Re: Article: Group selection, a theory whose time has


"John W Edser" <edser@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:fkbpag$2jo7$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
"Entertained by my own EIMC" <write_to_eimc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:-

JE;-
Unless a limiting unit is provided within the one same falsifiable frame
of
refernce, how anything within the frame is supposed to behave makes
absolutely no empirical sense.
Newton defined this to be monocentric
additive (independent) packets of matter. In Darwinism this limiting
entity
is just monocentric additive fertile form fitnesses and absolutely nothing
else, i.e. it is NOT individuals genes, infertile individuals or
populations
of anything.

Do you agree with the proposition that such an *in principle required* unit
and frame may be defined in such a way that (if adopted) it debilitates
one's capacity to see or make approximately accurate sense of What Is (and
has been) going on?

[I do agree with it. And I tentatively believe you can and do generally
agree too.]

I also tentatively believe that if you made your own
"evolution-philosophical/theoretical" frame and unit elastic and transparent
enough (but of course no more elastic than necessary) you would be able to
at least in principle adopt my thinking in terms of _generically defined_
"evolutionary pressure _types_" whose obviously frequent 'overlapping' in
the phylogeny of fauna happened to select *for* the most elaborately and
far-reachingly *ambiadvantageously* evolved (or thusly adapted) species on
this planet.

You know which speicies I am referring to. ;-)

If you allow two or more units of selection within the one same
theory you are only attempting to provide two or more frames of reference
which have no other choice but to contradict each other if they remain
different. If they are the same then you have only provided one!
Unfortunatley this basic rationale lies way beyond the mathematical mind.

Fortunately, this problematic impasse is not part of my "evolutionary
philosophical type" of enlightement promoting thinking. :-)

However, I am no more bugged by "it" than I am about other scientists'
(and/or musicians', etc... :-)) seeming intellectual inability - and/or
neurotically motivated unwillingness as opposed to my likewise (but
clearly
far less common) neurotically motivated willingness - to 'employ
pragmatically tenuous' terms/tools (mine or anybody else's) for drawing
the
same or very similar science-aligned conclusions (about What Is going on)
that I have done.

JE:-
Your problem is people simply do not understand it. If only you would
attempt write it out in a standard format with all your new terms defined
and preferably, without masses of bracketed inclusions, then reader's may
have a chance to understand it.

IF the way I write "it" reflects how I managed to understand *what it is
that I understand* AND what I understand *universally requires* in order to
be understood, THEN the way I write, and think, might actually be a blessing
in disguise.

All that said, it would be nice to know that I shared being in [this my not
often engrossing to others but at least by endeavor poignantly theoretical]
'position of oracular overviewing' (or ditto understanding) with someone
else . %}

Regards,

P


.

Loading