Hello g!

Am Wed, 27 Dec 2006 02:03:30 -0500 schrieb g:

:)

ok -- layman to layman

me to

The evolution is not such a process.

What we need is a more abstract view to the process of evolution.

We need a more abstract level. There are two "experiments" to reach a
higher level: Dawking and Hans Hass with the Energontheory
But these levels are not abstrakt enougth to solve the problem.

Dawking
The genes are /not/ the essenz of the evolution -- the genes are the
essenz of the /biological/ evolution -- that all.

"Carsten Thumulla" thumulla.com> wrote in message
news:200612271433.27309.carsten@thumulla.com...

Carsten,

I am not certain that I follow you in asserting that we need an
*abstract* theory to explain the evolutionary process.

Here again, definitions among both scholars and lay people,
like you and me, vary... and we can only be on the same page
if we make sure each of us understands what the other means
in using a term. So, let me try to clarify what *abstract" means
to me in the context of evolution.

An abstract model can be mathematically (logically) sound.
However, when I make the statement that "nature is and does
what nature is and does WITHOUT REGARD to what
abstract models we may create and tentatively apply to it.
As I have put this elsewhere, "nature is AS nature is, and not
necessarily as we perceive it to be.

When a logical human thinker claims to have found a logical
(mathematical) model which fits all the KNOWN elements and
behaviors of those elements of a SYSTEM, that mathematical
model is called (by widely accepted conventions) and *APPLICATION*.

AAAAAARRRRRRGGGGGGHHHHHHH !

PETER !

You've changed your forum name. I didn't recognize you.

Great to read you again. How in the heck have you been, you likeable rascal
you?

When you go into free-flow-of-ideas mode, I find myself having to work
harder than I want
to, to try to follow it. I have to admit, however, that at some points I
almost enjoy and tend to think maybe I can follow what your message might
be.

Wayyyyyyy back in the fifties, I got on a reading kick on psychiatric
counseling and read some
books written by psychiatrists, giving verbatim transcripts of some
doctor-patient sessions,
and then applying "theory" to what took place in the transcripts. As best I
can recall, the
psychiatrists were all of the classical school -- i.e., Freudian.

Happy New Year Gil!

"g" earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:en7jb9$17td$1@darwin.ediacara.org...

Michael Gazzaniga is a neuropsychology type researcher
who have more than most have uncovered and recognized our innate (and of
course AEVASIVE) compulsion to rationalize.

[moderator's disclosure: Unless I'm mistaken, I believe Dr. Gazzaniga
was a colleague of my father's back in the 1960's and 1970's. I don't
think that will alter my moderation strategy, but so you should know.
-JAH]

Hallo g!

Am Fri, 29 Dec 2006 12:59:45 -0500 schrieb g:

:)

If Darwins theory is complete and constantly for the next xxxx jears -- we
dont need this discussion.

For a mathematical formulation of Darwins theory it needs a very long
time. May be, it is not possible.

With more abstract, I does not mean a mathematical formulation.

Carsten,

In a nutshell, what seems to this layman to make the most sense right
now is that evolutionary theory, as of this day, is equivalent to patches
sewed onto an old fabric.

This is NOT to say that contributions of Darwin and a few of the
more recent contributors is not both ingenious and wonderful. It is
both.

HOWEVER, current research, at the molecular level in Earth's biology,
is in progress with what is equivalent to the taking of a "survey" of
genomes, viruses, cells, enzymes, proteins (including prions) and the
chemo-electric switching mechanisms whereby these interact.

Much of the work now going on will require an enormous amount of
further work to complete it, classify it, and enter it into computer
banks in such a way as to enable widespread access and comparisons
and analyses.

Once all this systematic "survey" work nears completion, many things
scientists can only GUESS at now will become far more a matter of
working with hard data.

And a fantastic happy new year to you, too.

As regarding your statement:

I most profoundly and enthusiastically concur!

In fact, please understand that I did a lot of reading on the subject of
"creativity" a couple of decades ago and became convinced by force of much
good, hard, authoritative data that one of the most powerful STULTIFIERS
of creativity is dogmatic entrenchment and an insistence upon rationalized
consistency.

The relationships between "dreaming," "free-association," "nonsense poetry,"
"speaking in tongues," "rapid eye movement therapies," "far-out physics
theorizing," "unrestricted musical composition," "musing," "allowing oneself
to wonder, or to think like a child," "mind expanding meditation,"
"unstructured play," "frivolity," ... all these and more... are good and
positive things ... techniques that open up the capacities of the human
brain to greater creativity and more ability to synthesize NEW DATA.

This is a very belated send.

"g" earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:enjiph$2uo$1@darwin.ediacara.org...

IOW, good creativity - as if constructive and/or healthily renewing
creativity (don't care much for other kinds) - tends to become garrotted by
instilled/preformed (or ready-made) memetic grooves; except for by
those that are - by rare happenstance or contrivance (or deliberate
design) - exquisitely poised to cause goodly creative "landslides" within
peoples' respective "actention selection systems". :-)
--------