modern science such as quantum mechanics or statistical thermodynamics has brought about with respect to raw paleo let's consider the raw versus cooked issue. The adverse effects of cooking can only be understood theoretically in terms of molecules and their behaviour upon heating and this is precisely the subject of quantum mechanics and statistical mechanics, i.e. achievements of the 20th century. No way to find out why cooking might well generate toxins with 19th century science.
Yes, cooking introduces new chaotic variables into organic systems. These organic systems (like food and the human body) are too complex for us to understand fully and we cannot know aforehand all the effects that introducing additional chaos into these systems will have--which is very risky. We are literally playing with fire.
I'm thinking that the work of Nassim Taleb (he's working on another book that will be more universal than his statistics-oriented Black Swan--I highly recommend The Black Swan and all of Dr. Taleb's articles and interviews--he's one of the revolutionaries in the world who really gets it), Mandelbrot and others on complex systems, chaos, unintended consequences, etc. may influence the scientists who already believe that cooking has some deleterious effects to question it even more.
As to the paleo concept support let me emphasize once more as in my previous post in this thread that we do not even need a specific theory of evolution or even evolution or the gene concept or whatever, we just need to acknowledge that animals or humans cannot a priori adapt to everything, in particular to any arbitrary diet, irrespective of how long they try to do so. A very reasonable and likely assumption, actually.
Brilliant. Dr. Taleb would like this, I believe. Taleb would say, I think, that all we really need is our own trial-and-error experience to figure out that modern foods have a negative effect on us. I would add that the Paleolithic nutrition/metabolism model saves us some time by giving us some clues as to what we should try. Nassim grudgingly acknowledged that theories do have some value, so I don't think he would mind. :)
-
There's plenty of arguments against evolution
The primary one being it's a THEORY, even so called evolutionists admit that
Evolution is not a theory. It's considered 'scientific fact'. You are most likely confused because there are theories which try to explain how evolution took place. Darwin's 'theory of evolution' isn't a theory that evolution took place, rather how it took place i.e. he suggests through natural selection.
-
"As far as I know science remains yet the only method of investigation that clearly works in our attempt to better understand nature and the world we live in."
i agree with this insofar as yes science is us trying to build a language to describe the patterns we see in the natural world...however, we have abused our knowledge and ability to recognize, derive, duplicate and manipulate natural processes to create this horrible society we live in. starting with the abuse of the science of agriculture, we continue to create systems that deny natures existence outside of serving our own purposes! this is not understanding or knowledge. this is an extremely understated and annotated version of the real truth and depth of this situation,
what scientists do not realize is that they will never truly understand any part of the natural world by analyzing, deriving, duplicating etc... perhaps we have overstepped our ability to ever exist with nature as was intended and that is why our species is committing this painful weird suicide or morphing into a new species....and in natures larger plan the earth has to change to create a new pattern of sentience for that new being to exist in....because true knowledge is existing instinctualy within the system as part of the function...because animals dont question, they know, because plants do not question, they know...its divine instinctual knowledge that we strive for but even to ask is to negate the point...
-
...we have abused our knowledge and ability to recognize, derive, duplicate and manipulate natural processes to create this horrible society we live in. starting with the abuse of the science of agriculture, we continue to create a systems that deny natures existence outside of serving our own purposes! this is not understanding or knowledge. ...
Yup, people are even hoping to become fancy robots with cyberbrains. There was another article about that yesterday, and they talked about it like it was a good thing. :o It's getting out of hand. It reminds me of the 1950s world's fair video where the mad scientists were predicting that humans would some day just take a pill instead of eating natural foods.
... perhaps we have overstepped our ability to ever exist with nature as was intended and that is why our species is committing this painful weird suicide....
You may be right. I think it's the Red Dwarf British TV series (and books based on it) in which the Earth turns out to be a garbage planet that other planets use to store their refuse. A fitting end. :D
The attitude seems to be, "That's all right, there's plenty of other planets where this one came from."
-
I accept there is evolution and natural selection. How humans developed is open for speculation. One author says humans ate raw fruit and damaged their/our brains when we started eating meat and cooking food. Others say eating meat is what led to the increase in the size of the human brain. There are many theories floating around.
Human bottlenecks explain human development? http://www.jqjacobs.net/anthro/paleo/bottleneck.html
Some say as few as 1000 humans remained ~ 60000 years ago, other scientists say as many as 75,000 physically modern humans were in Africa. How could so few people have propelled the "Great Leap Forward", where humans transitioned culturally from apes to modern man, in such a short time?
-
I accept there is evolution and natural selection. How humans developed is open for speculation. One author says humans ate raw fruit and damaged their/our brains when we started eating meat and cooking food. Others say eating meat is what led to the increase in the size of the human brain. There are many theories floating around.
Human bottlenecks explain human development? http://www.jqjacobs.net/anthro/paleo/bottleneck.html
Some say as few as 1000 humans remained ~ 60000 years ago, other scientists say as many as 75,000 physically modern humans were in Africa. How could so few people have propelled the "Great Leap Forward", where humans transitioned culturally from apes to modern man, in such a short time?
Bottlenecks, theoretical cro-magnons, dark matter, all old tactics used by the science industry, to cover up their own ignorance, if you cant deny something which goes against your dogma & stupidity, give it a fancy name & call anyone who questions it a fringe or maverick scientist ....
As for calling evolution theory, a fact, that's like calling string theory a fact, you cant make a speculative theory, fact, unless it's provable in a lab
Good luck trying to prove the evolution of man in a lab ... lol
-
Evolution is not a theory. It's considered 'scientific fact'. You are most likely confused because there are theories which try to explain how evolution took place. Darwin's 'theory of evolution' isn't a theory that evolution took place, rather how it took place i.e. he suggests through natural selection.
Yes of course. Evolution is first of all just a fact, whether one likes it or not. Period.
Darwin's natural selection and more recently complex systems theory is a theory that may explain or explains yet a good deal of the characteristic features of evolution, whether one likes it or not. Period.
-
"As far as I know science remains yet the only method of investigation that clearly works in our attempt to better understand nature and the world we live in."
i agree with this insofar as yes science is us trying to build a language to describe the patterns we see in the natural world...however, we have abused our knowledge and ability to recognize, derive, duplicate and manipulate natural processes to create this horrible society we live in. starting with the abuse of the science of agriculture, we continue to create systems that deny natures existence outside of serving our own purposes! this is not understanding or knowledge. this is an extremely understated and annotated version of the real truth and depth of this situation,
what scientists do not realize is that they will never truly understand any part of the natural world by analyzing, deriving, duplicating etc...
There are now many scientists including myself who do realize this very clearly and are labeled emergentists as opposed to reductionists. It is even a basic outcome of the past twenty years in condensed matter physics and complex systems research. :) We have clearly demonstrated that there is a basic epistemologic barrier of knowledge in many instances where there is what we call instability. Which does not mean that we cannot know much about anything because fortunately there is sometimes protection from chaotic influences. There are just drastic limitations.
As to the horrible society we live in, it seems to me that it is utterly unfair to invoke scientists as the main culprits. This society is an emerging phenomenon that results from collective action of each woman or man on this planet. In particular the action of those greedy people who do 'applied (junk) science" before a safe scientific answer is available. This situation unfortunately prevails up to now in life science, agriculture and medicine.
-
Yes of course. Evolution is first of all just a fact, whether one likes it or not. Period.
Darwin's natural selection and more recently complex systems theory is a theory that may explain or explains yet a good deal of the characteristic features of evolution, whether one likes it or not. Period.
Go & prove it in a lab, experimentally unprovable theories, only a fundamentalist would ever refer to an experimentally unprovable theory as fact
Which spells out the type of people, irrational & fundamentalist, who'd consider an unprovable science such as evolution as fact, fundamentalists, fanatics, extremists
Pretty much sums most people who believe in something as racist & eugenic as evolution, with its roots in aryanism & supremacy
-
Go & prove it in a lab,
There is at least one thing that does not need any proof in a lab or elsewhere.
It's your idiocy, roony :)
-
Or at least the best one we currently have. I try as an amateur to use a basic version of the scientist's toolkit. I like it because to a certain extent it works, not because it's perfect (which it isn't).
Science is just a human activity and so cannot be and is by far not perfect, unfortunately. I just can't see a better way.
Yes, mapping the genome of several species doesn't seem to have produced the sort of rapid and numerous breakthroughs that some people expected, but I wasn't surprised. Having all the details helps some, but it still doesn't give you the totality of the complex big picture.
Yes, excellent example of the failure of the genetic reductionism. A huge amount of money has been spend to map genomes because it is still erronously believed by many molecular biologists that the secret of life is encoded in genes. And by the way also because it is technically possible to do it and generates a lot of returns in computer and molecular biology techniques business.
Emergentist physicists know since decades from a rational point of view what you or Jessica (women are usually good at this) or others know intuitively, namely that the properties of the whole cannot be inferred from or read in any part, even if this part is as remarkable as the DNA macromolecule. This is precisely what complex system science tells us and what emergence means, technically.
-
We have clearly demonstrated that there is a basic epistemologic barrier of knowledge in many instances where there is what we call instability. Which does not mean that we cannot know much about anything because fortunately there is sometimes protection from chaotic influences. There are just drastic limitations.
i went and meditated on this today and will now use the exact thing i am going to condemn to prove a point that is pointless!
the barrier of knowledge is IN FACT! our emphasis on the verbal and written explanation of the intangeable and undefinable objects, instances, patterns, occurences, occasions..etc...this is what you call science...its own barrier to the "knowledge" it pursues!
we use the human language...spoken or written to explain, categorize and assign specific meanings to common things that exist similarly in our known universe. by doing this we limit what that object is or can be and the possibilities and extent of its existence, animation, maliability...etc...because the object is then something KNOWN as another...not actually what it is but our interpretation...
we have abused our ability to communicate verbally by emphasizing its importance, the emphasis on teaching communication verbally (and even visually and auditorially) and only between a human and another human is the most bizarre "evolution" of the human species and perhaps has far more influence on what is to become of human kind . this lack of any other form of communication between ourselves as a species and all of the other energies in the universe disconnects our species and creates an inability to communicate using our other powers of perception and diminishes our abilities to communicate with other beings and elements that present themselves to us on a visual level(animals, rocks, trees, clouds, elements, light...etc...)
we are taught to perceive things that are only tangable and can be explained with the human language...things that we can create a finite, static symbol and explanation for...thus denying that everything is in fact infinte and constantly evolving...this furthers our inability to even exist in the present and as a part of the universe...we then become something that is dependent on taking signals from other humans and in only a few manners! no wonder everyone is so confused and unable to take care of themselves!
-
honestly more and more thinking science is a most ridiculous, benign and egotistical pursuit!
i have long thought the only ology worth considering is theology....even that is limiting
but i think science can learn a lot from the simple mechanics of a cup in the sense that is isnt the actual physical manifestation of the cup that is useful, but the "empty" space within the vessel that can be filled...and perhaps the only thing that is more useful then knowledge is the unknown
-
Few people, say 1000 - 2000, at 60000 years ago, would explain the lack of genetic diversity among humans. However, more people means more evolution - with 6 billion humans, we should be seeing far more evolution. But we do not have the "great leap forward" that was supposed to have occurred with 1000-2000 humans. There is a disconnect here. And if people were widely scattered, and did not migrate out of Africa, again there should have been more evolution.
I can say God re-engineered humans, or time travelers, or space travelers, or I can just admit I don't know. Makes as much sense as the Theory of Evolution.
-
..............................................There are lots of small mutations.................. If there is no pressure alleviated by a mutation(i.e. people are not more likely to survive and reproduce), there's no reason why it should progress in to more distinctive traits....
-
Ah yes, realising our fractioned states of omnipotence, the main reason science will never work, is that distance & time & volume & mass, are simply curvature's of space
Trying to create scales of units, & algorithms & philosophies, according to a simple distortion in space, is sciences biggest mistake
The curvature of space gives the illusion of time & distance, & scales of units & known's, it gives the illusion of communication, when we are one omniscient, & the illusion of solitude when we are all, ie. omnipresent
Like looking through a prism in space, it divides our reality up into time, distance & volume, giving the illusion of abstraction & minimalism, when all we're seeing are abstractions of infinity being warped into objects & thought's as they intersect a distortion in space
What we think of the seperation of thought & imagination & objects in reality, are in fact the same, our thoughts are the tree's & air around us, our dreams are the flowers we hold, our idea's are the animals we walk with, our aspiration's are the bacteria & parasites who continously rebuild & sustain us, they are our imagination, our thoughts simply displaced by a distortion in space
We have to realise, it is impossible to make a mistake, it is impossible to be wrong, we dont need the internet, our ability to reason & think is far superior to any book or ideology, as our ability to reason & think outside of ourselves is infinite
We simply have to stop thinking of our thoughts as singular & concentrate on the probabilities of our thought's & idea's & stop concentrating on the actual words, it's the infinite nature of reason & idea's behind ourselves which creates those around us
-
honestly more and more thinking science is a most ridiculous, benign and egotistical pursuit!
i have long thought the only ology worth considering is theology....even that is limiting
but i think science can learn a lot from the simple mechanics of a cup in the sense that is isnt the actual physical manifestation of the cup that is useful, but the "empty" space within the vessel that can be filled...and perhaps the only thing that is more useful then knowledge is the unknown
Because science ignores runic roots.
If you were consider a cup or any container in the light of the rune "laguz" (elder futhark), it's neither simple nor necessarily mechanical.
IMHO it is consciousness that evolves, not physical Man, and science has gone wrong because it denies it own roots.
-
...Human bottlenecks explain human development? http://www.jqjacobs.net/anthro/paleo/bottleneck.html
Some say as few as 1000 humans remained ~ 60000 years ago, other scientists say as many as 75,000 physically modern humans were in Africa. How could so few people have propelled the "Great Leap Forward", where humans transitioned culturally from apes to modern man, in such a short time?
Luckily for RPD that bottleneck occurred long before the Neolithic revolution started, though I wouldn't put it past the critics of RPD to start claiming that the Neolithic revolution started much earlier than they originally thought.
-
"We cannot begin to make that same assertion for the nuclear realm. There are people who will defend QCD far more ferociously and unscrupulously than I have ever seen anyone defend general relativity. They will tell you that “QCD has been confirmed endless times, and of course it has predicted everything correctly.”
But in reality, it has only managed to fit a relatively meager set of things it has tried to predict, and there are major empirical indications which cast doubt even on the things we do know how to test with QCD. Following the scientific method, we should be giving top priority to exactly those kinds of experiments which cast the most doubt, and would pave the way either to greater certainty or to an improved theory.
(One thing is for sure. We know from the existence of dark matter and dark energy that there is something out there beyond the scope of the standard model. How else could we hope to find out what it is, if we do not probe our areas of weakness and doubt first?) But this is not being done.
Even though I had taken a graduate course in nuclear physics at Harvard, I was still quite surprised years ago when I read a then-new book by Makhankov et al (The Skyrme Model) describing the present realities of nuclear physics.
(Makhankov was then director of a crucial piece of the Joint Institute for Nuclear Research, JINR, Dubna, one of the world’s very top centers.) He explained how QCD was utterly useless for predicting or explaining the wide range of nuclear phenomena they focused on there. These included “low and medium energy” scattering, where “low energy” includes what we would see in an H bomb or a fusion reactor. We are all obliged to start with a prayer to QCD, insallah, and prove that we are among the faithful before our work can be published, but many empirical researchers really wonder if there is any connection at all between the world we actually live in and that mythical paradise.
More concretely, the challenge of predicting and explaining the masses and lifetimes of the hadrons is a central challenge in physics today, as important as the challenge of explaining atomic spectra (colors) was at the start of the twentieth century. Some thought that this was a minor part of physics at the time, but it is what really led to quantum mechanics. But could it be that we are offered a similar revolution in understanding, and will never achieve it, because we are now too jaded to take that kind of empirical challenge seriously enough? Why has the careful empirical work of Palazzi and MacGregor not received the level of deep appreciation, respect and follow-up that it deserves from people trying to formulate general theories of physics? "
"But here are the weird things, which I tend to despair of orthodox physics of accepting.
First, the time-forwards dynamics implied by the classical fields and the P mapping (the free space master equations derived in the most recent paper at arXiv.org by myself and Ludmilla) are not really relevant to the statistics we observe
macroscopically
in experiments. That is because the conventional notion of time-forwards causality simply does not work at that level.
(Our notion of time & cause & effect... if it doesnt work on the sub-microscopic level, or the sub macroscopic, as this article states, how can we assume it to work on the macroscopic, or in our reality ?
Once you go past the curvature of space, either sub-microscopically, or sub macroscopically, time forwards causality ceases to exist, it also ceases to exist outer macroscopically, it's only when it is distorted within a narrow range by the curvature of space we get the illusion of time & causality - Roony)
Second, what does work is the quantum Boltzmann equation. For any pure classical state, {p, j} across all space, we know that Tr(r(p,j)H) equals its energy. Thus the classical Boltzmann equation is exactly the same as the grand ensemble quantum Boltzmann equation.
If we consider what patterns of correlation, causality, and scattering networks occur within a periodic space of volume V, and let V go to infinity, we can see that all the scattering predictions and spectral predictions of quantum field theory are embedded in the quantum statistical mechanics.
Consideration of the eigenfunctions of H is essentially just a calculating device for characterizing the properties of the quantum Boltzmann equation, which are exactly equivalent to the classical one here. (Caveat: the usual invariant measures do happen to be equivalent, as noted in the earlier paper by Ludmilla and myself. However, the set of density matrices considered allowable in quantum theory is more than just the set which are reachable as P transforms of allowable classical probability distributions; see my arXiv paper on the Q hypothesis. This may or may not have important implications here, where the Boltzmann density is itself P-reachable; this is a question I need to look into more.). What is most exciting here is that a purely bosonic theory with a small h(¶mQa)2 term added may give us what we need for a completely valid quantum field theory on the one hand, and that a quantum Boltzmann distribution based on that same Hamiltonian may be exactly equivalent to the same statistical distribution we expect for the corresponding classical PDE;
thus a full “return to reality” may well be possible, not just at the level of philosophical possibilities, but at the level of specific well-posed PDE which fit empirical reality better than today’s “standard model of physics.”
Unfortunately – this is the conclusion which emerges from combining the various threads I have been exploring, each one of which already stretches the present fabric of physics because it connects areas that are not often connected in today’s overspecialized world."
-
"Yet when we observe human behavior all around us, we see people who “choose” between possible theories like a vain person in a clothing store – trying them on, preening, looking at themselves in the mirror, and then buying one. (The best dressed of all dress up like Cardinals.) They then feel obliged to fight to the death for a particular theory as if it were part of their body, regardless of evidence or of objective, good judgment. Is this really just one of many examples proving that human brains (let alone mouse brains) totally lack any kind of tendency at all towards rationality or intelligence as I have described it? Does it totally invalidate this class of model of the mind?
Not really – and I was fully aware of such behavior when I first started to develop this kind of theory. What it shows is that humans are halfway between two classical views of the human mind. In one view (espoused by B.F. Skinner and one of sides of the philosopher Wittgenstein), humans play “word games” without any natural tendency to treat words and symbols as if they had any meaning at all; words and theories are truly treated on an equal footing with other objects seen in the world, like pants and dresses. In the opposite view (espoused by the “other” Wittgenstein!), humans are born with a kind of natural tendency to do “symbolic reasoning,” in which words have meanings and the meanings are always respected; however, because modern artificial intelligence often treats “symbolic reasoning” as if symbols were devoid of meaning, it is now more precise to call this “semiotic intelligence.” (There are major schools of semiotics within artificial intelligence, and even Marvin Minsky has given talks about how to fill in the gap involving “meaning.”)
My claim is that the first is a good way of understanding mouse-level intelligence. But human intelligence is a kind of halfway point between the two. Humanity is a kind of early prototype species, like the other prototype species which have occurred in the early stages of a “quantum leap” in evolution, as described by the great scientist George Gaylord Simpson, who originated many of the ideas now attributed to Stephen Jay Gould. (Though Gould did, of course, have important new ideas as well.) As an early prototype, it has enough of the new capabilities to “conquer the world” as a single species, but not enough to really perfect these capabilities in a mature or stable way.
Unfortunately, the power of our new technology – nuclear technology, especially, but others as well – is so great that the continued survival of this species may require a higher level of intelligence than what we are born with. Only by learning to emulate semiotic intelligence (or even something higher) do we have much of a chance of survival. The “semiotic” level of intelligence has a close relation to Freud’s notion of “sanity.”
Unfortunately, Freud sometimes uses the word “ego” to represent global understanding, sometimes to represent the symbolic level of human intelligence, and sometimes in other ways; however, the deep and empirically-rooted insights there are well worth trying to disentangle.
We do not yet now exactly what a fully evolved “semiotic intelligence” or sapient would really look like. Some things have to be learned, because of their complexity. (For example, probability theory has to be learned, before the “symbolic” level of our mind can keep up with the subsymbolic level, in paying attention to the uncertainties in our life.) Sometimes the best that evolution can do is to create a strong predisposition and ability to learn something. But certainly we humans have a lot to learn, in order to cope more effectively with all of the megachallenges listed on my homepage. "
-
"Yet when we observe human behavior all around us, we see people who “choose” between possible theories like a vain person in a clothing store – trying them on, preening, looking at themselves in the mirror, and then buying one. (The best dressed of all dress up like Cardinals.) They then feel obliged to fight to the death for a particular theory as if it were part of their body, regardless of evidence or of objective, good judgment. Is this really just one of many examples proving that human brains (let alone mouse brains) totally lack any kind of tendency at all towards rationality or intelligence as I have described it? Does it totally invalidate this class of model of the mind?
Has nothing to do with intelligence, as hypnotists have observed that the most intelligent are often the most easily hypnotised.
Man is programmable, and this is what has caused the neolithic apparent stupidity. Programming (older words are cursing or spell casting) is the job of church, school most especially university, entertainment, advertising.
All of us have been programmed to believe believe believe, and few escape. Scientology offers one way of escaping, for which it is reviled by church and state. There are others (cheaper, too). Any way of escaping draws the attention and attack by trolls on the internet.
In one view (espoused by B.F. Skinner and one of sides of the philosopher Wittgenstein), humans play “word games” without any natural tendency to treat words and symbols as if they had any meaning at all; words and theories are truly treated on an equal footing with other objects seen in the world, like pants and dresses. In the opposite view (espoused by the “other” Wittgenstein!), humans are born with a kind of natural tendency to do “symbolic reasoning,” in which words have meanings and the meanings are always respected; however, because modern artificial intelligence often treats “symbolic reasoning” as if symbols were devoid of meaning, it is now more precise to call this “semiotic intelligence.” (There are major schools of semiotics within artificial intelligence, and even Marvin Minsky has given talks about how to fill in the gap involving “meaning.”)
If their arguments were designed to confuse, they could not do better. Lost me, and I usually think that if I can't understand it , it's crap. This attitude has saved me a lot of time, and apparently cost nothing.
(It saved me from university too :D )
Unfortunately, the power of our new technology – nuclear technology, especially, but others as well – is so great that the continued survival of this species may require a higher level of intelligence than what we are born with.
I suggest that it requires something a lot more rare than intelligence, namely wisdom.
Note that a common use of nuclear tech is to boil water, and poison Afghanistan, Serbia, Iraq and everything downwind.
Only by learning to emulate semiotic intelligence (or even something higher) do we have much of a chance of survival. The “semiotic” level of intelligence has a close relation to Freud’s notion of “sanity.”
Freud lied.
Unfortunately, Freud sometimes uses the word “ego” to represent global understanding, sometimes to represent the symbolic level of human intelligence, and sometimes in other ways; however, the deep and empirically-rooted insights there are well worth trying to disentangle.
Freud was a troll.
We do not yet now exactly what a fully evolved “semiotic intelligence” or sapient would really look like.
It would look like a God.
Semiotics is nothing more than a garbled version of runelore dressed up in fancy schmancy modern doubletalk - a triumph of trolls.
What is your website url?
-
meh, not even sure i should even bother posting, some idiot admin is likely to ban me again
Semiotics is more to do with the self organising, emergence movement in the 90's, when super fluids & self organising systems & intelligent crowds were all the rage, its also a bit crap, like most academic attempts at being creative, ie stephen hawkings black hole's & singularity ... oh yea & dark matter lol
No one has ever proven a black hole, or a singularity to exist ... it's just brainwashing & propoganda, the regular tools of modern day organised fanatical religions like science
Also take into account, general relativity falls apart in the sub-microscopic & sub macroscopic levels, including causality & time, & you've got basically what amounts to alot of people practising a fanatical religion who base their facts on faith & belief then real proof
Modern day evolution, albeit still wrong is trying to reinvent itself, like the even crappier theories, such as psychology, & its successor evolutionary psychology, both statistically based, monstrosities of disinformation & junk science
It's trying to include stuff like information science & developments such as super fluids & self correcting systems, & aspects of emergent systems, & complexity theory, to give it some sort of credibility,
Unfortunately for it, no one's forgotten its originator's were white supremacists, yes darwin & his family have a long history of being white supremacists & believing in the uber man, they were believers of gene pools, & superior genetic bloodlines, decades before darwin published his works, where do you think he got his influences from?
Which explains why their theories were used to justify the holocaust, nazism & apartheid & decades of oppression & racism, which continue to this day
So why do we have these false theories being popularised, & presented as facts? Basically politicised science, which is the correct term for most science today ....
-
I don't see anything in the general theory of evolution which doesn't make sense...
-
I don't see anything in the general theory of evolution which doesn't make sense...
Me too, as it is supposed to be based on evidence.
The parting of the ways is when the general theory is applied to Man, and trips over the missing link and falls on its face.
-
Aren't there missing links for most every species on this planet, we just seem to talk about man more often?
-
If their arguments were designed to confuse, they could not do better.
that is the whole point of being trained to believe that communication is only either written or oral, we are now controlled by word games....think of the laws of our societies ....we are controlled by words, nobody reads laws, they are written to deceive and confuse, and people are lazy(myself included)
lawyers and politicians basically learn how be pursusive to their own agenda in words so eloquent that they not only paint compelling pictures of heinous acts that have or have yet to happen and come up with a punishment, they decide what is best for others based on their own bias and often based on their own self interest, and because there are consequences attached to "breaking the law" we do not have much say if we feel a law is unjust and have to act in the lawyers and politicians interest...
we "need" these laws, it is observed that the further we are away from our other forms of perception the less our grasp of right or wrong or our understanding of our place in nature, we lose our instinct to thrive righteously and justfuly and any sense of self government....but that is the same for the people writing the laws as well, so basically we are f90438ked because we are ruled by those who are just as unjust and selfish if not more then those who are imagined to be criminals!
he continued survival of this species may require a higher level of intelligence than what we are born with.
I suggest that it requires something a lot more rare than intelligence, namely wisdom.
you are both assuming that we have a say in the future of our species...planets(ours and others) and galaxies have their own ideas too you know:)
-
you are both assuming that we have a say in the future of our species...planets(ours and others) and galaxies have their own ideas too you know:)
Both quantum mechanics and the European creation story teach us that we are not separate from anything.
-
Both quantum mechanics and the European creation story teach us that we are not separate from anything.
yeah i guess that would mean the "continuation of our species" would be the recognition that defining us as even the term species confines us to that definition and disconnects us from the continuous unlimited possibilities of our existence
-
I think this scientist/author is closer to the truth than anyone else I have found. Humans are at least 20 million years old. Current apes descended from humans. Humans eat meat, have large brains. Apes are the degenerates that resulted because they could never get enough meat, and had to eat vegetarian.
http://www.amazon.com/Upright-Ape-New-Origin-Species/product-reviews/1564149331/ref=cm_cr_dp_all_helpful?ie=UTF8&coliid=&showViewpoints=1&colid=&sortBy=bySubmissionDateDescending
-
From an Amazon.com reviewer: "On Oct. 11, 2009, the Discovery Channel will show a program that finally reveals the details of the Ardipithecus find. The shell shocking conclusions, believe it or not, are consistent with Dr. Aaron Filler's Upright Ape Hypothesis. Ardipithecus was clearly a biped who was NOT descended from knuckle walking ancestors. This supports the notion that the common ancestors of humans with both chimpanzees & gorillas were NOT knuckle-walkers. That adaptation emerged later & independently in the lineages leading to chimpanzees & gorillas.
....The teeth of A. ramidus lacked the specialization of other apes, and suggest that it was a generalized omnivore and frugivore (fruit eater) with a diet that did not depend heavily on fibrous plants, ripe fruit or hard or abrasive food. "
Yes, I was fascinated by it when I first heard of Ardipithecus too. If the Ardipithecus experts are right, then bipedalism and omnivory predate chimps, gorillas and monkeys. If "generalized omnivore and frugivore (fruit eater)" is meant to imply that Ardipithecus ate more insects and/or small vertebrates than chimps, gorillas and monkeys, this would mean that knuckle-walking and more intense frugivory and herbivory are just the province of one branch of primates--chimps, gorillas and monkeys--and not of the ancestors of all primates. It would mean that instead of descending from knuckle-walking frugivores which descended from insectivores, humans descended from bipedal, fruit-heavy omnivores which descended from insectivores. Do I understand the hypothesis correctly?
-
Yes, you understand what he is saying. To make one point that the Theory of Evolution is wrong - Just last week discovery of Neanderthal tools on Crete was announced - Crete as been an island for five million years. The conclusion is, Neanderthals were sailors.
The Upright Ape theory - upright part man part primate existed twenty million years ago - seems to blow the missing link theory out of the water.
My interpretation of general omnivore is a meat eater who occasionally snacks on berries. Lack of meat caused the apes to degenerate from the human branch. Not that a chimp is stupid as far as animals go, but they don't match humans. I guess apes are largely vegan - except for an occasional bug, or when they rarely get lucky and get some meat.