Which Darwin?

[daddycaylor]

Today is Charles Darwin's 200th birthday (the 150th anniversay of the
publication of "On the Origin of Species", and we Americans at least
are also celebrating the 200th birthday of Abraham Lincoln.

Perhaps at this milestone it would be good to bring up the question,
What bearing does Darwin's legacy have on the topic here on the
Everything List?  Of course that begs the question, What is Darwin's
legacy?

Yesterday I heard an interview on the radio regarding the many faces
of Lincoln, that there have been many interpretations of Lincoln's
life and accomplishments, and his legacy.  I think the same is true of
Darwin.

One difference that I have observed, to put it in words sometimes used
on this List, is in whether or not the first person experience is
accepted as a reality that cannot be reduced to a third person view.
Perhaps on the "no first/third person disctinction" side of this fence
is Dennet, as in his book Darwin's Dangerous Idea, where he maintains
that the whole process of evolution, and in fact all of reality, can
be reduced to an algorithm.  On the other side of the fence might be
Gould, or the biologist Carl Woese, as in his paper "A New Biology for
a New Century".  Another way to state this difference is to say that
the mind/body problem is is/is not solvable.  If it is, then perhaps
reductionism is valid, and this would shed a different light on the
Everything problem.  It it is not, this would shed a different light
on the whole thing.

Any thoughts on this deep and wide arena?

P.S. I'm hoping this doesn't start a rant against anti-science views,
of which I am not a holder.  There is something far deeper going on
here.
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@...
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscribe@...
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

[russell standish-2]

On Thu, Feb 12, 2009 at 09:05:20AM -0800, Tom Caylor wrote:

>
> Today is Charles Darwin's 200th birthday (the 150th anniversay of the
> publication of "On the Origin of Species", and we Americans at least
> are also celebrating the 200th birthday of Abraham Lincoln.
>
> Perhaps at this milestone it would be good to bring up the question,
> What bearing does Darwin's legacy have on the topic here on the
> Everything List?  Of course that begs the question, What is Darwin's
> legacy?
>

I, for one, think evolution has everything to do with this
topic. Chapters 6 & 7 of my book present my argument - I'd be wasting
bandwidth by reposting it here. David Deutsch also argues for
evolution's importance in FOR, in his own way. I happen to think that my
presentation is a decade younger, and a decade more sophisticated, but
that essentially it is the same argument.

> One difference that I have observed, to put it in words sometimes used
> on this List, is in whether or not the first person experience is
> accepted as a reality that cannot be reduced to a third person view.
> Perhaps on the "no first/third person disctinction" side of this fence
> is Dennet, as in his book Darwin's Dangerous Idea, where he maintains
> that the whole process of evolution, and in fact all of reality, can
> be reduced to an algorithm.  

To be truthful, I don't think the concept of an algorithm even makes
sense without a 1/3 person distinction. Without at least two layers of
description, there can be no information (& no complexity nor entropy)
- see chapter 2 of my book.

> On the other side of the fence might be
> Gould, or the biologist Carl Woese, as in his paper "A New Biology for
> a New Century".  Another way to state this difference is to say that
> the mind/body problem is is/is not solvable.  If it is, then perhaps
> reductionism is valid, and this would shed a different light on the
> Everything problem.  It it is not, this would shed a different light
> on the whole thing.
>
> Any thoughts on this deep and wide arena?
>
> P.S. I'm hoping this doesn't start a rant against anti-science views,
> of which I am not a holder.  There is something far deeper going on
> here.
>

--

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Prof Russell Standish                  Phone [phone] (mobile)
Mathematics                        
UNSW SYDNEY 2052                 hpcoder@...
Australia                                http://www.hpcoders.com.au
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@...
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscribe@...
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

[Bruno Marchal]

On 12 Feb 2009, at 18:05, Tom Caylor wrote:

>
> Today is Charles Darwin's 200th birthday (the 150th anniversay of the
> publication of "On the Origin of Species", and we Americans at least
> are also celebrating the 200th birthday of Abraham Lincoln.
>
> Perhaps at this milestone it would be good to bring up the question,
> What bearing does Darwin's legacy have on the topic here on the
> Everything List?  Of course that begs the question, What is Darwin's
> legacy?
>
> Yesterday I heard an interview on the radio regarding the many faces
> of Lincoln, that there have been many interpretations of Lincoln's
> life and accomplishments, and his legacy.  I think the same is true of
> Darwin.
>
> One difference that I have observed, to put it in words sometimes used
> on this List, is in whether or not the first person experience is
> accepted as a reality that cannot be reduced to a third person view.
> Perhaps on the "no first/third person disctinction" side of this fence
> is Dennet, as in his book Darwin's Dangerous Idea, where he maintains
> that the whole process of evolution, and in fact all of reality, can
> be reduced to an algorithm.  On the other side of the fence might be
> Gould, or the biologist Carl Woese, as in his paper "A New Biology for
> a New Century".  Another way to state this difference is to say that
> the mind/body problem is is/is not solvable.  If it is, then perhaps
> reductionism is valid, and this would shed a different light on the
> Everything problem.  It it is not, this would shed a different light
> on the whole thing.
>
> Any thoughts on this deep and wide arena?
>
> P.S. I'm hoping this doesn't start a rant against anti-science views,
> of which I am not a holder.  There is something far deeper going on
> here.

If Mechanism is true, then Reductionism is false.

More precisely:

If reductionism is locally true about body and bodies, then  
reductionism is false on reality and realities, be it mind or material  
manifestations.

 From inside: local reductionism entails global non-reductionism.
 From outside: global reductionism entails local non-reductionism.

In any case, reductionism is false. There is no reductionist theory of  
the universal machine.

I would say,

Bruno



http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/




--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@...
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscribe@...
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---