|
|
evolutionary biology
Last post 05-26-2008, 4:09 PM by ambosuno. 67 replies.
-
 04-04-2008, 9:09 PM |
-
ralphweidner
-
-
-
Joined on 06-18-2006
-
portland, or
-
Posts 983
-
Points 15,595
-
|
hey ambo and fangsz!
corey blogged about this on the HOLONS newsletter a month or two ago. i think i got what he was saying, which i'd like to expand on.
basically, kurzweil's notion of a singularity is not only limited to the RQs, it fails to recognize transcendence, i.e. it can see that development, even technological, cannot simply continue indefinitely as it has, and this is going to lead to some sort of blow up in about 30 years, but it doesn't realize this can result in a transcendence to a higher level of technology and of consciousness. maybe kurzweil recognizes the first, but not the second, and the second one will be needed to manage the first one.
|
|
-
| 04-05-2008, 3:16 PM |
-
Fangsz
-
-
-
Joined on 07-11-2006
-
-
Posts 142
-
Points 2,240
-
|
 ambosuno:Sure seems connected to me, Fangsz, since it seems that we still need biology as a carrier of articulate communication about consciousness as humans. Of course infinity is a huge possibility or concept and who knows where biology lies when we speculate on that.
I follow you pretty much, and yeah, to my ears it seems that technology, consciousness and biology/matter-as-medium would interact as far out as we can imagine. Exponential I guess refers to the acceleration/speed of the unfoldment and that may be hard to state with much confidence, but nonetheless, is that going out into the yet unentered inexorable? Why not.
The idea of "biology/matter-as-medium" makes me think of something else... Human consciousness and technology seem to unfold through an increasing number of enveloping layers into some line where the energy is so subtle that the whole notion of evolutionary content is changed, and thus consciousness and technology that is specifically human cannot go past that line, but can develop in increasing subtlety up until that line, and the levels of development possible up until that line are infinite. If human consciousness and technology exists in the noosphere (and potentially the Kosmosphere), and then there is a higher sphere that humanity can witness but not explicitly develop into through time, because it transcends time, then to me it would seem that spheres within the noosphere would also continue to develop through their own processes, including the biosphere. If the biosphere continues to develop while its probabilities are being limited by the Kosmic Habits set within the noosphere and the Kosmosphere, then shouldn't the biosphere eventually evolve in ways that establish a more harmonious connection with the noosphere and the Kosmosphere (that is, if those of us within the noosphere can learn to include and not just transcend the biosphere, establishing a workable mode of true sustainability in our world). If this is possible, the "superhuman" abbilities present in ficiton like the tv shows Heroes and LOST don't really seem that far-fetched, especially those that relate specifically to the brain, because there we're really getting into the UR of the noosphere anyway.
|
|
-
| 04-05-2008, 3:18 PM |
-
Fangsz
-
-
-
Joined on 07-11-2006
-
-
Posts 142
-
Points 2,240
-
|
ralphweidner: hey ambo and fangsz! corey blogged about this on the HOLONS newsletter a month or two ago. i think i got what he was saying, which i'd like to expand on. basically, kurzweil's notion of a singularity is not only limited to the RQs, it fails to recognize transcendence, i.e. it can see that development, even technological, cannot simply continue indefinitely as it has, and this is going to lead to some sort of blow up in about 30 years, but it doesn't realize this can result in a transcendence to a higher level of technology and of consciousness. maybe kurzweil recognizes the first, but not the second, and the second one will be needed to manage the first one.
Oh, yeah, I remember that now, that goes exactly with what I was thinking. Seems like reading that post originally put something latent in my mind that didn't click until recently.
|
|
-
| 04-05-2008, 9:21 PM |
-
ralphweidner
-
-
-
Joined on 06-18-2006
-
portland, or
-
Posts 983
-
Points 15,595
-
|
hi fangsz,
something new has come up since IN posted the first part of the conversation between rupert sheldrake and ken wilber that only underscores what a precious opportunity we have to listen to them in conversation. terry (jikishin) has reported, and promises to continue reporting, on an IN thread he set up for this purpose, on sheldrake being attacked earlier this week. evidently, about the same time, wilber began to suffer as well, though i don't mean to imply that there's any necessary connection between the two. a quarter century or so ago, now, ken contracted what has since come to be called REDD syndrome (i imagine you can google this along with 'ken wilber' to find out more), which is related to chronic fatigue syndrome. although neither are understood very well, REDD appears to be chronic, untreatable and progressive. i don't actually know if this is the cause of his current suffering, but it certainly is a likely candidate. i happen to find out, a little late, at another site, to which a message from former i-i staffer, nomali perera, had been forwarded:
From: Nomali Perera
Date: Thu, Apr 3, 2008 at 10:52 PM
Subject: Sending Ken our healing energy
To: nomaliperera@...
Dear Friends,
If you feel so inclined, you are invited to an hour of sacred silence,
stillness and deep intention to send our collective healing energy to
Ken Wilber who has inspired and taught so many of us. His Subtle and
Causal bodies are doing fine; don't you worry! His gross body could
use a little loving energy from all of us. Please feel free to tell
others who might like to join in. If you are not in Boulder, you may
join us from your own home where ever you live.
When: Friday April 4
Time: 5:30pm - 6:30pm
Its okay if you cannot come on time or cannot wait for the full hour.
You can come as suits you.
|
|
-
| 04-16-2008, 7:31 PM |
-
ambosuno
-
-
-
Joined on 10-30-2006
-
So Cal
-
Posts 652
-
Points 10,370
-
|
The big daddy of them all - more info about him released at http://darwin-online.org.uk/http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080416/wr_nm/britain_darwin_dc_1
Darwin's private papers get Internet launch
By Jeremy Lovell
2 hours, 51 minutes ago
LONDON (Reuters) -
The first draft of Charles Darwin's "On
The Origin Of Species" is among a wealth of papers belonging to
the intensely private man who changed science being published
on the Internet on Thursday for the first time.
if(window.yzq_d==null)window.yzq_d=new Object();
window.yzq_d['urMoJ9GDJG4-']='&U=127cs2cru%2fN%3durMoJ9GDJG4-%2fC%3d-1%2fD%3dRMP%2fB%3d-1';
if(window.yzq_d==null)window.yzq_d=new Object();
window.yzq_d['u7MoJ9GDJG4-']='&U=12892ja50%2fN%3du7MoJ9GDJG4-%2fC%3d-1%2fD%3dSIPR%2fB%3d-1';
if(window.yzq_d==null)window.yzq_d=new Object();
window.yzq_d['tbMoJ9GDJG4-']='&U=13b31irh2%2fN%3dtbMoJ9GDJG4-%2fC%3d619213.12513757.12865452.1442997%2fD%3dLREC%2fB%3d4919452';
Comprising some 20,000 items and 90,000 images, the release
on http://darwin-online.org.uk is the largest in history,
according to the organizers from Cambridge University Library
which holds all the Darwin papers.
"This release makes his private papers, mountains of notes,
experiments, and research behind his world-changing
publications available to the world for free," said John van
Wyhe, director of the project.
"His publications have always been available in the public
sphere - but these papers have until now only been accessible
to scholars."
The collection includes thousands of notes and drafts of
his scientific writings, notes from the voyage of the Beagle
when he began to formulate his controversial theory of
evolution, and his first recorded doubts about the permanence
of species.
It also contains photographs of Darwin and his family,
newspaper clippings, reviews of his books and much more.
Giving a more personal insight, there is also his wife
Emma's cookbook including recipes for delicacies such as
'Ilkley pudding' and a rudimentary recipe for boiling rice,
written by Darwin himself.
Other papers include caricatures and notes with his boyhood
musings on birds.
Publication in 1859 of Origin of Species after years of
prevarication established Darwin -- already known to the public
after publication of The Voyage of the Beagle -- as a leading
scientific thinker.
But it also sparked a major public debate and a bitter
denunciation by the Church of England, which regarded the book
as heretical.
"Darwin changed our understanding of nature forever. His
papers reveal how immensely detailed his researches were," said
van Wyhe.
"The release of his papers online marks a revolution in the
public's access to - and hopefully appreciation of - one of the
most important collections of primary materials in the history
of science."
(Reporting by Jeremy Lovell; editing by Paul Casciato)
Ambo Suno
|
|
-
| 04-21-2008, 6:54 AM |
-
ikarma
-
-
-
Joined on 06-19-2006
-
Jupiter, Florida USA
-
Posts 69
-
Points 1,320
-
|
Rupert's Resonance
The theory of "morphic resonance" posits that people have a sense of when they are being stared at. What does the research show?
By Michael Shermer
Have you ever noticed how much easier it is to do a newspaper crossword puzzle later in the day? Me neither. But according to Rupert Sheldrake, it is because the collective successes of the morning resonate through the cultural morphic field.
In Sheldrake's theory of morphic resonance, similar forms (morphs, or "fields of information") reverberate and exchange information within a universal life force. "Natural systems, such as termite colonies, or pigeons, or orchid plants, or insulin molecules, inherit a collective memory from all previous things of their kind, however far away they were and however long ago they existed," Sheldrake writes in his 1988 book, Presence of the Past (Park Street Press). "Things are as they are because they were as they were." In this book and subsequent ones, Sheldrake, a botanist trained at the University of Cambridge, details the theory.
Morphic resonance, Sheldrake says, is "the idea of mysterious telepathy-type interconnections between organisms and of collective memories within species" and accounts for phantom limbs, how dogs know when their owners are coming home, and how people know when someone is staring at them. "Vision may involve a two-way process, an inward movement of light and an outward projection of mental images," Sheldrake explains. Thousands of trials conducted by anyone who downloaded the experimental protocol from Sheldrake's Web page "have given positive, repeatable, and highly significant results, implying that there is indeed a widespread sensitivity to being stared at from behind."
Let us examine this claim more closely. First, science is not normally conducted by strangers who happen on a Web page protocol, so we have no way of knowing if these amateurs controlled for intervening variables and experimenter biases.
Second, psychologists dismiss anecdotal accounts of this sense to a reverse self-fulfilling effect: a person suspects being stared at and turns to check; such head movement catches the eyes of would-be starers, who then turn to look at the staree, who thereby confirms the feeling of being stared at.
Skepticism is the default position.
Third, in 2000 John Colwell of Middlesex University in London conducted a formal test using Sheldrake's experimental protocol. Twelve volunteers participated in 12 sequences of 20 stare or no-stare trials each and received accuracy feedback for the final nine sessions. Results: subjects could detect being stared at only when accuracy feedback was provided, which Colwell attributed to the subjects learning what was, in fact, a nonrandom presentation of the trials. When University of Hertfordshire psychologist Richard Wiseman also attempted to replicate Sheldrake's research, he found that subjects detected stares at rates no better than chance.
Fourth, confirmation bias (where we look for and find confirmatory evidence for what we already believe) may be at work here. In a special issue in June of the Journal of Consciousness Studies devoted to a fierce debate between "Sheldrake and His Critics," I rated the 14 open peer commentaries on Sheldrake's target article (on the sense of being stared at) on a scale of 1 to 5 (critical, mildly critical, neutral, mildly supportive, supportive). Without exception, the 1's, 2's and 3's were all traditional scientists with mainstream affiliations, whereas the 4's and 5's were all affiliated with fringe and pro-paranormal institutions. (For complete results, see Table 1 in the online version of this column at www.sciam.com)
Fifth, there is an experimenter bias problem. Institute of Noetic Sciences researcher Marilyn Schlitz--a believer in psychic phenomena--collaborated with Wiseman (a skeptic of psi) in replicating Sheldrake's research and discovered that when they did the staring Schlitz found statistically significant results, whereas Wiseman found chance results.
Sheldrake responds that skeptics dampen the morphic field, whereas believers enhance it. Of Wiseman, he remarked: "Perhaps his negative expectations consciously or unconsciously influenced the way he looked at the subjects."
Perhaps, but wouldn't that mean that this claim is ultimately nonfalsifiable? If both positive and negative results are interpreted as supporting a theory, how can we test its validity? Skepticism is the default position because the burden of proof is on the believer, not the skeptic.
---------------------------------------------
"Isn't it enough to see that a garden is beautiful without having to believe that there are fairies at the bottom of it too?
-- Douglas Adams
Peace & Prosperity Paul Williams http://Paul.ikarma.com
|
|
-
| 04-21-2008, 7:10 AM |
-
ikarma
-
-
-
Joined on 06-19-2006
-
Jupiter, Florida USA
-
Posts 69
-
Points 1,320
-
|
|
-
| 04-21-2008, 8:28 PM |
-
ambosuno
-
-
-
Joined on 10-30-2006
-
So Cal
-
Posts 652
-
Points 10,370
-
|
Good article, i. I like this skeptical inquiry. There is a general sense of something in the morphic fields idea that I like, that aren't quite so particular and far reaching as is quoted here, so I don't mind that the extent to which his theories extend are pruned back. I like the mystery and consideration of why a star fish can regrow an arm. I don't know if pure genetic theory can account for it or not - I do have a sense that all things occur in contextual fields, and that those everpresent and often invisible to human measurement dynamics may influence, perhaps in big ways, the potency and applicability of, say, genetic transmission. And, despite my "sense"-slash-imagination-slash-fantasies, it will be interesting as more is found out and more is discarded and the truths brought more into multiplex focus (whatever the hell that means).
What's your sense? Do you think that surounding and imbuing fields cocreate in strongly contributory ways the growing into a pattern and form? If you don't know, do you think it is plausible, or possible, that something like this goes on?
I trust things are going well for you. Good to see your contribution, again. ambo
Ambo Suno
|
|
-
-
| 04-22-2008, 2:29 AM |
-
Devagni
-
-
-
Joined on 02-27-2008
-
-
Posts 46
-
Points 825
-
|
I didn't understand all of this business about 'putting a boundary around' something. Wilber obviously disagreed with what Sheldrake said, but put it in the politest terms possible.
Sheldrake seemed to think social holons have an 'I' and Ken disagrees (he, he Mark Edwards must be fuming since he got a rollicking from Ken on it but Sheldrake got off scot free), but comes to a kind of compromise saying that atoms, when they come together, evolution puts a boundary around them so they become molecules.
Didn't get that bit.
Any help?
Thanks,
D M
|
|
-
| 04-22-2008, 9:12 AM |
-
fairyfaye
-
-
-
Joined on 06-18-2006
-
-
Posts 2,205
-
Points 22,985
-
|
when a collection of atoms forms a molecule .. they have a boundary around them in order to be the molecule
*
it was an interesting point about geese flying in a v-formation .. appearing to be one holon .. however it seems like rupert didn't quite get the dominant monad thing
|
|
-
-
| 04-23-2008, 2:11 PM |
-
fairyfaye
-
-
-
Joined on 06-18-2006
-
-
Posts 2,205
-
Points 22,985
-
|
funny u should say that (about SES,etc)because as i was listening i was thinking i feel like i'm reading parts of BHE
*
i agree this dialogue .. and others like it .. provide excellent examples as to how to carry on dignified conversations when coming from different points of view
|
|
-
| 04-23-2008, 4:27 PM |
-
tricia
-
-
-
Joined on 06-16-2006
-
Long Island NewYork
-
Posts 147
-
Points 2,205
-
|
Re: evolutionary biology #1
The concept that all form and the unmanifest are 'one' is not difficult for me to fathom because I realize all form is limited to my perception of it.
My favorite highlights of this excellent dialogue is when Wilber differentiated between social holons and holons with a individual monad.
Using the research on people 'knowing' they are being stared at as an example of the "I" was so intriguing.
Tricia
when two people agree on everything all of the time one of them is not necessary
|
|
-
| 04-24-2008, 10:13 AM |
-
tricia
-
-
-
Joined on 06-16-2006
-
Long Island NewYork
-
Posts 147
-
Points 2,205
-
|
You do not feel the evidence is there that people can tell that someone is staring at them. More than likely I will not change your mind. However, if you were the type of person who can tell you would know....
The stage for these types of testing have to be accurate and until we recognize 'we' holons it is very difficult to set the right back drops for these tests.
when two people agree on everything all of the time one of them is not necessary
|
|
Page 3 of 5 (68 items)
3
|
|