Topic:
Is the Darwinistic selection principle false?
Thesis:
The Darwinistic selection principle is false, unless human beings
were not included in that theory.
Darwin's selection principle means that successful living beings have
more offspring than the unsuccessful living beings and live on, whereas
unsuccessful living beings have less offspring than the successful living
beings and die out. But in the case of the human beings this selection
principle can be reversed: successful human beings have less offspring
than the unsuccessful human beings and die out, whereas unsuccessful living
beings have more offspring than the successful living beings and live
on. The human culture/s allow/s to circumvent the Darwinistic selection
principle.
Ben J. Schmoe wrote:
„These puzzles are on Wikipedia with solutions explained.“
**
This thread should be called „Cheating Fun“.
Great and Wise Trixie wrote:
„Never heard about philosophy jobs. Philosophy is about being
destitute and not fitting into society. Satyr is one of the best philosophers
here, and he lives with his mom.“ **
Shouldn't a philosopher live alone?
Animals can also have the cold or the flu.
Most of the best philosophers of all times lived alone.
Should all people be philosophers?
Most of the people should not live alone (thus:
should not be philosophers).
Sorry, Ben. You have misunderstood me. I was merely referring to the
statement in your post („These puzzles are on Wikipedia with solutions
explained.“ **)
but not to you personally.
If people can get all the solutions and their explanations from other
websites, then this thread is more about cheating than mathematics.
What you did was right, Ben. Don't worry.
„Spaces of Transformation: Spatialised Immunity.
Peter Sloterdijk’s philosophico-morphological theory is based
on an understanding of the history of culture as spatialisations of
forms. The world in which we live now requires us to design new types
of ‘spatialised immunity’. More broadly, the concept of a
spherical logic of space – a polymorphologic of form, order and
thinking – is explicated in Spheres, his three-volume archaeology
of the human attempt to dwell within spaces, from womb to globe. The
Spheres project (Bubbles, Globe, Foam) is a significant topological
turn in the field of contemporary philosophy, »a super-workout
for communicative energies capable of finding contact throughout the
entire world.«“ **
Darwin's selection principle of his theory of evolution itself is an
equivocation. It even contains a contradiction, because the humans do
do not completely fit it. On the one side humans fit Darwin's selection
principle of his theory of evolution when it comes to human nature, but
on the other side humans do not fit Darwin's selection principle of his
theory of evolution when it comes to human culture/s respectively to the
modern era/s of human culture/s.
What do you not understand?
Your ideological (modern religious) „statement“ (**)
is meaningless, because your false god Darwin was partly wrong, regardless
whether it is hard for an Darwinistic theist like you to believe it (by
the way: Darwin was a theist too - a pantheist).
When it became obvious that the „natural selection“ was partly
false, the „sexual selection“ was invented. When it became obvious
that the „sexual selection“ was also partly false, the „kin
selection“ was invented. When it became obvious that the „kin
selection“ was also partly false, the „social selection“
was invented. And so on, and so on .... The „natural selection“
is - more or less - contradicted by the other „selections“,
especially and completely by the „social selection“. The Darwinistic
selection principle is merely a farce.
The theologist Darwin was a Malthusian, and Malthus was an economist.
In nature (in nature!) fitness or success is measured
by reproduction. Living beings that have the most offspring are the „fittest“,
thus are most successfull (because you can merely be most successful,
if you are the „fittest“). Success is the consequence of fitness.
The success follows the fitness. So when it comes to nature it is absolutely
correct to say that successful living beings live on, because they have
more offspring than the unsuccessful living beings, whereas successful
living beings die out, because they have no offspring or less offspring
than the unsuccessful living beings. But when it come to humans, especially
to modern humans culture/s, it is not correct to say that, because modern
humans are fit, thus successful, when they have no offspring or less offspring
than those humans who are not fit, thus unseccessful.
The said „social selection“ contains the possibility of selecting
against the Darwinistic selection principle. And this happened and
happens. Thus it was and is a fact.
James S. Saint wrote:
„The Darwin principle of evolution has only been a part of what
has been altering the nature of life, animal and human. The principle
of filtering the strong in and the weak out is entirely situationally
dependent. Given the exact same competitive creatures in a different
environmental situation, the opposite set could succeed instead.“
**
This definitely means that the selection principle of Darwin, the Darwinans,
and the Darwinianists is false.
James S. Saint wrote:
„Strength and weakness are not simple concepts when it comes
to actual life.“ **
The „Political Correctness“ wants us to speak of „fitness“.
James S. Saint wrote:
„Darwin actually defined strength and success in terms of which
ever mutation survived. So actually by definition, the strong always
survive more, else they weren't really the strong. But when it come
to human interaction (societies) and reproduction, »strong«
has to be thought of in different terms than merely direct conflict.
In a Darwin minded society, those who seek to reproduce the most are
„stronger“ than those who perhaps seek to kill their competition.
They are not thought of as being strong because people still think in
terms of natural animal competition when they envision strength. And
as stated by Platospuppy, „successful“ during this era is
mostly an issue of monetary gain or public recognition, not proliferation.“
**
This also means that the selection principle of Darwin, the Darwinans,
and the Darwinianist is false.
James S. Saint wrote:
„So it all gets very complicated and from one era to another
can almost completely change. But there is one aspect that can never
change. And that is which ever behaves in a manner that is more anentropic,
survives longer. But then ensuring which behavior that really is can
be complicated.
So I cannot say that the principle is entirely true nor entirely false.
It is partially true and partially false. It is not a "holy",
stand-alone principle and is often reversed. And the intentional effort
to go along with it, completely defeats it.“ **
Partially true and partially false scientifically
means false, because it has to be regarded as false, if merely one part
of a theory is false. It is the theorist who has to provide a correct
theory.
Opa wrote:
„Well, I hope this benefits someone.“ **
No. All what you said was no news to me.
Opa wrote:
„Arminius wrote:
- ›Es‹ <=> ›id‹
- ›Ich‹ <=> ›ego‹
- ›Über-Ich‹ <=> ›superego‹.«
** **
I was only using the English for all you here.“ **
The English translation of Freud's „Es“
is „id“. Why do you not know this? A German native speaker must
explain the English translation of Freud's „Es“ to an Englsih
native speaker who claims to know some of Freud's books. That's odd.
Opa wrote:
„I read Freud in German.“ **
Where do you come from? What is your first language? And what are your
other languages, if you have any?
Opa wrote:
„I read others in English, but I do think to remember they used
»it«.“ **
That's odd. However, I am glad to see that my information has benefited
you.
Opa wrote:
„However, the Wikipedia shows »ID«, as you say. Maybe
my memory is faulty, but then again, the Wikipedia is not always right.
Anyway, use a translator from German to English and find out that the
German word »Es« is translated with »it«.“
**
I know almost all books of Freud, and my translations
are correct. You can believe me. Freud's „Es“ is translated
by „id“.
Opa wrote:
„Arminius wrote:
»Very young children already learn what their culture allows
and forbids.« **
**
Children learn things bit by bit. It took my son a while to figure
out that eating seashells is not a good idea. He is still working on
not balancing on the window sill to try to reach the door handle. He
has only fallen once or twice. It worries me, so I stop him. Because
I stop him, he has not learned yet.“ **
You should not stop him to often, because children
need freedom in the sense of as much free space as possible, and mothers
usually constrain / box their children too much because mothers are usualy
too much frightened when it comes to rear, nurture, educate their children.
Opa wrote:
„Anyway, do you agree with the general ideas in what I wrote?
Is it helpfull to you?“ **
As I said: All what you said was no news to me.
Opa wrote:
„Arminius wrote:
»I wrote:
›Very young children already learn what their culture allows
and forbids.‹ **
**
They learn for example some hygienic aspects or the eating habits
of their culture.« **
**
I want to point out that the Super-Ego is what contains the cultural
lessons and is often spoken of simply as culture. I don't think you
know that; judging from your replies.“ **
Then you are judging falsely. I am not a Freudian(ist).
I am no ...(ist) at all. Freud meant his „Über-Ich“ („superego“)
as the rules, principles, taboos, etc. of the (A)
culture, and for a child this means the rules, principles, taboos, etc.
of: (A,a) mother, father, siblings - thus
family -; (A,b) kindergarteners, teachers,
peer groups and other groups - thus society.
James S. Saint wrote:
Arminius wrote:
»Partially true and partially false scientifically means false,
because it has to be regarded as false, if merely one part of a theory
is false. It is the theorist who has to provide a correct theory.«
** **
Certainly as a logical statement or solitary theory. My point was
that Darwinism isn't a solitary principle when it comes to evolution.
There are other principles involved. So as far as being the god of evolution,
Darwinism is certainly a false god (aka "incomplete controlling
theory").
And since I first heard of the phrase »survival of the fittest«,
I immediately noted that it is actually the »survival of the fitted«
(those who fit into their environment at the time).
Darwin was really asking, "Why do we see this variety of creature
at this time?" His answer was "because these are the one that
survived." That much of it is unquestionably true.“ **
Yes. What is really very much questionable and partially not true is
the selection principle - not more. Darwin*s theory of evolution is based
on three principles: (1) variation, (2)
heredity, (3) selection.
James S. Saint wrote:
„But then the idea got extended and extrapolated (as people seem
to not be able to avoid) to suggest that absolutely nothing else was
responsible for life being the way it is found. That was over-reaching
the principle and certainly false.
What had some truth to it, became preached as a god.“ **
Those who claim to be „atheists“ are antitheists, or theists,
or both (that's possible), and in this case Darwin is their false god.
There are many of those false gods - as you know; but the main problem
are not the false gods themselves but those stupid ideologists (modern-religious
zealots) who believe in them.
Opa wrote:
„Arminius wrote:
»No. All what you said was no news to me.« **
**
Warum hattest du denn dies Subjekt angefangen?“ **
Fast alle Titel meiner Threads sind Fragen. Ich möchte
wissen, was andere ILP-Mitglieder wissen und glauben oder meinen zu wissen.
Opa wrote:
„Arminius wrote:
»The English translation of Freud's ›Es‹ is ›id‹.
Why do you not know this. A German native speaker must tell an Englsih
native speaker who claims to know some Freud's books how to translate
Freud's ›Es‹. That's odd.« **
**
Im allgemeinen Sprachgebrauch ist »es« doch »it«.“
**
Ja, im allgemeinen Sprachgebrauch. Aber nicht in
der Fachsprache Freuds.
Opa wrote:
„Und, ich sage dass ich es auch oft in Psychoanalyse so gelesen
habe. Wie gesagt: es ist möglich dass ich es nicht ganz richtig
mehr erinnere. Es ist schon einige Jahre her.
Bei mir ist es noch länger her.
Opa wrote:
„Arminius wrote:
»I know almost all books of Freud ....« **
**
Kennst du seine Werke?“ **
Ja.
Opa wrote:
„Arminius wrote:
»You should not stop him to often, because children need freedom
in the sense of as much free space as possible, and mothers usually
constrain / box their children too much because mothers are usualy
too much frightened when it comes to rear, nurture, educate their
children.« **
**
Ja. Natürlich, aber als er da fällt, ist es möglich
dass er seinen Hals bricht. Solle ich nicht passieren lassen natürlich!“
**
Das ist auch richtig.
Opa wrote:
„Arminius wrote:
»As I said: All what you said was no news to me.« **
**
Das war mir nicht deutlich wie viel du weisst davon.“ **
Ja, wahrscheinlich, denn ich bin nicht mehr sehr an Freud interessiert.
Opa wrote:
„Arminius wrote:
»Then you are judging falsely. I am not a Freudian(ist). I
am no ...(ist) at all. Freud meant his ›Über-Ich‹ (›superego‹)
as the rules, principles, taboos, etc. of the (A)
culture, and for a child this means the rules, principles, taboos,
etc. of: (A,a) mother, father, siblings
- thus family -; (A,b) kindergarteners,
teachers, peer groups and other groups - thus society.« **
**
Aber immer noch mit kleinen Schritten.“ **
Ganz genau, ja.
Opa wrote:
„Mein Deutsch ist vielleicht nicht sehr gut.“ **
Es ist gut.
Opa wrote:
„Ich brauche es nicht oft. Es ist auch nicht meine erste Sprache.
Englisch is auch nicht meine erste Sprache. So spriche ich noch enige
Sprache. Jedemfalls: entschuldige vor den Fehler.“ **
Eine Entschuldigung ist nicht nötig. Danke für die Antwort.
Ich habe mich sehr gefreut.
Opa wrote:
„Arminius wrote:
»Fast alle Titel meiner Threads sind Fragen. Ich möchte
wissen, was andere ILP-Mitglieder wissen und glauben oder meinen zu
wissen.« **
**
Vielleicht ist es nu Zeit deine Gedanke zu erzählen?“ **
Vielleicht. Manche Gedanken habe ich ja schon erzählt. Die anderen
Gedanken werden folgen.
Opa wrote:
Arminius wrote:
»Ja, im allgemeinen Sprachgebrauch. Aber nicht in der Fachsprache
Freuds.« **
**
Vielleicht ist es auch abhängig von wen wir lesen?“ **
Deshalb schrieb ich »Fachsprache Freuds«. Der Unterschied
zwischen »Es« und »es« ist im Deutschen
gegeben, aber im Englischen nicht mehr: »it« und »it«.
Um den Unterschied auch im Englischen deutlich machen zu können,
hat man einen Unterschied erfunden: »id« und »it«.
Opa wrote:
„Oder ist man nicht so strict mehr?“ **
Wohl nicht mehr so sehr wie früher - „dank“ Internet
u.ä..
Opa wrote:
„Vielleicht sollen wir einander noch mal treffen , weil seine
Werke doch immer noch inspirieren können.“ **
Vielleicht, ja.
|
Kommentare zu Kommentaren im Weltnetz 
