(2017-10-18, 09:45 AM)DaveB Wrote: [ -> ]Well that sounds entirely reasonable, except that in that case, I don't understand why you joined this particular discussion!
David
Remember this forum is a break away solution to the autocratic like tactics you and alex used to turn that other forum into an echo chamber. Here we have more lattitude to express ideas that are contrary. The question for you is, why are you here? Oh, remember you're not the mod here so we don't need to hear what you think is the appropriate participation.
(2017-10-18, 08:31 AM)Chris Wrote: [ -> ]nbtruthman
Thanks for explaining.
If you define Darwinism to exclude the existence of psi, then obviously it's going to be incompatible with psi. I just don't feel the non-existence of psi is an essential constituent of a theory of evolution by natural selection.
I want to point out again; that the only truthful definition of Darwinism is the observations written by Charles Darwin.
Darwin was closed-minded and stood firmly against spiritualism. For him, observed evidence was the thing. Today I would like to think that Darwin would be fair about observations and evidence for communication without physical signals. Understanding the meaning of anything is just not explained within physical processes. Locomotion has a physical model - whereas deciding to move toward or away from an affordance in the infospace of an organism is an informational question.
The road to putting the evidence in a scientific context is to model how we experience information as direct sensation. Darwin's observations of
instinct in animals is a great place to start.
(2017-10-18, 12:13 PM)Steve001 Wrote: [ -> ]Very interesting.
It is interesting, but - appealing though the idea of a kind of Yiddish H. P. Lovecraft scenario is - I have to admit he
didn't really vanish into thin air. Rachel Lichtenstein eventually discovered he'd gone into a mental hospital.
(2017-10-18, 08:31 AM)Chris Wrote: [ -> ]nbtruthman
Thanks for explaining.
But that idea about psi being a consequence of physical laws was only an example for the sake of argument, to show why I felt there was something wrong with your reasoning.
Another example might be some kind of mind-body dualism, where the two can interact. In that case I don't see why the two shouldn't evolve together as a result of natural selection.
If you define Darwinism to exclude the existence of psi, then obviously it's going to be incompatible with psi. I just don't feel the non-existence of psi is an essential constituent of a theory of evolution by natural selection.
It would be interesting to speculate about some future evolutionary theory that would add to random genetic variations (mutations), the periodic intervention of outside consciousness into the process by somehow designing and inserting elaborate genetic innovations into the genome, and then waiting for natural selection to do its work of macroevolution. This would drastically change the Darwinistic mechanism into a sort of "dualistic Darwinism" that implements an intelligent design process. I guess the outside intelligence would have to be very patient and determined, since the complex designed genetic changes would have to each be inserted many different times to make sure that they spread into the entire population and became fixed, rather than dying out by sheer bad luck or by being degraded by random mutations, drift, etc. In the mean time, microevolutionary changes would also be continuously gradually happening through the known RM + NS mechanisms. From the evidence it looks as if some process like this perhaps has operated over evolutionary time. To make the overall process more efficient, natural selection itself might also have been meddled with.
Presumably the designed genetic changes would have to be actually inserted into the genome through psi, something like telekinesis or psychokinesis.
There are more and more ideas like this being brought out. For instance Federico Faggin's vague in the details speculations, that are more a sort of monistic view. This approach ignores the clear need for a focused sentient designing intelligence:
"...It simply means that there is a gradually increasing element of intelligence added to the evolutionary process that helps it overcome the combinatorial-explosion barrier that is the major unanswered criticism to the current evolutionary theory. This hypothesis takes the same experimental evidence that strongly supports Darwinian evolution, and adds a sorely needed non-random feedback element to speed up the process that otherwise would be impossibly slow with purely feed-forward random variations.
The claim here is that, as natural selection progresses, the mix of variations that need to be selected contains at least the same percentage of variations with the potential to improve fitness that was present for a much less complex system; the primary source of these variations coming from the increased self-knowing of consciousness. Otherwise new structures whose probability of existence is infinitesimally small could not come into existence in the relatively short time that has been observed."
However, I just can't envision Darwinism ever being so radically changed. Science will defend the original and present materialistic evolutionary theory to the death, where the evolutionary process that gave rise to the human species absolutely proceeded via purely material mechanisms from a purely material starting point, so that the end result must itself be purely material.
(2017-10-18, 07:38 PM)nbtruthman Wrote: [ -> ]However, I just can't envision Darwinism ever being so radically changed. Science will defend the original and present materialistic evolutionary theory to the death, where the evolutionary process that gave rise to the human species absolutely proceeded via purely material mechanisms from a purely material starting point, so that the end result must itself be purely material.
I agree although I would make the distinction that science should be philosophically neutral and that it is scientists who impose the materialistic boundaries within which science has been confined. There is a debate on YouTube between ID proponents (Meyer, Behe, etc.,) and some orthodox scientists and philosophers. At one stage, around
1h 13m, they discuss the way these boundaries or rules are imposed.
(2017-10-18, 12:05 PM)Steve001 Wrote: [ -> ]Remember this forum is a break away solution to the gestapo like tactics you and alex used to turn that other forum into an echo chamber. Here we have more lattitude to express ideas that are contrary. The question for you is, why are you here? Oh, remember you're not the mod here so we don't need to hear what you think is the appropriate participation.
I am not a moderator so cannot claim to be speaking for the moderators but I am a founding member of this forum. I object to the implied solidarity when you use "we" in your above statement. Everyone has their own reasons for choosing to become a member here and, perhaps, abandoning Skeptiko. Some of those reasons may well have been the moderation policies in place there but that does not give you the right to assume that you speak for this community, especially with incendiary phrases such as "gestapo like tactics".
As far as I am concerned, David has as much right to be here as anyone else. As usual, you chose to read into David's response precisely what you wanted to read into it. I understood David to be saying that, given the position that Chris was taking it is surprising that he wants to take part in such a discussion. I did not think he was stating that Chris should be excluded by some form of moderation policy. So your attack is misdirected and unnecessarily aggressive - in my opinion.
Me:
Quote:Remember this forum is a break away solution to the autocratic like tactics you and Alex used to turn that other forum into an echo chamber. Here we have more lattitude to express ideas that are contrary. The question for you is, why are you here? Oh, remember you're not the mod here so we don't need to hear what you think is the appropriate participation.
Karmarling:
Quote:I am not a moderator so cannot claim to be speaking for the moderators but I am a founding member of this forum. I object to the implied solidarity when you use "we" in your above statement. Everyone has their own reasons for choosing to become a member here and, perhaps, abandoning Skeptiko. Some of those reasons may well have been the moderation policies in place there but that does not give you the right to assume that you speak for this community, especially with incendiary phrases such as autocratic like tactics.
As far as I am concerned, David has as much right to be here as anyone else. As usual, you chose to read into David's response precisely what you wanted to read into it. I understood David to be saying that, given the position that Chris was taking it is surprising that he wants to take part in such a discussion. I did not think he was stating that Chris should be excluded by some form of moderation policy. So your attack is misdirected and unnecessarily aggressive - in my opinion.
It's necessary to remind you when the present skeptiko forum was set up shortly there after 7 members were banned from posting on all forums save two. That law did relax somewhat a few years later though. However, overtime the voices of skepticism were slowly extinguished and some of the reason can be attributed to the blatant hostile reactions by skeptiko's members.
I was not implying any sort of solidarity when I used "we". Do we have more latitude here or not to express? But first consider two skeptiko sub-forums were shut down.
We have two different interpretations of what David wrote. To me it appeared as if he was wagging his finger at Chris. Something that was sort of a habit as a mod. I agree David has as much right to participate as anyone else, but what I was saying is why is he here when he has skeptiko? Also, I was implying it's none of David's business to ask why Chris chooses to post. I even wrote as much:
Quote:we don't need to hear what you think is the appropriate participation.
Nor was I implying David thought Chris should be excluded do to forum policy
Alex's unilateral and your acknowledgement of his authoritarian tactics (see below) is not autocratic?
Maybe you've forgotten why this forum was started? Maybe you don't remember what your feelings were when Alex effectively turned his site into an echo chamber? I believe these two quotes fairly summarize the unspoken sentiments of many members.
A quote from you:
Quote:I think the mood since the latest authoritarian actions is that this ship is sinking fast and I may well be among the rats."
Alex's reply to you:
Quote: "dude... you really have no idea what yr talking about. the show is growing and the response lately has been very positive. I'm always changing and evolving, but I'm getting tired of the whining and hating."
manjit wrote:
Quote:"I have to be be honest, though not a "debunker" or materialist, I personally was a little concerned at Linda's "banning" several years ago. I personally think this forum only benefited from the sceptical positions & arguments she took (which I entirely disagreed with, btw!). Though I don't really know what caused the "banning" or the deeper context, I thought that a little worrying.....I abhor censorship of any sort, on a personal level (though I can understand how it can potentially cause issues in a wider, social context). Anyways, more recently, the banning trend seems to have got much worse, several long time and respected members banned for who knows what! Very worrying!"
(2017-10-19, 11:40 PM)Steve001 Wrote: [ -> ]Also, I was implying it's none of David's business to ask why Chris chooses to post.
Well, I think anyone has the right to ask that kind of question. I just thought there shouldn't have been any great mystery about it, for anyone who had read my posts. But as Churchill said, "where there is a great deal of free speech there is always a certain amount of foolish speech". Or in other words if you want to take part in Internet discussions you have to learn to take the rough with the smooth.