Philosophy Now Forum

Sculptor wrote: ↑Thu Jul 04, 2019 1:16 pm Evolution has nothing to do with chance.

99.99% of all species that inhabited this planet are extinct (selected out).
Evolution happens only to those genotypes that are lucky enough to avoid selection.

I think it has just about everything to do with chance/luck. Bad luck at that.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Thu Jul 04, 2019 1:29 pm

Sculptor wrote: ↑Thu Jul 04, 2019 1:16 pm Evolution has nothing to do with chance.

99.99% of all species that inhabited this planet are extinct (selected out).
Evolution happens only to those genotypes that are lucky enough to avoid selection.

I think it has just about everything to do with chance/luck. Bad luck at that.

Nope. It has everything to do with determinism, not chance no luck.
Species persist whilst they have viable progeny. Because of variation and mutation the character of the species varies and tends to favour those best suited to their environment.
Luck is a meaningless word.
Chance is retrospective.
Evolution is not a cause; it is an effect of variation.

Sculptor wrote: ↑Thu Jul 04, 2019 4:54 pm Nope. It has everything to do with determinism, not chance no luck.
Species persist whilst they have viable progeny. Because of variation and mutation the character of the species varies and tends to favour those best suited to their environment.

Luck/chance/entropy is that which determines whether your progeny is suited to the environment.
A meteorite determined that the dinosaurs' progeny wasn't suited to the environment...

"Luck' is just another word for 'things out of one's awareness' e.g things out of your control.

If you think any scientific theory is deterministic, you are truly at odds with the methods of science.
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Probability-Th ... 0521592712

Skepdick wrote: ↑Thu Jul 04, 2019 5:03 pm

Sculptor wrote: ↑Thu Jul 04, 2019 4:54 pm Nope. It has everything to do with determinism, not chance no luck.
Species persist whilst they have viable progeny. Because of variation and mutation the character of the species varies and tends to favour those best suited to their environment.

Luck/chance/entropy is that which determines whether your progeny is suited to the environment.

No. Absolutely NOT.
What determines the success of your progeny is its fitness. Luck assumes a goal.

Sculptor wrote: ↑Thu Jul 04, 2019 5:41 pm No. Absolutely NOT.
What determines the success of your progeny is its fitness. Luck assumes a goal.

And "success" doesn't assume a goal ? Survival is the goal.

Organisms that die before producing progeny are not fit.
Species that go extinct are not fit.

"Fitness" is not something you can determine a priori. Are humans fit to avoid extinction?

Skepdick wrote: ↑Thu Jul 04, 2019 6:14 pm

Sculptor wrote: ↑Thu Jul 04, 2019 5:41 pm No. Absolutely NOT.
What determines the success of your progeny is its fitness. Luck assumes a goal.

And "success" doesn't assume a goal ? Survival is the goal.

Organisms that die before producing progeny are not fit.
Species that go extinct are not fit.

"Fitness" is not something you can determine a priori. Are humans fit to avoid extinction?

It's not relevant.
a priori or not. Its the perfect tautology. survival means fittness; fitness means survival.
I see no luck in that perfect circle

Sculptor wrote: ↑Thu Jul 04, 2019 10:10 pm It's not relevant.
a priori or not. Its the perfect tautology. survival means fittness; fitness means survival.
I see no luck in that perfect circle

Precisely! It's not even wrong.

If survival means fitness, then 99.99% of all species that ever lived were unfit.

Do you know what regression to the mean is?

Skepdick wrote: ↑Thu Jul 04, 2019 10:30 pm
Do you know what regression to the mean is?

The more we dumb down education, the meaner society gets.

roydop wrote: ↑Thu Feb 28, 2019 3:04 pm If one were to produce the simplest model of the process of evolution, what would that be?

Would it not be the number system?

1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9

Each progressive number arises from the "base" provided by the previous numbers, just as the emergence of a new species arises from the base of the source species, all the way back.

There is a tendency to overthink/overcomplicate this. Remember, the query is: What is the simplest model of the process of evolution?

The simplest model:

If something we'll call, "S", had some part of it altered (mutated) and its behavior in some environment, "E", permits it to still continue existing, that S has 'evolved' relative to the different times.

That's the simplest explanation that admits of anything.

I don't think the number system example suffices unless you are possibly referring to the symbols themselves as being associated with its meaning. "1" would evolve more often in most environments to reference the concept of 'one'. The other symbols in this set evolved by some historical route more uniquely. As such the symbol set of those digits "evolved" to the associations they have to their meaning by how we KEEP using them without a need to discard them. This would be as "memes". ...which now reminds me of a reference read that you might appreciate for the origin of that term: "The Selfish Gene" by Richard Dawkins 1974ish. He extended the concept of evolution to information in general and his own word, 'meme' for it, has itself become a surviving information-gene for information that copies itself. Copies are not necessary for a most general meaning of 'evolution' where one might think of the concept, "those who live past 30 years of age", as some factor. Those who live past 30 are also 'evolved' factors relative to its environment defined by that age.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Thu Jul 04, 2019 10:30 pm

Sculptor wrote: ↑Thu Jul 04, 2019 10:10 pm It's not relevant.
a priori or not. Its the perfect tautology. survival means fittness; fitness means survival.
I see no luck in that perfect circle

Precisely! It's not even wrong.

If survival means fitness, then 99.99% of all species that ever lived were unfit.

Do you know what regression to the mean is?

Where is luck?
What is luck?
How do I get it?
You have a bloody cheek saying I'm not even wrong when you offer this absurd bit of mysticism.

Sculptor wrote: ↑Fri Jul 05, 2019 12:47 pm Where is luck?
What is luck?
How do I get it?
You have a bloody cheek saying I'm not even wrong when you offer this absurd bit of mysticism.

Are you seriously going to resort to such level of sophistry?

Where is time?
What is time?
How do I get time?

Just because you don't understand a concept doesn't make it 'mystic'. It just means your knowledge is limited.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Fri Jul 05, 2019 1:47 pm

Sculptor wrote: ↑Fri Jul 05, 2019 12:47 pm Where is luck?
What is luck?
How do I get it?
You have a bloody cheek saying I'm not even wrong when you offer this absurd bit of mysticism.

Are you seriously going to resort to such level of sophistry?

Where is time?
What is time?
How do I get time?

Just because you don't understand a concept doesn't make it 'mystic'. It just means your knowledge is limited.

LOL Fail!

Sculptor wrote: ↑Fri Jul 05, 2019 2:25 pm

Skepdick wrote: ↑Fri Jul 05, 2019 1:47 pm

Sculptor wrote: ↑Fri Jul 05, 2019 12:47 pm Where is luck?
What is luck?
How do I get it?
You have a bloody cheek saying I'm not even wrong when you offer this absurd bit of mysticism.

Are you seriously going to resort to such level of sophistry?

Where is time?
What is time?
How do I get time?

Just because you don't understand a concept doesn't make it 'mystic'. It just means your knowledge is limited.

LOL Fail!

Don't beat yourself up about it.

Your ignorance of chance/luck/entropy can be cured with a book.

This one is very good: https://www.amazon.com/Probability-Theo ... 0521592712

Skepdick wrote: ↑Fri Jul 05, 2019 2:28 pm

Sculptor wrote: ↑Fri Jul 05, 2019 2:25 pm

Skepdick wrote: ↑Fri Jul 05, 2019 1:47 pm
Are you seriously going to resort to such level of sophistry?

Where is time?
What is time?
How do I get time?

Just because you don't understand a concept doesn't make it 'mystic'. It just means your knowledge is limited.

LOL Fail!

Don't beat yourself up about it.

Your ignorance of chance/luck/entropy can be cured with a book.

This one is very good: https://www.amazon.com/Probability-Theo ... 0521592712

Obliviously you are a person who thinks way too much of himself beyond his limited abilities. I'll bear that in mind as we exchange views in future.
For now you ought to know that entropy has nothing to do with luck. In fact nothing has anything to do with luck; not even rolling the dice.

Sculptor wrote: ↑Fri Jul 05, 2019 3:38 pm Obliviously you are a person who thinks way too much of himself beyond his limited abilities.

Me? I think I am an argumentative and contrarian idiot and I am well aware of my limited abilities.

All the more embarrassing for you that somebody like me can point out your mistakes.