• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

Toward a Judeo-Marxist biology

No Robots

Maykkerz
Joined
Jan 9, 2006
Messages
356
Location
Edmonton, Alberta
Basic Beliefs
Christian.atheist
After initial enthusiasm, Marx was critical of Darwin’s theories of biology. Marx’s views on biology can be traced backed to Feuerbach, Hegel and Spinoza. Spinoza provides the modern formulation of the Bible’s presentation of biology wherein all living forms are endowed with soul and thus eternity. Needless to say, this view clashes with the dominant paradigm in biology today. The purpose of this thread is to explore the realm of biology from this alternative perspective. It will draw on the work of those named previously, as well as that of two more recent thinkers, Constantin Brunner and Harry Waton.
 

No Robots

Maykkerz
Joined
Jan 9, 2006
Messages
356
Location
Edmonton, Alberta
Basic Beliefs
Christian.atheist
Some fundamentals:
  • The fundamental building block of life is the cell.
  • All multi-cellular organisms are nothing more than communities of cells.
  • All properties of multi-cellular organisms are the result of the activities of the cells of which they are composed in interaction with the surrounding environment.
  • Cells reproduce either through division alone or through division and union with another cell of the same kind.
  • Cells have a certain capability for self-modification.
  • Cells have a certain capability for producing cells that are not identical to themselves.
 

Tigers!

Veteran Member
Joined
Sep 20, 2005
Messages
3,292
Location
On the wing, waiting for a kick.
Basic Beliefs
Bible believing revelational redemptionist (Baptist)
May I ask why you call it Judeo-Marxist? What is the signifiance of the Judeo? Wouldn't just Marxist biology be sufficient? Lysenko maybe?
 

No Robots

Maykkerz
Joined
Jan 9, 2006
Messages
356
Location
Edmonton, Alberta
Basic Beliefs
Christian.atheist
May I ask why you call it Judeo-Marxist? What is the signifiance of the Judeo? Wouldn't just Marxist biology be sufficient? Lysenko maybe?
I had clearly indicated a continuity in thought about biology from the Bible to Marx. It is this continuity that I seek to emphasize and upon which I am establishing my approach to biology. Any discussion about Marx and biology usually comes around to Lysenko. I do not claim to be knowledgeable about Lysenko, but the Wikipedia article about him indicates that he rejected Mendelian genetics. This is not a view to which we subscribe. I do not know if Marx was aware of Mendel's work. However, there is not doubt that Mendelian genetics supports the foundational principle of Marx's view of biology, ie. the essential stability of living forms.
 

Politesse

Lux Aeterna
Joined
Feb 27, 2018
Messages
9,206
Location
Chochenyo Territory, US
Gender
nb; all pronouns fine
Basic Beliefs
Jedi Wayseeker
Mendel's work was not well known until after Marx's death. It seems quite a stretch to me to regard Marx's thought as in coherence with Jewish philosophy, though.

Then again, Marx never met Lysenko either.

A professor friend of mine, Rich Weikart, wrote a monograph on Darwin and Marx that you might find interesting:


Rich is a German history expert, so his interest in the issue is coming from a certain critical lens, but it is a pretty good discussion of the two men's contrasting views.
 

No Robots

Maykkerz
Joined
Jan 9, 2006
Messages
356
Location
Edmonton, Alberta
Basic Beliefs
Christian.atheist
Mendel's work was not well known until after Marx's death. It seems quite a stretch to me to regard Marx's thought as in coherence with Jewish philosophy, though.
Marx's connection with Judaism is a subject of long standing. The aspect under consideration here is biology. As stated in the OP, Marx's views on biology drew from Feuerbach and Hegel, and standing behind Hegel is Spinoza, who's views are thoroughly in line with Judaism, however much in a radicalized form. The key concept throughout is the stability of living forms. Each form has its unique soul, conatus in Spinoza and Gattungswesen [generic essence] with the Germans, that is infinite and eternal.
 

No Robots

Maykkerz
Joined
Jan 9, 2006
Messages
356
Location
Edmonton, Alberta
Basic Beliefs
Christian.atheist
At this point, I must point out a serious error in Marx's presentation of biology. While he recognizes the concept of the Gattung [genus] as fundamental in biology, he maintains that only mankind is a Gattungswesen [generic essence]. Marx's reasoning is sound as far as it goes: because mankind is the only genus that understands itself and other entities as genera, mankind is therefore the sole and unique generic essence. This anthropocentrism is something Marx inherited from Feuerbach. It is not fatal to our reliance on Marx for our understanding of biology. It simply means that we must understand him as saying that, while each genus has an essence, it is only mankind whose essence it is to understand the world in terms of the genera and their essences. It is important to be clear on this point because the biology presented here is wholly based on the concept of the Gattungswesen as the fundamental principle of biology, applying to all forms of life.
 

No Robots

Maykkerz
Joined
Jan 9, 2006
Messages
356
Location
Edmonton, Alberta
Basic Beliefs
Christian.atheist
The position argued here is that intelligence is a property of all forms of life. The intelligence of each form is unique to itself, as unique to itself as is its bodily form. Human intelligence is just one of an infinite number of forms that intelligence takes.
 

No Robots

Maykkerz
Joined
Jan 9, 2006
Messages
356
Location
Edmonton, Alberta
Basic Beliefs
Christian.atheist
Marx was not concerned with the intelligence of forms of life other than humans. He was devoted to the specifically human expression of intelligence. This is in fact the proper focus of scientific inquiry. However, mankind cannot arrive at self-understanding without acknowledging that human intelligence is just one of an infinite number of forms in which intelligence is expressed.
 

No Robots

Maykkerz
Joined
Jan 9, 2006
Messages
356
Location
Edmonton, Alberta
Basic Beliefs
Christian.atheist
In order to understand a form of life, we must examine not just its bodily form, but also the operation of its intelligence.
 

Bomb#20

Contributor
Joined
Sep 28, 2004
Messages
6,847
Location
California
Gender
It's a free country.
Basic Beliefs
Rationalism
... This is not a view to which we subscribe. I do not know if Marx was aware of Mendel's work. However, there is not doubt that Mendelian genetics supports the foundational principle of Marx's view of biology, ie. the essential stability of living forms.

... The key concept throughout is the stability of living forms. Each form has its unique soul, conatus in Spinoza and Gattungswesen [generic essence] with the Germans, that is infinite and eternal.

... Marx's reasoning is sound as far as it goes: because mankind is the only genus that understands itself and other entities as genera, mankind is therefore the sole and unique generic essence. This anthropocentrism is something Marx inherited from Feuerbach. It is not fatal to our reliance on Marx for our understanding of biology. ...
Is there a reason this thread is in Philosophy? It plainly belongs in Pseudoscience.
 

No Robots

Maykkerz
Joined
Jan 9, 2006
Messages
356
Location
Edmonton, Alberta
Basic Beliefs
Christian.atheist
The atheist Right has tried to convince the world that the only scientifically valid approach to biology is the theory of evolution. The theory of evolution is essentially reactionary, validating imperialism, racism, genocide, misogyny and social hierarchy. It is essential that the Christian Left and socialists work to debunk the theory of evolution and begin development of a truly scientific biology that acknowledges, in Spinoza's words, "the union of the human mind with the whole of nature."
 

bilby

Fair dinkum thinkum
Joined
Mar 7, 2007
Messages
28,885
Location
The Sunshine State: The one with Crocs, not Gators
Gender
He/Him
Basic Beliefs
Strong Atheist
The atheist Right has tried to convince the world that the only scientifically valid approach to biology is the theory of evolution. The theory of evolution is essentially reactionary, validating imperialism, racism, genocide, misogyny and social hierarchy. It is essential that the Christian Left and socialists work to debunk the theory of evolution and begin development of a truly scientific biology that acknowledges, in Spinoza's words, "the union of the human mind with the whole of nature."
Reality doesn’t give a crap about ideology or politics.

The only scientifically valid approach to anything is the scientific method, and that method presents evolutionary biology as a well tested fact about reality.

If that makes you feel sad, that’s just an unfortunate side-effect of your evolutionary history.
 

fromderinside

Mazzie Daius
Joined
Oct 6, 2008
Messages
15,945
Location
Local group: Solar system: Earth: NA: US: contiguo
Basic Beliefs
optimist
The atheist Right has tried to convince the world that the only scientifically valid approach to biology is the theory of evolution. The theory of evolution is essentially reactionary, validating imperialism, racism, genocide, misogyny and social hierarchy. It is essential that the Christian Left and socialists work to debunk the theory of evolution and begin development of a truly scientific biology that acknowledges, in Spinoza's words, "the union of the human mind with the whole of nature."
Reality doesn’t give a crap about ideology or politics.

The only scientifically valid approach to anything is the scientific method, and that method presents evolutionary biology as a well tested fact about reality.

If that makes you feel sad, that’s just an unfortunate side-effect of your evolutionary history.
I'm adding that evolutionists, that crowd of game players self absorbed in the complexity of chains, don't generally follow the  Scientific method
 

Hermit

Cantankerous grump
Joined
Nov 14, 2017
Messages
1,644
Location
Ignore list
The theory of evolution is essentially reactionary, validating imperialism, racism, genocide, misogyny and social hierarchy.
You may be thinking of social Darwinism, which is an attempt to bolt social, economic, political and moral dimensions to the theory of evolution.
It is essential that the Christian Left and socialists work to debunk the theory of evolution
No. What needs debunking is social Darwinism and the notion that it is a valid interpretation of the theory of evolution.
and begin development of a truly scientific biology that acknowledges, in Spinoza's words, "the union of the human mind with the whole of nature."
What you call "a truly scientific biology" is an entirely separate matter from "the union of the human mind with the whole of nature". The former is science. The latter is philosophy. Attempting to add a philosophic - possibly moral - dimension to a scientific theory is similar to what social Darwinists keep trying to do - making connections that do not exist and coming up with utter nonsense as a result.
 

Jarhyn

Wizard
Joined
Mar 29, 2010
Messages
12,458
Gender
Androgyne; they/them
Basic Beliefs
Natural Philosophy, Game Theoretic Ethicist
The theory of evolution is essentially reactionary, validating imperialism, racism, genocide, misogyny and social hierarchy.
You may be thinking of social Darwinism, which is an attempt to bolt social, economic, political and moral dimensions to the theory of evolution.
It is essential that the Christian Left and socialists work to debunk the theory of evolution
No. What needs debunking is social Darwinism and the notion that it is a valid interpretation of the theory of evolution.
and begin development of a truly scientific biology that acknowledges, in Spinoza's words, "the union of the human mind with the whole of nature."
What you call "a truly scientific biology" is an entirely separate matter from "the union of the human mind with the whole of nature". The former is science. The latter is philosophy. Attempting to add a philosophic - possibly moral - dimension to a scientific theory is similar to what social Darwinists keep trying to do - making connections that do not exist and coming up with utter nonsense as a result.
To be fair, I expect that the basis of strategic existence in the universe serves out from available models of self-preservation.

Social darwinism fails not because Darwinism isn't functional as a strategy, but rather because Darwinism is eclipsed in it's strategic leverage by Lamarckism, and while everyone except for the social darwinists understand this most don't take the time to actually understand why.

They just look at the rules of the game they know things play -- Darwinism -- and then say "playing such games doesn't seem to work, though..." And reject the idea that connections can be made at all from there.

The result is that people end up throwing out game theory as a viable model for ethics, largely because they have an incomplete view of all the rules and moves that are available to them.
 

No Robots

Maykkerz
Joined
Jan 9, 2006
Messages
356
Location
Edmonton, Alberta
Basic Beliefs
Christian.atheist
I thank you folks for your participation in this thread. The time has come to stop talking about my views on biology and to start applying them. My main field of praxis is myself: my health, my activities, my food and drink. I treat myself according to the following:
  • zero sum calculation
  • holism
  • systems theory
  • cybernetics
  • self-organization
  • self-similarity
  • complexity theory
These scientific principles provide a sound basis for a rational biology. Their philosophic foundations can be found in the monism of Spinoza, Marx, Brunner, Waton and Macmurray, as well as Bible literature. Pursuit of this line of activity will bring us to an absolute science of man. An essential component of this science is the doctrine of election that recognizes the distinctions between people according to the qualities of their souls as manifested in their thoughts, words and deeds.
 

lpetrich

Contributor
Joined
Jul 28, 2000
Messages
20,791
Location
Eugene, OR
Gender
Male
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
Karl Marx wasn't a researcher into biology. The Bible is very horrible about biology, and I'm judging it by what a careful observer back then would have concluded.

The most biology in the Bible is in Leviticus 11, which tries to use taxonomic criteria to identify which animals are OK to eat.

It starts off with chewing the cud and having split hooves, something that is actually good. But it soon goes downhill, stating that rabbits chew the cud. Is that from rabbits twitching their noses?

Then it states that one may only eat sea animals with fins and scales. No problem there.

Then it gets into birds, listing a lot of different kind of birds that one must not eat. At the end of this list is the bat. That's a very glaring flub, because bats look much more like mice than like most other birds. Here is another view of bats from antiquity: The Bat, Birds, and The Beasts - Fables of Aesop - about bats as fence-sitters, flying like birds, but having mammalian anatomy.

Then it mentions several insects as walking on four legs. This is a very naive extrapolation from larger animals with horizontal main body axes.

There are other oddities in the Bible, like Genesis 3:14, where we find that the snake in the Garden of Eden was ordered to crawl on its belly and eat dust. How was that snake moving around before then? Like a Q-Bert springing snake? Also, lizards and mice seem close to crawling on their bellies, so one ought to ask why snakes are legless.

I'm not going to speculate about the sea monster in the Book of Jonah. Calling it a "whale" or a "fish" seems too specific, and I think that it was some imaginary super animal. In any case, poor Jonah would have suffocated inside that animal.

In the Book of Job, Behemoth seems like some large herbivore: a hippopotamus or a rhinoceros or an elephant. Leviathan is more difficult to identify, and it seems to me to be some imaginary super animal, like the sea monster that swallowed Jonah.
 

lpetrich

Contributor
Joined
Jul 28, 2000
Messages
20,791
Location
Eugene, OR
Gender
Male
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
I now turn to Karl Marx. He wasn't very interested in biology, as far as I know. His good friend Friedrich Engels had more interest, however, and he even wrote a book, "Dialectics of Nature".

He came up with these three laws of nature:
  1. The law of the transformation of quantity into quality and vice versa;
  2. The law of the interpenetration of opposites;
  3. The law of the negation of the negation.
1883-Dialectics of Nature-Index - at marxists.org

Seems to me a lot of hand-waving.
 

lpetrich

Contributor
Joined
Jul 28, 2000
Messages
20,791
Location
Eugene, OR
Gender
Male
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
Evolutionary biology is NOT a personality cult of Charles Darwin. I repeat, evolutionary biology is NOT a personality cult of Charles Darwin. He was important in the field, but I've read a LOT of research into evolutionary biology, and evolutionary biologists don't argue by quoting Origin of Species at each other.
 

Jarhyn

Wizard
Joined
Mar 29, 2010
Messages
12,458
Gender
Androgyne; they/them
Basic Beliefs
Natural Philosophy, Game Theoretic Ethicist
Karl Marx wasn't a researcher into biology. The Bible is very horrible about biology, and I'm judging it by what a careful observer back then would have concluded.

The most biology in the Bible is in Leviticus 11, which tries to use taxonomic criteria to identify which animals are OK to eat.

It starts off with chewing the cud and having split hooves, something that is actually good. But it soon goes downhill, stating that rabbits chew the cud. Is that from rabbits twitching their noses?

Then it states that one may only eat sea animals with fins and scales. No problem there.

Then it gets into birds, listing a lot of different kind of birds that one must not eat. At the end of this list is the bat. That's a very glaring flub, because bats look much more like mice than like most other birds. Here is another view of bats from antiquity: The Bat, Birds, and The Beasts - Fables of Aesop - about bats as fence-sitters, flying like birds, but having mammalian anatomy.

Then it mentions several insects as walking on four legs. This is a very naive extrapolation from larger animals with horizontal main body axes.

There are other oddities in the Bible, like Genesis 3:14, where we find that the snake in the Garden of Eden was ordered to crawl on its belly and eat dust. How was that snake moving around before then? Like a Q-Bert springing snake? Also, lizards and mice seem close to crawling on their bellies, so one ought to ask why snakes are legless.

I'm not going to speculate about the sea monster in the Book of Jonah. Calling it a "whale" or a "fish" seems too specific, and I think that it was some imaginary super animal. In any case, poor Jonah would have suffocated inside that animal.

In the Book of Job, Behemoth seems like some large herbivore: a hippopotamus or a rhinoceros or an elephant. Leviathan is more difficult to identify, and it seems to me to be some imaginary super animal, like the sea monster that swallowed Jonah.
Thing is, just this year (or was it last?), some folks got taken into the mouth of a whale and spit out.

One of them managed to film it.

I'm guessing a story got exaggerated there.

The leviathan could have been anything, as you mentioned. I expect it was an interpretation of seeing the back of a whale and thinking it was longer than it was, having only seen one or two, and people agreeing with whatever inaccuracies.

It's not like people in antiquity spent a lot of time near or seeing whales when the original stories were written, and boats sucked ass.

Looking at how Romans thought dolphins looked is kind of revealing there.
 

lpetrich

Contributor
Joined
Jul 28, 2000
Messages
20,791
Location
Eugene, OR
Gender
Male
Basic Beliefs
Atheist

lpetrich

Contributor
Joined
Jul 28, 2000
Messages
20,791
Location
Eugene, OR
Gender
Male
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
 History of evolutionary thought - speculations about descent with modification go back a long way, and they competed with:
  • Miraculous creation of ancestral populations - being poofed into existence by some superbeing(s) or mysterious force(s)
  • Species of organisms always existing
  • Spontaneous generation of species members
Spontaneous generation? It was taken for granted that while some organisms are only produced by other ones, some other ones emerge from nonliving matter all the time. Like this: Arcana Microcosmi, II:10 - Alexander Ross (1652) Arcana Microcosmi, Book II, Chapter 10, pp. 151-156.
He doubts whether mice can be procreated of putrifaction. So he may doubt whether in cheese and timber worms are generated; Or if Betels and wasps in cowes dung; Or if butterflies, locusts, grashoppers, shel-fish, snails, eeles, and such like, be procreated of putrified matter, which is apt to receive the form of that creature to which it is by the formative power disposed. To question this, is to question Reason, Sense, and Experience: If he doubts of this, let him go to Ægypt, and there he will finde the fields swarming with mice begot of the mud of Nylus, to the great calamity of the Inhabitants.
He doubts that mice can be produced by rotting material. So he may doubt that worms can be produced by cheese and timber, or beetles and wasps by cow dung, or butterflies, locusts, grasshoppers, shellfish, snails, eels, and the like by rotting material, material which is capable of receiving the forms of these creatures. To question this is to question reason, sense, and experience. If one doubts this, one should go to Egypt, and one will find the fields overrun by mice that came from the mud of the Nile River, to the great calamity of the Inhabitants.

I also note Jan-Baptista van Helmont's recipe for mice. Put some wheat and dirty underwear into a pot, and in 21 days, mice will appear -- mice just like other mice, and able to breed in the usual way.

The beginning of the end was with Francesco Redi's 1668 experiments on the spontaneous generation of flies from rotting meat. He noticed that flies produced by rotting meat are the same kind of flies that are attracted to rotting meat. So were these flies making the meat make more flies?

He did some experiments which are a classic example of experimental design. Anyone who thinks that the science is nothing more than bull sessions should look at those experiments. FR reasoned that if meat makes flies without being visited by flies, then one should see what happens if one keeps flies away from meat. Will it still make flies? He tried that, and he found that it didn't. He also did an experiment where he tested whether such isolated meat can attract flies. He put some meat in a jar and put gauze on top of it. The meat's smell attracted flies, and some of the flies laid eggs on the gauze.

FR thus showed that rotting meat does not make flies on its own.

FR's experiments were easy to extend to other species, and by the mid 19th cy. spontaneous generation was thoroughly discredited. It took that long because while the SG of macroscopic organisms was fairly easy to discredit, it was much more difficult for microscopic ones.
 

lpetrich

Contributor
Joined
Jul 28, 2000
Messages
20,791
Location
Eugene, OR
Gender
Male
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
In the mid 18th cy., Georges-Louis Leclerc, Comte de Buffon proposed that there was not one place of miraculous poofing, but several "centers of creation". That would explain the limited ranges of many species. Why do rattlesnakes live only in North America? Kangaroos only in Australia? Etc.

Around 1800, George Cuvier looked at bones of mammoths, and he concluded that they were a species of elephant, but one distinct from the two present ones. He concluded that here was a species that had gone extinct. It was often believed back then that God would not allow any of his creations to go extinct, but here was a clear case of that happening.

This led to a common belief in the early 19th cy., species being separately created over geological time. Poof poof poof poof poof ...

Also around 1800, Jean-Baptiste Lamarck proposed descent by modification. But he seems to have thought that different species represent separate lineages. He is best known for believing in the inheritance of acquired characteristics, but his major mechanism of evolution was orthogenesis, evolution driven by internal forces.

A similar mechanism often proposed was direct induction by the environment. That would explain why camouflaged animals look much like their environments.

Charles Darwin not only made a very convincing case for evolution, he pretty much founded evolutionary biology. Without him, the scientific community would have retraced his reasoning and accepted evolution by the late 19th century.
 

No Robots

Maykkerz
Joined
Jan 9, 2006
Messages
356
Location
Edmonton, Alberta
Basic Beliefs
Christian.atheist
Hello, lpetrich. Always glad to hear from you.

I freely acknowledge that there has been a process, call it evolution, wherein life has produced multicellular organisms from unicellular organisms. We know that we ourselves as individuals started as unicelluar organisms. However, we also know that the progress of an individual from unicellular to multicellular organism is not random, but determined. It is my contention that the progress of the biosphere as a whole is likewise not random, but determined. Following this same line of thought, just as it is useless to say that one organ of our body is derived from another, so is it useless to say that one life-form is derived from another. What is important is that each organ and each life-form has unique properties the understanding of which is the purpose of science.

The whole of reality is a process of self-expression. Reality itself has intention, and that intention is to reveal itself to itself in infinite forms. It is the human mind that provides reality with that power of knowing itself in infinite forms. That is what Marx means when he talks about man as being the Gattungswesen: it is man that perceives reality as infinite forms. This understanding of reality as infinite forms is the basis of the Bible's teaching. It is also present in philosophy, as with Plato's doctrine of forms.

Evolution is the process through which life attains to self-understanding as infinite forms. In this sense, man is the object and objective of evolution. The problem with our science today is that it discards the idea of infinite forms in favour of infinite flux, wherein reality is understood as random and without any object or objective. This results in a state of radical unknowing, of creative stupidity. That's fine for the vast majority of people. It satisfies their desire to escape determinism and live out their fantasies of wealth, power and pleasure. For the serious-minded, however, for those who are compelled to seek out the rational, the intuitive and the intellectual, another approach is required. Luckily it is ready at hand in the works that I have mentioned.
 

pood

Veteran Member
Joined
Oct 25, 2021
Messages
1,195
Basic Beliefs
agnostic
Evolution is the process through which life attains to self-understanding as infinite forms. In this sense, man is the object and objective of evolution.

Any evidence for this?
 

No Robots

Maykkerz
Joined
Jan 9, 2006
Messages
356
Location
Edmonton, Alberta
Basic Beliefs
Christian.atheist
Evolution is the process through which life attains to self-understanding as infinite forms. In this sense, man is the object and objective of evolution.

Any evidence for this?
Call it an extrapolation from incomplete evidence. Call it intuition. Call it a reasoned surmise. Call it a working premise. Call it a time-honoured approach. It's what I believe, it's what I live. I am at home with those who share this outlook, and I view those who reject it as opponents. Some of these opponents are worthy and seek only to further science. However, others are science fascists who seek to exterminate any view but their own.
 

pood

Veteran Member
Joined
Oct 25, 2021
Messages
1,195
Basic Beliefs
agnostic
OK, so no evidence, got it. And of course, there is a mountain of evidence that goes the other way — evolution is a stoachastic process with no end in mind, no telos. Humans are just one among a vast number of extant branches, and humans will one day go extinct as 99 percent of species have gone extinct.
 

No Robots

Maykkerz
Joined
Jan 9, 2006
Messages
356
Location
Edmonton, Alberta
Basic Beliefs
Christian.atheist
OK, so no evidence, got it. And of course, there is a mountain of evidence that goes the other way — evolution is a stoachastic process with no end in mind, no telos. Humans are just one among a vast number of extant branches, and humans will one day go extinct as 99 percent of species have gone extinct.
That is your faith. Well and good. Just leave me to operate on the basis of mine.
 

pood

Veteran Member
Joined
Oct 25, 2021
Messages
1,195
Basic Beliefs
agnostic
I don’t have a faith. I have evidence. You have none, as you just admitted.
 

pood

Veteran Member
Joined
Oct 25, 2021
Messages
1,195
Basic Beliefs
agnostic
The evidence shows that it’s a stochstic process. This has nothing to do with faith. “Evidence” in this context is pretty much the opposite of “faith.”
 

pood

Veteran Member
Joined
Oct 25, 2021
Messages
1,195
Basic Beliefs
agnostic
To be precise, “stotachistic” does not mean that evolution is random. “Stochastic” and “random” are not exaclty the same thing. A stochastic process is inherently unpredictable and has elements of randomness. In evolution, those elements are mutations and genetic drift. Natural selection in tandem with random mutation is not a random process but it is not a directed process either. Evolution has no mind or intent. Ergo humans cannot be its object or objective.
 

Elixir

Made in America
Joined
Sep 23, 2012
Messages
21,845
Location
Mountains
Basic Beliefs
English is complicated
Evolutionary biology is NOT a personality cult of Charles Darwin. I repeat, evolutionary biology is NOT a personality cult of Charles Darwin. He was important in the field, but I've read a LOT of research into evolutionary biology, and evolutionary biologists don't argue by quoting Origin of Species at each other.
^ That.

I am not an evolutionary biologist but have read enough of it to know this:

* Evolution is not some paradigm existing in a vacuum to compete with biblical superstitions, Lysenkoism, Lamarckism or any other hypothetical, philosophical or pseudoscientific framework. It is a utilitarian construct that is both explanatory and predictive, and has never been seriously challenged in either role.
* Evolution refers to an observable process undergone by EVERY population of imperfect self-replicators in dynamic fitness landscapes, without exception.
* Evolutionary biology is the study of that process. It may include studying dead ends, or partial dead ends like lamarckian causes of genetic modification, but the process persists regardless of which avenues of study do or do not pan out.

NR has failed to provide any principle - or even example - that would indicate that his "j-m biology" exceeds evolutionary biology in either explanatory or predictive power.
So my question would be "what good is it"? I am not assuming that NR's ideas should be automatically consigned to the circular file just because I don't see any reason for it. Just hoping maybe NR can give reason to think this "J-M biology" deserves continued consideration.
 

bilby

Fair dinkum thinkum
Joined
Mar 7, 2007
Messages
28,885
Location
The Sunshine State: The one with Crocs, not Gators
Gender
He/Him
Basic Beliefs
Strong Atheist
Evolution is the process through which life attains to self-understanding as infinite forms. In this sense, man is the object and objective of evolution.

Any evidence for this?
Call it an extrapolation from incomplete evidence. Call it intuition. Call it a reasoned surmise. Call it a working premise. Call it a time-honoured approach.
I prefer to call it opinionated self-centred ignorance.
It's what I believe, it's what I live. I am at home with those who share this outlook, and I view those who reject it as opponents. Some of these opponents are worthy and seek only to further science.
Your abject lack of qualification or ability to judge who is or is not seeking to further science is no bar to your opinionated self-centred ignorance at all, is it?
However, others are science fascists who seek to exterminate any view but their own.
Nor does it cause you to resile from pre-emptive logical fallacies, I notice. :rolleyesa:
 

No Robots

Maykkerz
Joined
Jan 9, 2006
Messages
356
Location
Edmonton, Alberta
Basic Beliefs
Christian.atheist
Here is some background for my outlook:

What is "variation” in the Darwinian sense of the word? It is simply the wish in action of the World-Will to see itself under an infinite number of guises. Variation is Mother Nature trying on a new dress before the mirror of Mind. Variation—in its countless suits of clothes and dresses—is simply the Zeitgeist on parade. (This is a book—an essay—that no professional scientist, biologist or psychologist, professor or any variation of these endowed pimps of routine and rhodomontade will ever endorse. As it raises biology and psychology to an aesthetic and lifts an heretofore pathological term—exhibitionism—into the realm of universal law, it is a book solely for rowdy brains, free-lance minds and mellowed demonic seers.)--Benjamin DeCasseres, "Exhibitionism: A New Theory of Evolution"
 

Elixir

Made in America
Joined
Sep 23, 2012
Messages
21,845
Location
Mountains
Basic Beliefs
English is complicated
others are science fascists who seek to exterminate any view but their own.
I ain't no dam fashist!
I do invite you to give reason to subscribe to your "outlook".
I don't consider "the wish in action of the World-Will" to be of any real-world use, even if that is an applicable description of what truly occurs.
It's also non-falsifiable and non-predictive. Sure, it might survive in some form along side actual science (evolutionary biology) but it doesn't alter or add to - let alone supplant it.
 

pood

Veteran Member
Joined
Oct 25, 2021
Messages
1,195
Basic Beliefs
agnostic
Here is some background for my outlook:

What is "variation” in the Darwinian sense of the word? It is simply the wish in action of the World-Will to see itself under an infinite number of guises. Variation is Mother Nature trying on a new dress before the mirror of Mind. Variation—in its countless suits of clothes and dresses—is simply the Zeitgeist on parade. (This is a book—an essay—that no professional scientist, biologist or psychologist, professor or any variation of these endowed pimps of routine and rhodomontade will ever endorse. As it raises biology and psychology to an aesthetic and lifts an heretofore pathological term—exhibitionism—into the realm of universal law, it is a book solely for rowdy brains, free-lance minds and mellowed demonic seers.)--Benjamin DeCasseres, "Exhibitionism: A New Theory of Evolution"

I do believe it’s “rodomontade” and not “rhodomontade.”
 

bilby

Fair dinkum thinkum
Joined
Mar 7, 2007
Messages
28,885
Location
The Sunshine State: The one with Crocs, not Gators
Gender
He/Him
Basic Beliefs
Strong Atheist
Here is some background for my outlook:

What is "variation” in the Darwinian sense of the word? It is simply the wish in action of the World-Will to see itself under an infinite number of guises. Variation is Mother Nature trying on a new dress before the mirror of Mind. Variation—in its countless suits of clothes and dresses—is simply the Zeitgeist on parade. (This is a book—an essay—that no professional scientist, biologist or psychologist, professor or any variation of these endowed pimps of routine and rhodomontade will ever endorse. As it raises biology and psychology to an aesthetic and lifts an heretofore pathological term—exhibitionism—into the realm of universal law, it is a book solely for rowdy brains, free-lance minds and mellowed demonic seers.)--Benjamin DeCasseres, "Exhibitionism: A New Theory of Evolution"
Well, those are certainly all words.

(With the possible exception of "rhodomontade").
 

steve_bank

Diabetic retinopathy and poor eyesight. Typos ...
Joined
Nov 10, 2017
Messages
11,150
Location
seattle
Basic Beliefs
secular-skeptic
others are science fascists who seek to exterminate any view but their own.

1. The Earth is flat.
2. The universe revolves around the Earth.
2. Drill holes in the skull to let out evil spirits causing disease.

All 'eradicated' by science, but nobody says you cant believe. it.

The burden of proof is on the believer.

On the contrary it is religious zealots who reject obvious objective science . Yiong Earth Creationists who say humans and dinosaurs coexisted. Not just te religious, wacky prole who spin off into bizarre beleifs.

Oce n while I listen to George Noory's pseudo science radio show Coast To Coast AM. Alien abductions, backyard plants that cure and prevent COVID. Did you know if you put mushrooms in sunlight it creates vitamin D?


If you want alternates to science he is on the air every night. I think he is dangerous when he airs quack medicine.

If you want to disprove evolution with alternate explanations his show is where to go.

To be pedantic Darwinism is an obsolete term. Today it is Theory Of Evolution which includes physics, biology, genetics, chemistry, archeology, palentogy and other disciplines.
 

No Robots

Maykkerz
Joined
Jan 9, 2006
Messages
356
Location
Edmonton, Alberta
Basic Beliefs
Christian.atheist
Now science, having licked theology and pseudo-metaphysics almost to a frazzle, is attempting in its turn to Fascize the human mind. Professional, professorial and official science is the new Moloch. Reason, experience, hard-boiled facts are the new Trinity. Everything in the universe, including ourselves of course, is to be filed, carded, indexed, labelled and "explained.” There is a neat pigeonhole of a theory for everything. When science changes its mind, when it reverses itself, it merely re-letters the pigeonholes and juggles the contents. And it plays at this game as though the very existence of God, time, space and humanity was dependent on these juvenile pastimes! To question the divinity of science is now the new blasphemy.--DeCasseres
 

pood

Veteran Member
Joined
Oct 25, 2021
Messages
1,195
Basic Beliefs
agnostic
Here is some background for my outlook:

What is "variation” in the Darwinian sense of the word? It is simply the wish in action of the World-Will to see itself under an infinite number of guises. Variation is Mother Nature trying on a new dress before the mirror of Mind. Variation—in its countless suits of clothes and dresses—is simply the Zeitgeist on parade. (This is a book—an essay—that no professional scientist, biologist or psychologist, professor or any variation of these endowed pimps of routine and rhodomontade will ever endorse. As it raises biology and psychology to an aesthetic and lifts an heretofore pathological term—exhibitionism—into the realm of universal law, it is a book solely for rowdy brains, free-lance minds and mellowed demonic seers.)--Benjamin DeCasseres, "Exhibitionism: A New Theory of Evolution"

If aesthetics is the issue, I’ll go with this:

Thus, from the war of nature, from famine and death, the most exalted object which we are capable of conceiving, namely, the production of the higher animals, directly follows. There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved.

Indeed. The greatest show on earth, and the greatest aesthetics on earth, too.
 

No Robots

Maykkerz
Joined
Jan 9, 2006
Messages
356
Location
Edmonton, Alberta
Basic Beliefs
Christian.atheist
Here is some background for my outlook:

What is "variation” in the Darwinian sense of the word? It is simply the wish in action of the World-Will to see itself under an infinite number of guises. Variation is Mother Nature trying on a new dress before the mirror of Mind. Variation—in its countless suits of clothes and dresses—is simply the Zeitgeist on parade. (This is a book—an essay—that no professional scientist, biologist or psychologist, professor or any variation of these endowed pimps of routine and rhodomontade will ever endorse. As it raises biology and psychology to an aesthetic and lifts an heretofore pathological term—exhibitionism—into the realm of universal law, it is a book solely for rowdy brains, free-lance minds and mellowed demonic seers.)--Benjamin DeCasseres, "Exhibitionism: A New Theory of Evolution"

If aesthetics is the issue, I’ll go with this:

Thus, from the war of nature, from famine and death, the most exalted object which we are capable of conceiving, namely, the production of the higher animals, directly follows. There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved.

Indeed. The greatest show on earth, and the greatest aesthetics on earth, too.
Indeed. No quarrel here. However, I draw your attention to "the fixed law of gravity", and merely affirm that all reality is part of the same fixed law.
 

pood

Veteran Member
Joined
Oct 25, 2021
Messages
1,195
Basic Beliefs
agnostic
Here is some background for my outlook:

What is "variation” in the Darwinian sense of the word? It is simply the wish in action of the World-Will to see itself under an infinite number of guises. Variation is Mother Nature trying on a new dress before the mirror of Mind. Variation—in its countless suits of clothes and dresses—is simply the Zeitgeist on parade. (This is a book—an essay—that no professional scientist, biologist or psychologist, professor or any variation of these endowed pimps of routine and rhodomontade will ever endorse. As it raises biology and psychology to an aesthetic and lifts an heretofore pathological term—exhibitionism—into the realm of universal law, it is a book solely for rowdy brains, free-lance minds and mellowed demonic seers.)--Benjamin DeCasseres, "Exhibitionism: A New Theory of Evolution"

If aesthetics is the issue, I’ll go with this:

Thus, from the war of nature, from famine and death, the most exalted object which we are capable of conceiving, namely, the production of the higher animals, directly follows. There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved.

Indeed. The greatest show on earth, and the greatest aesthetics on earth, too.
Indeed. No quarrel here. However, I draw your attention to "the fixed law of gravity", and merely affirm that all reality is part of the same fixed law.

Yes, gravity is universal. What does that have to do with evolution, apart from the fact that without gravity, nothing would exist anyway?
 
Top Bottom