You (**) are wrong, and that is why you are always using ad hominems or statements that have nothing to do with the topic of this thread.
I have proven my point several times over. Many others have contributed to this thread by supporting my proven point. It does not matter whether they are a minority or a majority. The progress has always been brought by a minority. Therefore I said that majorities always tend to believe in nonsense. And because of that you are insulted? That is ridiculous. But you are always using personal pronouns when attacking persons - so your personal attacks are real insults, real ad hominems.
Again: I have proven my point several times over, and many others have contributed to this thread by supporting my proven point.
And by the way: The title of this thread is a question: Is the Darwinistic Selection Principle False? (**|**). How can the question be a wrong statement? The opening post contains a thesis. A thesis can but does not have to be wrong. You did not read the thread. If you had read it, then you would have get the information about what I am criticizing. I am saying that if a theory has merely a tiny error, then it is allowed to say that this theory is falsified (cf. Karl Raimund Popper). If I did not know what natural selection means, then I would not be capable of critizising it in the way I do. But I do exactly know what natural selection means, and I also know that you believe in it as if it were holy.
Also: It is not the selection principle as such that makes the Darwinistic selection principle false. What makes it false is its premise. The premise of the Darwinistic selection principle is that the evolutionary process of all living beings is caused by their environemnt, so that all living beings are forced to adaptation by their environment. The word all is false, as the example of homo sapiens has proven, because homo sapiens is capable of having an own environment (you may call it an artificial environment), thus of overcoming the natural environment, and so, consequently, homo sapiens is also capable of selecting. So there is an human selection (you may also call it political selection or social selection or artificial selection) as well. Humans are capable of killing almost all living beings. If they die out because of the human selection, then (attention: tautology!) it is caused by the human selection, regardless whether there is also a natural selection or not. So in other words: I am not saying that there is no natural selection. I am saying that there are other selections that contradict the natural selection.
Now you are talking about »natural selection«, »sexual selection« and »domestic selection« - but not about other kinds of selection. So you are using a rhetorical trick here by leaving out other selections. That is ridiculous too. And the (current) human evolution is just the reason why more and more scientists and philosophers have come to the conclusion that the Darwinistic selection principle must be false. And that is what I am saying here. Since you joined this thread I changed from assuming to claiming, because you belong to those who believe in Darwinism and other isms as dogmatic ideologies, thus secular religions. So I would have to thank you for making me an Anti-Darwinist, if I really wanted to be one.
Marx' philosophical development went from philosophy to political economy - but not back from political economy to philosophy. His mistake was that he did not go back to philosophy where he began. This mistake left a gap, and it was just this gap that Lenin later used disastrously for his terrorism.
If you (**) do not have anything to contribute to this thread, then look for another thread. You have never given any argument, only ad hominems and denials. What you are doing here is nothing else than trolling and stalking.
Look what he has written here. There is no single argument, no contribution to this thread, only nos and ad hominems. He never stays on topic.
Living beings like the human beings who are capable of living in an artificial environment have, if they do it, nothing to do with the natural environment, at least as long as they live in their own artficial environment.
Here are again some examples of artificial environments:
Humans who go through our solar system by their spaceship without any contact to the planet Earth can survive as long as they are in their self-made environment. During this time (which can be a very long time in principle) all living beings that live in this environment evolve because of a man-made environment. So this anthropogenic environment causes the adaptations of all living beings who live in it. They are selected by humans.
And by the way:
When it comes to the obfuscation of familial, genealogical and successful filiations (especially if they are the basics for the premises of a so-called social life) the alleged enemies capitalism/liberalism and communism/socialism are the best friends.
Or: Quizz Kid:
No (**). It is just the other way around. I have informed you several times what exactly the Darwinistic Selection Principle is and what it not is. The fact that you still have failed to understand what the difference means indicates that you are just not capable of understanding it. So it would be better for you to look for another thread - as I also said several times to you.
Your false statement does not get more true the more you say it. A false
statement is always false - no matter how many times you say it.
You want a good example of a stalker. Try the one that rides my ass. **
Lev Muishkin. He follows most of my posts with ad homs. **
975) Arminius, 10.12.2016, 00:10, 00:11, 00:12, 00:13, 00:14, 00:18, 00:20, 21:45, 21:48, 23:04, 23:40 (5804-5814)
Friedrich Wilhelm Joseph Schelling said that nature casts up its eyes in the human being. So I am saying that culture casts up its eyes in the current phase of the Occidental culture, which means the trend to transhuman beings.
Was gibt es denn? // WAGNER (leiser) :
Es wird ein Mensch gemacht.
An interesting development in the field of translation: **
Slightly sensationalist headline, but an insight into the working of neural networks. **
Why is everyone concerned about giving sexual and religious minorities when both Europe and US are experiencing an increase of aging population? Why not give older people equal rights by eliminating discrimination in employment and media representation? Old people have years of experience and expertise in the workplace and life, in general, so why are they being pushed aside in our society? **
»In general, so why are they being pushed aside in our society?« **
They dont want to give away their money. **
Early 1960's and married to an early 1950's man. We and most of our friends just want basic comfort not wealth. Power and wealth leads to betrayal and pain. I work for a family that takes care of those that are helpful, above and beyond law. They started off dirt poor. **
I can agree with that, but it is not the respective younger group alone, it is the whole greed system that benefits from an alleged(ly) social injustice by expropriating those who are allegedly responsible for that problem. The fact is almost always that this allegedly responsible people (here in this example: the older people in the West) are victims of this greed system. The example of the older people in the West shows this clearly. They are or will soon be retired, thus get money and services for not working, not being needed anymore. The greed system is an expropriation system; so it must and does always find a group for expropriation. Regardless which kind of group it is: the greed system is merely interested in expropriation and the legalization of expropriation, thus in getting rich and powerful by lies and deception (Lug und Trug).
Maniacal Mongoose wrote:
And for the other ear - from Santa:
Mr. Reasonable wrote:
She already belongs to my scientific support staff.
So now they can get a skinny model.
If I may answer ...:
James S. Saint wrote:
It is not dying, it is DEAD.
James S. Saint wrote:
Exactly. And the definitional problems are not the terms living (being) and being alive but the terms moral and morality, at least the latter terms much more than the former terms.
James S. Saint wrote:
And that is one of the real differences between human beings and all other living beings: language (meant as human language - of course). Humans can discuss, criticize, argue, comment, define, ... talk, ..., thus communicate by using the most complex language of all times.
James S. Saint wrote:
Agreed, although I have to mention that the fact that homosapian has never really acted according to the respective moral system is a bigger issue than the fact that homosapian has never shown a precisely accurate understanding of it. Both are not the same. You can show that you never really act according to a morality but nonetheless have a precisely accurate understanding of it.
Almost all human beings know that it is not good to kill; almost all human beings know that it is not good to steal; we all know that it is not good to lie; almost all human beings know that it is not good to cheat; almost all human beings know that it is not good to ...; ... and so on; ... - but almost all human beings know too that many human beings act as if they did not know it.
But what, if the fact that this major practical problem is caused by the minor theoretical problem? Then it would be a more theoretical than practical problem. But I am not sure whether this is the case or not.
What do you think? Is it more a practical than a theoretical or more a theoretical than a practical problem?
Yes. Instead of lesser forms of power one could also use the wording hierarchically more determined by those that are less determined, or the wording carried or borne by more strata or levels.
According to Nicolai Hartmann there are four main strata or levels of being or reality:
This four levels of reality are characterized by the fact that the respective higher (and lighter) level/s are carried or borne by the respective lower (and heavier) level/s and free towards the respective lower (and heavier) level/s - insofar as their freedom is not restricted by the fact that they are carreid or borne -, especially because they show new properties or characteristics against the respective lower level/s.
The (1) first, lowest, haeviest one is the inorganic level; the (2) second, second-lowest (and third highest), second-haeviest (and third-lightest) one is the organic level; the (3) third, third-lowest (and second-highest), third-heaviest (and second-lightest) one is the level of Seelisches, which means properties or characteristics of soul, psyche, emotion; the (4) fourth, highest, lightest one is the level of Geistiges, which means properties or characteristics of spirit, thinking, intellectuality, imagery.
So, for example, the inorganic level (1) is carried or borne by no other level, whereas the level of Geistiges (1) is carried or borne by all other levels.
Inorganic beings (1) do not need an organic body (2), do not need Seelisches (3), do not need Geistiges (4), whereas even the highest spirit of all times (4) needs Seelisches (3), needs an organic body (2), needs inorganic beings (1).
The fourth level is not capable of existing without the other three levels, because it is carried or borne by them. The third level is not capable of existing without the second and the first level, because it is carried or borne by them. The second level is not capable of existing without the first level, because it is carried or borne by it. Only the first level is capable of existing without the other three levels, because it is not carried or borne by them. The first level is unfree because of its type of determination: causality. The second level is relatively free in the sense that it is categorially free towards the frist level. The third level is relatively free in the sense that it is categorially free towards the second and the first level. The fourth level is relatively free in the sense that it is most categorially free (but not 100% free), which means categorially free towards the three other levels.
100%-freedom is not possible: the fact that the lower and heavier levels carry the higher and lighter levels means that the higher and lighter levels depend on the lower and heavier levels, although the higher and lighter levels are relatively free towards the lower and heavier levels; and the lowest and heaviest level (1) is not free because of its type of determination: causality. Note: relatively free means here categorially free; each level has its own categories.
Hartmann postulated four laws that apply to the levels of reality:
The first and the second level are spatial, the third and the fourth level are not spatial.
The first level (which is pretty similar to what you called physical power) is in fact the most powerful one, has in fact the strongest power in the sense that the other three levels are carried or borne by the first level and that the categories of the first level recur in the higher levels (and never vice versa) as a subaspect of higher categories.
You hit a man and this hit causes something physically (=> (1) matter, causality). Maybe you hit that man bcause he has threatened you; so you just want to save your own life (=> (2) life, urge). Maybe you groundlessly hate that man and therefore you hit him (=> (3) Seele, motif). Maybe your hate is not reasonless, and you hit that man because of a reason (=> (4) Geist, reason).
If one looks at the connection of levels and categories, many world
views contain for Hartmann the basic mistake of the fundamental one-sidedness.
»Only Humean wrote:
Not really, I think it clarifies that symbolic »thinking« (quotes due to vaguely-defined words) can be an emergent property from algorithmic programming. I don't think there's likely to be a big leap, though, so much as small steps that make it harder to agree on what machine intelligence entails and where we draw legal and moral lines. **
Only Humean wrote:
The film industry? Is it the most important group to consider? - Maybe, maybe not. At least it is interested in the capabilities of machines.
Technicians must be more optimistic than pessimistic, which means that they could be in danger of overestimating the capabilities of machines.
Policymakers have to talk more optimistically than pessimistically, which means that, if they are politically interested in the capabilities of machines and talk about them publicly, they are in danger of over- and/or underestimating them.
The common understanding is a matter of a majority, and majorities do what they ought to do, which means these days: they are politically correct (so cf. policymakers).
If the shadowy cabal is interested in the capabilities of machines, then it could also be in danger of over- and/or underestimating them.
The answer to your question depends on the interest in the capabilities
of machines in combination with the everlasting interest in the option
of not wanting any majority to know what really happens. If the shadow
cabal and the policymakers are interested in the capabilities of machines,
then the majority with its common understanding is also interested in
it. The shadow cabal and the policymakers are always interested in in
the option of not wanting any majority to know what really happens, so
that the majority with its common understanding does not know what really
happens. I think that the political interest in the capabilities of machines
is high, but it is not politically correct to talk as much about that
theme as the common understanding becomes capable of estimating the capabilities
of machines in the right way. There is always an interest in the option
of not wanting any majority to know what really happens. This may lead
to the following answer: currently, the capabilities of machines are
over- and underestimated, namely overestimated by some and underestimated
by many people.
Real history makers are seldom a kind of party, and the one who sides unilaterally, is seldom a real maker or driver / leader of the history. Relal world drivers / leaders are true masters of dialectic processes, in particular they know how to push these processes and how to drive them to a desired and advance-calculated synthesis.
Merry Christmas to Christian humans and Christian machines!
And at last a thing or many things, an individual or many individuals as a species are repaired (A), or replaced (B), or rotted (C), or, if time is considered too, repaired and then replaced (A and B), or repaired and then rotted (A and C), or replaced and then rotted (B and C), or repaired, replaced, rotted (A, B, C).
Yes, and those few who have enough power to make use of that method have an advantage over the many others.
China has by far not as much fat people as the US.
Are you ready for the US-China-War?