Models versus Reality...

[Obvious Leo]

But from what you are saying, Kant is denying the reality of the noumenon, which is ironic since he spends so much time talking about it.

If I gave that impression this was certainly not my intended meaning. Without doubt the noumenon is objectively real and gives rise to the observed phenomena but it is the self-organising patterns by which it does this which is the property of the observer. I like to use the mythical extra-terrestrial civilisation to illustrate this point in the case of our models of physics. Imagine ET with a civilisation technologically equivalent to our own. In Kantian thought, which incidentally I agree with completely on this point, there is no valid reason whatsoever to suppose that such a civilisation would model its physical world by using the same particles, waves, fields, forces etc as we do, let alone the same mathematical tools that we do. In theory at least, there would be an almost infinite number of different ways in which our physical world could be modelled, each of which could be made to perfectly conform to observation by the brute mathematical force of injecting mathematical constants into the models by hand. Kant would describe this as our cognition confirming itself, which is insufficient for truth, but this explains why our models of physics are inherently tautologous. If we design our models specifically to predict what the observer will observe we can claim only a Pyrrhic victory when the observer duly goes ahead and observes what our models have predicted. No truth statements about the underpinning noumenon can be derived from such a methodology and for confirmation of this we could just ask Ptolemy. He had them all bluffed for 1400 years.

[cladking]

You are transferring in your mind the meaning of "fit" to the invalid definition that has caused a lot of confusion. "Fit" only means "to match" in evolution. But because "fit" is also used to mean the different definition, "that which one is improved (in some beneficial way)" we accidentally impose this upon what evolutionists mean by "fit". So in your example of the toxin, the correct interpretation is that since the toxin is a function of the environment, this alone creates an environment 'unfit' to one's survival. This alters the environment because the toxin IS a part of one's environment.

One may 'choose' to act in ways that also help them. But this is often about removing oneself from this environment or altering the environment to one that 'fits' which allows them to persist. So it is still about environment.

There's no such thing as a rabbit so there can be no such thing as "fit" by any definition except in terms of individuals. If you have a cage of mice and fans to evenly distribute air-bourne toxins no mouses will die until they all do. If you allow 10 hungry cats in the cage with ten fat mice no characteristic will save any of them. This is simply the nature of nature. Of course it's true some individuals are more sensitive to a toxin or a bite on the neck but this rarely has much effect on species change and merely affects the sensitive individual. Even if a sensitive individual dies from exposure to something that wouldn't kill others (an unusual event) it would have very little effect on the species as a whole because the species has huge numbers and because everything like this doesn't breed true.

Species change because individuals are inherently different genetically and this difference expresses itself in behavior. Take the large cage full of mice, fans, and toxin. Perhaps some mice express their genes by chewing through wires and this caused some fans to short out and these mice simply recieved less toxin and survived. If all "mice" were in this cage and only 100 individuals survive while each was a wire chewer then you have instantaneosly bred a new species. These animals will breed a new animal that may not even look like a "mice" and most will be wire chewers. There will be no missing links because this is the way of reality.

We see mice where none exist. We see fitness where it doesn't apply. And we see models that have no reality. This is caused by our perspective from language. The reality is that individuals are hardwired from birth to have fun, leave the world a better place, and to study nature/ know thyself. This is hard to see from the perspective of language which has the characteristics of modern language. Modern language, in a sense, rewires the brain. It is the operating system and it's not natural. It removes the observer from the observed and causes the observer to see what he expects preferentially to what exists.

Yes. I'm well aware it's possible to change a species by carefully killing off the most sensitive individuals over generations. This simply isn't how nature works though. This is how man works. In nature it's usually behavior that determines success or failure and for this success to affect species change it must be bred with very few individuals which exhibit the same behavior. This occurs through happenstance and is directly related to behavior in nature and is the chief driver of the change in species which we erroneously call "evolution".

What we call "evolution" is merely a small subset of the aggregate causes of species change. The "theory" is bunk and the model is inaccurate.

[surreptitious57]

Have just started reading The End Of Time by Julian Barbour. The premise is that time is an illusion
and does not actually exist. This the opposite to your view Leo which is that space is an illusion and
does not actually exist. Now between the two of you you have managed to eradicate spacetime and
every thing within it ha ha. Although in all seriousness I am looking forward to reading it I really am

And have just finished reading Cycles Of Time by Roger Penrose. In it he states that when black holes
finally cease to exist there will only be massless particles left like photons and gravitons. And so they
would not be able to make a clock. But without observers to tell the time there would be zero reason
to make one. However time could still exist though just like it has for most of the Universes existence

[Scott Mayers]

I began a thread to separate our side discussion on evolution for us to talk there where it digresses further from this topic.

Evolution...what it is precisely...

[raw_thought]

If you imagine that I'm going to get into a discussion about qualia then you badly underestimate me. Watching my grass grow is far more interesting.

Q. When you see the colour red are you seeing the same colour red as I see when I see the colour red?

A. Who gives a fuck?

Almost all of academic philosophy! You should read more!Qualia is now the big topic. The old days when Dennett could spout nonsense about how an on light switch knows that the light is on are over!
We immediately and with certainty know qualia ( or as Kant would put it phenomenon) . For example, it would be absurd to say, " I think I am in agony but I may be mistaken."
I notice that you NEVER present an argument only childish insults and rants.

[Hobbes' Choice]

But from what you are saying, Kant is denying the reality of the noumenon, which is ironic since he spends so much time talking about it.

If I gave that impression this was certainly not my intended meaning. Without doubt the noumenon is objectively real and gives rise to the observed phenomena but it is the self-organising patterns by which it does this which is the property of the observer. I like to use the mythical extra-terrestrial civilisation to illustrate this point in the case of our models of physics. Imagine ET with a civilisation technologically equivalent to our own. In Kantian thought, which incidentally I agree with completely on this point, there is no valid reason whatsoever to suppose that such a civilisation would model its physical world by using the same particles, waves, fields, forces etc as we do, let alone the same mathematical tools that we do. In theory at least, there would be an almost infinite number of different ways in which our physical world could be modelled, each of which could be made to perfectly conform to observation by the brute mathematical force of injecting mathematical constants into the models by hand. Kant would describe this as our cognition confirming itself, which is insufficient for truth, but this explains why our models of physics are inherently tautologous. If we design our models specifically to predict what the observer will observe we can claim only a Pyrrhic victory when the observer duly goes ahead and observes what our models have predicted. No truth statements about the underpinning noumenon can be derived from such a methodology and for confirmation of this we could just ask Ptolemy. He had them all bluffed for 1400 years.

Obviously reality acts like a network of resistance to our reception of it, and our attempts to explain and describe it.
And, I also think that reason and evidence, testing and experimentation lead to scientific progress, such that an alien civilisation might well have found itself offering the same solutions are we do. But where ever we are now this is just part of a process.
Ptolemy can't work now as that would involve the stars moving at impossible speeds.

[SpheresOfBalance]

Note: the red words are of "spheres of balance" responding to me a few posts up.

spheres of balance and cladking,

You, spheres, only mentioned 'epigenetics' but then opted to define 'genetics' instead.
No, I did not! Look it up before making a fool of yourself.

To quote you precisely, you said:

So you really don't believe in one of today's emerging sciences, epigenetics?

"epigenetics [ep-i-juh-net-iks]

noun, ( used with a singular verb)
1. Genetics. the study of the process by which genetic information is translated into the substance and behavior of an organism: specifically, the study of the way in which the expression of heritable traits is modified by environmental influences or other mechanisms without a change to the DNA sequence."
.................................--dictionary.reference.com--

In this you merely state "epigenetics" but then the following definition is one for "genetics" only. The actual definition of "epigenetics" is:
Incorrect! I did not write any of that definition, I copied and pasted that directly from the source I mentioned, The fact that it starts with the word "genetics" is a statement of under which science it is a sub science. That definition is in fact the one for epigenetics from the source I referenced, and you'd 'know' that if you'd checked it like I recommended.

Epigenetics is the study, in the field of genetics, of cellular and physiological phenotypic trait variations that are caused by external or environmental factors that switch genes on and off and affect how cells read genes instead of being caused by changes in the DNA sequence. [Epigenetics Definition Source from Wikipedia ]

So,

Epigenetics is how the environment indirectly switches on present genes among what is normally already there, not to adding new means to adapt. That is epigenetics cannot actually add new information on how to evolve. It only switches on those traits that are among the "junk" DNA.
Incorrect, genes evolve as well, but you can call it "switching on" and "normally already there" if you like.

You, and not me, is wrong. Junk DNA is past saved genetic information from previous evolution via the mutation process and survival that merely turns on that portion of the DNA.

As a comparison, in computers, when you "delete" a file without actual 'wiping', the computer only deletes the index (or content) links to where the computer looks up that file. That is, "delete" doesn't actually erase the file but removes the link to it. This is like turning off the file. It allows the space where the file is to be written over or can be 'wiped' but in genetics, much of those files remain intact just in the same way. Thus, epigenetics is the process of re-indexing the link to that location to allow it to be used again. Note too that doing so can also cause real problems where they may conflict and so produce bad results just as much as ones that might help.
I find it comical that you use the analogy of the difference between deleting or wiping files from media. I'm talking about DNA evolving, it was not on day one as it is today. That you mention that which is believed is responsible for genetic expression, without understanding that it is what drives the changes in DNA is surprising. You just have it reversed from what the truth is. "You have the cart before the horse," as they say. And then so does Darwin! DNA is changed by environment.

"Fitness" in genetics is not about quality of ones in an upward projected evolution towards some advanced super-being.
Surely a reflection of your own mind as you talk to yourself, as surely I've neither said nor implied such things. But since you brought it up, that is in fact the case, well sort of.

It means only that if survival to maturity (to procreate) requires being able to survive within one's given environment because your genetic outward qualities (phenotypes) "fit" meaning "to match" with the environment.
You would argue whether it was the chicken or the egg, but in fact it was both, simultaneously.

What? This doesn't follow.
Sure it does! There are those that believe the "Chicken or Egg" problem is a paradox, that you can't have one without the other, but that's a falsehood in thinking. They both developed at the same time. The further back we go in time, they are less and less a chicken or an egg. You seem to believe that DNA is an obelisk of life that has continually stood the test of time unchanged, but that's not true. The earliest DNA you wouldn't even recognize as DNA. DNA has evolved through time.

This can mean for instance if you were forced to live in a dark cave all your life but had say some accidental gene that provided you with better night vision or an ability to survive naturally on bugs, if you live long enough to make babies, you are considered a 'fit' to survive in that cave as an environment.
No! Rather that because the animal is forced to change, it either adapts or dies off. The animal fears death, such that it always tries it's best to adapt, and it usually does, one way or another.

No, it USUALLY doesn't. This is the foundational fact that Darwin originated his theory on. That most animals die off is what gives evolution its ability to sort things out. It is an elimination process. I think we need a separate thread on evolution as this is quite a digression that doesn't relate to my thread OP.

Your survival over someone who might not handle living long enough in that cave without sunlight could make the difference between a you surviving over a Brad Pitt.
Is he your idol?[/quot]
No, I just used him as a stereotype of what most might relate to a successful phenotypically desired person (via his looks).
Sorry, I just thought it comical, because I have no hero worship in me really, especially not actors. If you'd said Bruce Lee or Arnold Schwarzenegger, not for their acting, then It would have been a little clearer.

All humanoid life shares a common origin. Lets take a look at one attribute, the color of one's skin. The facts are clear. Those Indigenous peoples that are physically located on or around the equator are the darkest because of their proximity to the star. Those further from the equator and/or more sheltered from the star, due to either weather patterns, or different types of shelters, are lighter, (put a board over a seedling for some time then lift it to find that it has turned white). Then as we approach the extreme northern latitudes, the indigenous peoples become darker, as the snow, flat white, the most reflective of all colors, has them sandwiched between solar radiation not only coming but also going as it's reflected, not to mention the fact that the earths magnetic lines of flux enter at the poles allowing solar radiation to approach even closer to the earth, hence the auroras. This is in fact an example of epigenetics at work. Before you start with the buts, remember the length of time we're talking about, and how far back human probing is actually capable of going before conjecture seeps in, to finally obscure understanding altogether. The environment changes animals and plants, as they acclimate to those surroundings. A child growing up in a location strewn with fluoride, will have perfect teeth, while having a shorter lifespan, shorter of stature, and probably sterile if he can be brought to term at all. While I don't have to mention what a child has to look forward to if they live near uranium deposits. And the variables are endless, and are what accounts for the differences between us, more than anything else! It's not random, It's calculable, once we know all the connections, it shall come one day. You see, what I bring to you is ahead of it's time. Mark my words!

[Obvious Leo]

Those Indigenous peoples that are physically located on or around the equator are the darkest because of their proximity to the star.

No. They have a darker skin because they live in a hotter climate. Because of axial tilt one of the poles must always be technically closer to the sun than is the equator but the actual difference is negligible.

[SpheresOfBalance]

Those Indigenous peoples that are physically located on or around the equator are the darkest because of their proximity to the star.

No. They have a darker skin because they live in a hotter climate.
Incorrect, it has to do with the amount of UV radiation they receive, PERIOD!

Because of axial tilt one of the poles must always be technically closer to the sun than is the equator but the actual difference is negligible.
It's about 'averages' over the year; the equator receives more sunlight due to the angle of incidence of the suns rays, than any other place, 'effectively' being closer to the sun.

[Scott Mayers]

Spheres, I opened a separate thread on evolution to discuss this there and linked it there. Perhaps you could go there as I don't want to digress in this here off the topic of models. So far, nothing's been spoken on epigenetics, so you're welcome to raise it there.

[Hobbes' Choice]

Those Indigenous peoples that are physically located on or around the equator are the darkest because of their proximity to the star.

This is typically stupid backwards thinking from a person who does not really understand Natural Selection.
We are not adapted TO our environment but FROM it.
All adaptations precede selection. Variations pre-exist in the genome, and individuals advantaged by more successful reproduction of viable progeny are favoured over others.
Skin colour is not because of proximity to a star, but selected because of it.

As we ought to be perfectly aware skin colour is now of almost no significance, as the adaptation of clothes wearing has mean that white skin is common in places like Australia, and Black skin is common enough in Europe, and North America; making the selective advantage meaningless.

[Obvious Leo]

Those Indigenous peoples that are physically located on or around the equator are the darkest because of their proximity to the star.

No. They have a darker skin because they live in a hotter climate.
Incorrect, it has to do with the amount of UV radiation they receive, PERIOD!

Because of axial tilt one of the poles must always be technically closer to the sun than is the equator but the actual difference is negligible.
It's about 'averages' over the year; the equator receives more sunlight due to the angle of incidence of the suns rays, than any other place, 'effectively' being closer to the sun.

You missed my point. The orbital period of the earth is an ellipse and the heat at the equator has nothing to do with its proximity to the sun because this heat remains constant all year round whilst the distance between the earth and the sun varies by millions of kilometres. Whether you choose to believe me or call me a liar is entirely your own affair but your statement is patently false and your attempt at rationalising it is rather infantile. I was merely correcting you on a simple matter of fact.

[SpheresOfBalance]

Those Indigenous peoples that are physically located on or around the equator are the darkest because of their proximity to the star.

No. They have a darker skin because they live in a hotter climate.
Incorrect, it has to do with the amount of UV radiation they receive, PERIOD!

Because of axial tilt one of the poles must always be technically closer to the sun than is the equator but the actual difference is negligible.
It's about 'averages' over the year; the equator receives more sunlight due to the angle of incidence of the suns rays, than any other place, 'effectively' being closer to the sun.

You missed my point. The orbital period of the earth is an ellipse and the heat at the equator has nothing to do with its proximity to the sun because this heat remains constant all year round whilst the distance between the earth and the sun varies by millions of kilometres. Whether you choose to believe me or call me a liar is entirely your own affair but your statement is patently false and your attempt at rationalising it is rather infantile. I was merely correcting you on a simple matter of fact.

I could give a damn about your point, all I care about is that your ignorance of my meaning be rectified. Further it's you that's being infantile for calling one infantile because you were too quick to pass judgment so you could correct someone, without understanding that to their mind 'effective' is all that matters in this case. Physical relationships between the sun and earth are not important to the subject at hand, while the quantity of electromagnetic energy, i.e., UV radiation that reaches particular Lat/Longs' is in fact the point. I would think that you would know that, being a student of physics.

[Obvious Leo]

I have no interest in debating matters of fact with somebody who deliberately employs such a combative style to misrepresent some simple truths of high school physics. You may blather away at will but I'm content to leave it to the judgement of the other readers of this topic to determine whether your opinions are worth reading. You may rest assured that I have formed my own conclusions on this question.

[Scott Mayers]

Isn't this a kind of example of how you can interpret causes and effects differently? That is, it seems a default assumption to see evolution as a function of nature 'causing' one's change in evolution. Yet Darwin argued a type of opposite. That while nature itself may cause some mutation, the nature of evolution is reversed where you have to interpret the success of one surviving in some environment (the end result after the fact) as the 'cause' to evolution, not the general environment forcing this change.