Evolution

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
i merely stated that it was used as a justification for atrocities and my own theory is, that the natural exercise of conscience is suppressed or totally overcome by another ideology, in this case, social darwinism. take for example the Nazi euthanasia programs, where do we find this type of ideology? Perhaps you had better read up on Herbert Spencer.

http://library.thinkquest.org/C004367/eh4.shtml

oh you merely stated something. kind of like palinka said christ was used as justification for the inquisition, right?

and what is your conclusion? or you simply made a statement?

Originally posted by josephw
Natural selection. Survival of the fittest. Bi-products of evolutionary philosophy. Nietzsche, Hitler, Stalin were heavily influenced by Darwin.

How many people have died as a result of religious wars? Less than three million in known history.

How many people have died as a result of the above named individuals influence on the course of history? 70 million plus in less than a century.

You're just trying to discredit evolution only because Hitler had his twisted ideas of the survival of the fittest. Hitler and you know nothing much about evolution so you and Hitler can take eachothers hand and cheer. You are much the same.

You are much the same. You are both christians. So if I use the same twisted retorics that you do, then I can safely say that christians all over the world, you included, are evil. Why? Hitler was christian, wasn't he? And you are. See? Alike. Evil, as a mad dog.

So this is the proof that christianity is an evil religion, and every one christian should die, or cheaper, commit suicide, exactly as Hitler. He did, why don't you?

Anyone feeling hurt? Yes, you should do. Because I'm using the same retorics as josephw does. As faulty retorics, as twisted, as crazy.

If Hitler was using evolution as a reason to kill jews, then he didn't know much about evolution, exactly like josephw. They are just the same. Using their non-existant knowledge about evolution to try to discredit evolution. Not doable.

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
oh you merely stated something. kind of like palinka said christ was used as justification for the inquisition, right?

and what is your conclusion? or you simply made a statement?

yes this is my thoughts entirely Zhalanzi, it was not an attempt, unlike previous occasions to attack the theory, or to blame Darwin (i remember once with Andrew Hamilton trying to establish that Darwin was indeed a Nazi, ludicrous i know, but it was fun). what do i conclude ?, well i would like to ask the question, how is it possible for human beings, with a sense of justice and the ability to exercise that justice, to perpetrate such horrors? the answer seems to me to lie in the suppression of conscience.

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
I think 'natural selection' is a bogus term, a ghost in the machine. There is no agency that 'selects', is there?

No, it is your biased view of the term that is making you expect an intelligent agency. If I told you that the waves are selecting the sizes of sand grains on the beach you would have no problem with the use of the term - and might even call the wave an agency. So why would you have a problem with calling nature or the environment we are in an agency? The sand is in an environment (the waves and the beach) and is being selected according to size. A form of natural selection. Not too big, not too small. Survival of the 'fit'-est!

Originally posted by twhitehead
No, it is your biased view of the term that is making you expect an intelligent agency. If I told you that the waves are selecting the sizes of sand grains on the beach you would have no problem with the use of the term - and might even call the wave an agency. So why would you have a problem with calling nature or the environment we are in an agency? The ...[text shortened]... g to size. A form of natural selection. Not too big, not too small. Survival of the 'fit'-est!

I don't accept that waves select anything, since selection implies a choice. I concede that waves may have agency, although obviously not in the sense that I meant. Of course 'natural selection' is a fixed technical term with a given application within a certain domain; still I think the 'selection' aspect misleading and 'natural selection' a contradiction in terms, since nature is presumably incapable of choice. But it's not a big deal, just a linguistic quibble. Basically 'natural selection' sounds anthropomorphic.

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
I don't accept that waves select anything, since selection implies a choice. I concede that waves may have agency, although obviously not in the sense that I meant. Of course 'natural selection' is a fixed technical term with a given application within a certain domain; still I think the 'selection' aspect misleading and 'natural selection' a contradic ...[text shortened]... deal, just a linguistic quibble. Basically 'natural selection' sounds anthropomorphic.

I disagree. You are giving the word 'selection' connotations that are not required. I am a native English speaker and I see no problem at all with using the word in either context.
What is the difference between:
1. A natural process like waves that selects grains of sand by size.
2. A man made machine that selects grains of sand by size.
3. A man selecting grains of sand by size using a handheld machine (using a sieve for example).
4. A man selecting grains of sand by size, making a 'choice' for every grain he looks at.
I would almost say that 4 is the least best fit.
If anything 'selection' implies 'process' not 'choice'. You can say that the candidate has to go through the selection process. No agency or choice is involved, rather a process determines the outcome and the candidate succeeds depending on his fitness for the position - and possibly his fitness in comparison to other candidates (survival of the fittest).
I summary, selection does not involve choice at all, often a choice is made first (what type of candidate do we need) and then the selection process takes place (what candidates match our requirements). But the choice part is not a requirement.

Originally posted by twhitehead

What is the difference between:
1. A natural process like waves that selects grains of sand by size.
2. A man made machine that selects grains of sand by size.
3. A man selecting grains of sand by size using a handheld machine (using a sieve for example).
4. A man selecting grains of sand by size, making a 'choice' for every grain he looks at.
.

Intention. In 2-4, the outcome is determined by human intention: in the case of 2, that the purpose of the machine be to select sand grains (the machine a proxy for human activity).

select: Definition, Synonyms from Answers.com
select ( ) v. , -lected , -lecting , -lects . v.tr. To take as a choice from among several; pick out.
www.answers.com/topic/select

A selection process is a process designed to enable selectors to select, to choose from among a pool of, candidates.

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
Intention. In 2-4, the outcome is determined by human intention: in the case of 2, that the purpose of the machine be to select sand grains (the machine a proxy for human activity).

select: Definition, Synonyms from Answers.com
select ( ) v. , -lected , -lecting , -lects . v.tr. [b]To take as a choice from among several; pick out.
www.answers. ...[text shortened]... is a process designed to enable selectors to select, to choose from among a pool of, candidates.[/b]

You are missing the point.
From Chambers:
select verb (selected, selecting) to choose from several by preference. adj 1 picked out or chosen in preference to others.
Notice that the selection is not where the choice takes place, the true choice is in the preference. In my examples 2 and 3, the true free will choice (what size grain is desired) is made prior to the selection process. The selection process is merely a mindless matching process that compares set members against a criteria.
A selection process does not require or imply choice. It only requires criteria and a set of items to be selected from.
The usage of the word 'selection' in the phrase 'natural selection' is perfectly in keeping with its dictionary definition.
Also usage such as 'the gene is selected for' is also within scope. There is a process, there is criteria and there is a set to be selected from. Where the criteria come from, whether by chance or agency is irrelevant.

Originally posted by twhitehead


The usage of the word 'selection' in the phrase 'natural selection' is perfectly in keeping with its dictionary definition.
Also usage such as 'the gene is selected for' is also within scope. There is a process, there is criteria and there is a set to be selected from. Where the criteria come from, whether by chance or agency is irrelevant.

'A selection process does not require or imply choice. It only requires criteria and a set of items to be selected from.' But selection = choice, so ... Nevermind. Your sentence is persuasive; I'm teetering. What are the criteria and items when it comes to natural selection?

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
'A selection process does not require or imply choice. It only requires criteria and a set of items to be selected from.' But selection = choice, so ... Nevermind. Your sentence is persuasive; I'm teetering. What are the criteria and items when it comes to natural selection?

LOL, see my post in the other thread and I might still convince you that it is a misleading label. 😵

Originally posted by twhitehead
You are missing the point.
From Chambers:
select verb (selected, selecting) to choose from several by preference. adj 1 picked out or chosen in preference to others.
Notice that the selection is not where the choice takes place, the true choice is in the preference. In my examples 2 and 3, the true free will choice (what size grain is desired) is made ...[text shortened]... be selected from. Where the criteria come from, whether by chance or agency is irrelevant.

Methinks this interpretation is false. The true choice remains an intention and thus an abstract thought of ours if we stop just there, therefore our true choice/ preference becomes real (we are building our reality, that is) solely when we proceed by means of the selection itself. During the factual selection we do not conduct a mindless matching process since we accept that we will proceed according to specific criteria -so we select by means of evaluating (0/ 1), and I do not know any kind of evaluation that can be considered a mindless matching process (the “mindless evaluation” of a computer constructed by us is solely seemingly a mindless process because it is actually conducted by a man-made substitute of the human intelligence: no man-made software and no man-made hardware -altogether: a substitute of intelligence-, leads to no evaluation).

On the other hand, since the process is conducted according to specific criteria, the person/ entity who conducts the selection must recognise by specific means these criteria, therefore I disagree that the selection itself could ever be a “mindless matching process”.
So I have to assume that whatever you call “selection” seems to me identical to “reaction” and alien to the essence of the noun “selection”. And in fact I could say that the “selection” conducted by, say, a living cell, is merely the process of a well precalculated (in the realm of its historical evolution) reaction of the living cell to its given environment in order to ease it to become “the fittest” and thus to survive. Of course this process is related to the conditions of the environment: new conditions are becoming the cause of new reactions of the living cell and thus they trigger new “engineering” in order to enable this entity to build a new reality that will ensure its survival
😵

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
'A selection process does not require or imply choice. It only requires criteria and a set of items to be selected from.' But selection = choice, so ... Nevermind. Your sentence is persuasive; I'm teetering. What are the criteria and items when it comes to natural selection?

Selection does not equal free will choice. Selection = matching to criteria. I must point out though that the word 'choice' has a wide range and may be used thus: "My computer program chooses only the red marbles" - here chooses more or less means 'selects', here however there is a hint of agency and I would tend to replace it with 'selects' when talking of a natural system.
In natural selection, the environment is the criteria. Which ever organism best 'fits' the environment is selected. Hence survival of the fittest. One must of course not forget that a proportion of survival is chance with no selection process whatsoever (other than good luck 🙂 ) just as some grains of sand get washed out to sea regardless of their suitability for sandcastles.

Originally posted by black beetle
....and I do not know any kind of evaluation that can be considered a mindless matching process ....

So what puts sand on the beach? Look around you. Do you see brown slush everywhere? No? Nearly everything you see is matched up in some way. Who selected all the soil and put it down there, who selected the clouds and put them up there, who selected all that water and put it in the oceans, and while we are talking about water, who took all those oxygen atoms and joined them to all those hydrogen atoms?
A mindless matching process that you apparently don't know about.

Originally posted by twhitehead
So what puts sand on the beach? Look around you. Do you see brown slush everywhere? No? Nearly everything you see is matched up in some way. Who selected all the soil and put it down there, who selected the clouds and put them up there, who selected all that water and put it in the oceans, and while we are talking about water, who took all those oxygen at ...[text shortened]... to all those hydrogen atoms?
A mindless matching process that you apparently don't know about.

I think the key word there was 'evaluation'.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Selection does not equal free will choice. Selection = matching to criteria. I must point out though that the word 'choice' has a wide range and may be used thus: "My computer program chooses only the red marbles" - here chooses more or less means 'selects', here however there is a hint of agency and I would tend to replace it with 'selects' when talking ...[text shortened]... grains of sand get washed out to sea regardless of their suitability for sandcastles.

My argument is that 'selection' is not selection at all. The sand grains on the beach have not been selected at all, they have merely washed up there more or less randomly. There is no process, in the sense of a course of action designed to achieve a result. Of course this problem stems from applying human language to the Big Other. Pace Nietzsche: 'I am afraid we cannot get rid of God because we still believe in grammar.' (Twilight of the Idols).

Now I take 'natural selection' to mean that nature, the environment, is the 'selector'. But here you are saying that the environment also furnishes the criteria of selection. How does the selection process work if the environment is both the selector and the criteria of selection at once?