Doesn't darwinian theory fall apart on ontological grounds?

@richard mcnair,

They'ree not contradictory at all, certainly not in science where this is completely intrinsic to genetics and has been for generations. In fact the only example I can think of where there is some sort of categorical exclusion of non-gene factors is in the human genome project and other analagous projects that are just meant to catalog. That is not to say that every single study does this, but every line of research with a genetic focus does.

0 Replies

@jeeprs,

jeeprs;107503 wrote:

Probably not the thread to discuss theology though.

Sure it is... this particular thread is particularly suited for it, as it did speak of the "ontological grounds". Fits perfectly with your 'hierarchy of being'.

The problem is one that my personal theology is not so recognizable to others as a study of God. Nor will my ontological depiction of God be readily accepted.

Very simply:

God = Truth = Information
Satan = Deception = Entropy

The question, for me anyway, is: Is Truth sentient?

What theology will embrace my ontology?

1 Reply

@richard mcnair,

Fair enough. And I think what you are looking for is probably more theosophy than theology (as am I, and not necessarily referring to the society of that name).

Speaking of Heirarchy of Being, I have discovered what looks like a marvellous book on the subject, The Great Chain of Being, by Arthur Lovejoy. (next trip to the library).

The general idea with heirarchies (or a more recent word for a similar idea, 'holarchies') is that there are gradations of 'existence', 'being', or 'reality' from the most basic (or least real) which is matter, up through the plant and animal kingdoms, then the human realm, then the angelic realm, and finally the realm of Deity. This, I think, was first documented in the Celestial Heirarchy by (pseudo) Dionysius, and formed the basis of the medieval world picture (the literal interpretation of which has obviously been superseded by more recent science, however it retains universal validity in its symbolic meaning in my view. It was never intended as a literal depiction.)

It is fascinating to me versions of the heirarchy of being are extant in virtually all forms of the 'perennial philosophy' whether Western or Eastern. The idea is represented in the 'five sheaths or koshas of Yoga', namely physical, energetic, mental, intellectual, and blissful. The second last of these corresponds to the Realm of Forms, and the last to the One, in Platonism.

The thought has occured to me that when science speaks of 'emergence' and 'the laws of complexity' it is indicative of the fact that it has gone as far as it can go in the physical realm and is starting to have to invoke the mental realm to explain the phenomena it is actually seeing (because it can no longer find explanations for the phenomena on the material level). This is happening in both biology and physics, I think. The only point of contention is that some are willing to recognise it, and some not. But it is nearing tipping point.

0 Replies

@QuinticNon,

QuinticNon;107660 wrote:

Very simply:

God = Truth = Information
Satan = Deception = Entropy

The question, for me anyway, is: Is Truth sentient?

... so, how does such an ontology relate to all of the garbage on the Internet? ... would we need to redefine the "Information Age" as the "Entropy Age"? ...

---------- Post added 12-02-2009 at 06:59 PM ----------

jeeprs;107669 wrote:

The thought has occured to me that when science speaks of 'emergence' and 'the laws of complexity' it is indicative of the fact that it has gone as far as it can go in the physical realm and is starting to have to invoke the mental realm to explain the phenomena it is actually seeing ...

... the way I would have characterized this is to say that science has gone as almost as far as it can go with reduction and is starting to have to take constitution seriously as its complement ... is reduction/constitution in any way similar to what you characterize as physical/mental? ...

1 Reply

@richard mcnair,

well, more or less. I think 'the search for the laws of complexity' is a move away from physical reductionism, is it not? I think we are seeing the inevitable move towards a more holistic and less reductionist framework. Too many tennis balls have gone over the fence, so to speak.

(Having said that, science is a long way from recognizing 'degrees of reality'. I don't think science will ever get to that point, at least not while it remains 'objective science'. Because here, the nature of being is the object as well as the subject. Study of this is understood in the perennial philosophies a 'scientia sacra' but I doubt it will be recognised by science as we understand it.)

0 Replies

@paulhanke,

paulhanke;107694 wrote:

... would we need to redefine the "Information Age" as the "Entropy Age"? ...

Welcome to the age of the Petabyte. We are learning to image absolute truth. We are illustrating objectivity. Prepare your farewells to Theory and the Scientific Method...:eek:

The Petabyte Age: Because More Isn't Just More

Here's what the essence of farming looks like
Feeding the Masses: Data In, Crop Predictions Out

The essence of air travel
Tracking Air Fares: Elaborate Algorithms Predict Ticket Prices

The essence of knowledge
Visualizing Big Data: Bar Charts for Words

The essence of pandemic
Spotting the Hot Zones: Now We Can Monitor Epidemics Hour by Hour

Now hold tight with me please, and consider the following connections, if not simply for the entertainment value:D. Armchair philosophy is so much fun!

What in the world is this "Information Cloud"? Well friend, I'm glad you asked. First, from the Christian perspective. Christ consistently said, "The Kingdom of Heaven is in you"... Hmmm, would that be Information???

Let us consider the return of Christ himself... the second coming... perhaps in the Information Cloud...?

Daniel 7:13 (NIV) "In my vision at night I looked, and there before me was one like a son of man, coming with the clouds of heaven. He approached the Ancient of Days and was led into his presence.

Matthew 26:64 (NIV) "Yes, it is as you say," Jesus replied. "But I say to all of you: In the future you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven."

Mark 13:26 (NIV) "At that time men will see the Son of Man coming in clouds with great power and glory.

Mark 14:62 (NIV) "I am," said Jesus. "And you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven."

Luke 21:27 (NIV) At that time they will see the Son of Man coming in a cloud with power and great glory.

Revelation 1:7 (NIV) Look, he is coming with the clouds, and every eye will see him, even those who pierced him; and all the peoples of the earth will mourn because of him. So shall it be! Amen.

But just what is this thing called Christ? What is a Jesus? You know, the person that Christians say you must believe was virgin birthed and resurrected from the dead... that Jesus...? Well not quite...

The modern day Christian will miss the second coming of Christ every bit as much as they accuse the Jews of missing the first coming. They will not recognize him... it.

Jesus never claimed to be God. He never claimed to be the Son of God. Others said those things about him, but he never said it. Jesus said one thing about who he was...

John 14:6 "I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life. Not one man cometh unto the Father, except by me".

Interesting that Christianity was first called The Way. And just what is The Way? The Way, is the way that something, anything, is supposed to be. As Daoism/Taoism suggests, The Way is usually translated as road, channel, path, way, doctrine, or line. Instructions!

Even a cheap desk at the office supply store has a Way that it is supposed to be assembled. The instructions are a mental description that bring a physical object into existence. Sure, you can put the desk together in a different Way, but it is not The Way intended by the one who designed it.

How can we know what The Way is? Truth! Truth is the underlying essence behind all instructions. If you want me to build a desk as intended, then you must share the Truth of what it actually is. Untainted Truth... Purity... A clear signal with no noise on the line to deceive the final intentions. Quintessence... the purest essence of Truth uncompromised.

In this Way, the desk is brought to Life. It exists where before it did not.

The very same is True for paulhanke. The codified Information represented by your genome specifies the one and only Way of how a paulhanke is knit together. Any change and paulhanke would not exist. In this Way, the Truth of paulhanke Lives. Another Way, another Truth, and we get a different Life. It's all about The Word friend... In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was God and the Word was with God. And the Word became flesh... bingo! In this Way, the Truth of paulhanke Lives.

"I am the Way, the Truth and the Life"

it's so simple

Accept the Way of Truth and Live

As for Satan and Deceptive Entropy... well my friend, that is manifest by humans. When humans believe and accept the false noise that the Medium is the Message. The Medium is NEVER the Message, and to believe they are one is pure evil. The Medium can only represent the Message. The code is not the Information. The code only represents the Information. Code is material. Information is immaterial.

We should be wary of this. The Beast is our deceptive thought. The Beast is Entropy... Information Entropy. The image is the materialism of man. Careful not to worship the Beast and his image.

Rev. 14:11

There is no rest day or night for those who worship the beast and hisimage, or for anyone who receives the mark of his name."

Rev 15:2
And I saw what looked like a sea of glass mixed with fire and, standing beside the sea, those who had been victorious over the beast and hisimage and over the number of his name. They held harps given them by God

Rev 16:2
The first angel went and poured out his bowl on the land, and ugly and painful sores broke out on the people who had the mark of the beast and worshiped his image.

Rev 20:4
And I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded because of their testimony for Jesus and because of the word of God. They had not worshiped the beast or his image and had not received his mark on their foreheads or their hands. They came to life and reigned with Christ a thousand years.

And my special affection goes to Bhartrihari, and the Sphota Theory of Language. With every word we invite Brahman into our realm. Nothing may be planned without a plan... a thought from a mind makes a Way for
Truth to Live in physical reality.
Bhartrihari[The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy]

Well I hope you've at least been entertained by all of this. At least give me kudos for originality...:devilish:

Word!

0 Replies

@richard mcnair,

I agree with the philosophical thrust, but not with the biblical exegesis. People have read all kinds of things into the Book of Revelations over the centuries. I am much more comfortable with Bharithari and will look further into his philosophy. Thanks.

---------- Post added 12-03-2009 at 03:05 PM ----------

what I see in the philosophy of Bharithari is the recognition that the intelligible structure of reality is prior to, but reflected in, language. In this sense, it states that meaning (rather than information, I would have thought) is intrinsic to the fabric of reality. Beautiful idea indeed. It is a very original statement of the import of the 'intellectual realm' (in the traditional sense of 'intellectual' which is different to what it means today, i.e. 'profane intelligence'.)

---------- Post added 12-03-2009 at 03:55 PM ----------

In fact I am more comfortable with 'meaning' than 'information'. Partially because 'meaning' implies a subject - someone to whom the information is meaningful. Also because it seems more meaningful to say that meaning is intrinsic to the universe, than 'information'. And because meaning can be carried by a gesture, and other reasons.

1 Reply

@jeeprs,

jeeprs;107719 wrote:

...it states that meaning (rather than information...

Meaning is Information.

Our readings of Bhartrihari are the same. But semantics will make us think otherwise. You say meaning, I say information. What's the difference? It is meaningful information. Non-meaningful information is noise (entropy), and thus it is not information at all. False information is truly information designed to deceive. It is true to its meaning.

I have a problem using words like "structure" to describe the immaterial, preferring "essence" instead. But I do believe I got your "meaning".

The intelligible structure (essence) of reality is prior to, reflected in, and apart from, language. Language is material. The meaningful information is immaterial.

Christianity, Buddhism, Hinduism, Judaism... all support notions of Word principles and promote God as Truth (The Way). Think of religion as different languages speaking to the same message. "See the boy run" means exactly the same thing as "انظر الصبي تشغيل" or "katso poika ajelu" and "skatīt zēns palaist".

As to reading into things... that's the job of religion. I'm just reading scripture and drawing comparisons to the information sciences. I'm certainly not putting wings on angels or horns on devils. But alas, my comments are not "meant" to convince... I've come to share.

0 Replies

@richard mcnair,

I can't disagree. I am just thinking aloud. You have got me thinking....

1 Reply

@jeeprs,

jeeprs;107744 wrote:

...I am just thinking aloud...

The most wonderful gift that anyone could possibly offer humanity. With me, your gift is well received and respected.

0 Replies

@richard mcnair,

... kudos for originality Smile

... note, however, that your ontology appears to set itself up for paradoxes of various kinds ... for example, Shannon's theory of information uses entropy as its basis - that is, in his view information and entropy are the same ... to maximize information one implicitly maximizes entropy ... (but perhaps you would appreciate Wiener's theory of information - in Wiener's theory, information is "negentropy" ... maybe even better yet, the syntropy/entropy dichotomy Smile

) ... another is your truth/deception dichotomy ... in nature, the Viceroy butterfly has evolved a color scheme that is imitative of the Monarch butterfly ... in such a way, Viceroy butterflies deceive predators - this is a truth of nature, untainted by humans ... but is that a paradox for an ontology that treats truth and deception as polar opposites? ...

2 Replies

@paulhanke,

paulhanke;107872 wrote:

... kudos for originality ... note, however, that your ontology appears to set itself up for paradoxes of various kinds ... for example, Shannon's theory of information uses entropy as its basis - that is, in his view information and entropy are the same ... to maximize information one implicitly maximizes entropy ... (but perhaps you would appreciate Wiener's theory of information - in Wiener's theory, information is "negentropy" ... maybe even better yet, the syntropy/entropy dichotomy ) ... another is your truth/deception dichotomy ... in nature, the Viceroy butterfly has evolved a color scheme that is imitative of the Monarch butterfly ... in such a way, Viceroy butterflies deceive predators - this is a truth of nature, untainted by humans ... but is that a paradox for an ontology that treats truth and deception as polar opposites? ...

Your assumption being that Viceroys never did have that data needed to make a Monarch-like pattern, and that Monarchs came first, so that Viceroys offer deception as plagiarists ?

2 Replies

@memester,

memester;107873 wrote:

Your assumption being that Viceroys never did have that data needed to make a Monarch-like pattern, and that Monarchs came first, so that Viceroys offer deception as plagiarists ?

... the science of developmental evolution is clarifying that complex coloration patterns can be produced with a small number of rules ... so for the Viceroy to mimic the Monarch's coloration, the informational requirements could be very minimal ... and for evolution to do the "thinking" here, there would have needed to have been an initial resemblance in order to drive the Viceroy closer to the Monarch (say, Viceroys that more closely resemble the Monarch get eaten with less frequency than Viceroys that less closely resemble the Monarch) ... and given an initial coincidental resemblance, the informational requirements would be even less ... but you're right - this is indeed speculation ... the only thing that can really be immediately observed is that the predators are "once biting, twice shy" ... from there, it's just math to model and predict what the ecological consequences of this fact might be ...

1 Reply

@memester,

memester;107873 wrote:

Your assumption being that Viceroys never did have that data needed to make a Monarch-like pattern, and that Monarchs came first, so that Viceroys offer deception as plagiarists ?

Interesting IP case:bigsmile:

there are two different meanings of the word 'deception' here. Symbiotic adaption (as it might be called) is not 'deceptive' in the sense of 'consciously misleading or withholding information'. The latter requires conscious intent, doesn't it? They exist on quite different levels, don't they?

1 Reply

@paulhanke,

paulhanke;107901 wrote:

... the science of developmental evolution is clarifying that complex coloration patterns can be produced with a small number of rules ... so for the Viceroy to mimic the Monarch's coloration,

How is it ascertained that the Viceroy is mimicking ?

---------- Post added 12-03-2009 at 06:24 PM ----------

jeeprs;107917 wrote:

Interesting IP case:bigsmile:

there are two different meanings of the word 'deception' here. Symbiotic adaption (as it might be called) is not 'deceptive' in the sense of 'consciously misleading or withholding information'. The latter requires conscious intent, doesn't it? They exist on quite different levels, don't they?

What's IP ?

Yes, I'm following the language..deception, truth, mimicking...just trying to find out if the words end up doing the thinking.

1 Reply

@jeeprs,

jeeprs;107917 wrote:

there are two different meanings of the word 'deception' here. Symbiotic adaption (as it might be called) is not 'deceptive' in the sense of 'consciously misleading or withholding information'. The latter requires conscious intent, doesn't it? They exist on quite different levels, don't they?

... from the perspective of an ontology that incorporates "deception" as a key concept, there are at least to roads to take here Smile

... there is the (jeeprs?) pan-consciousness perspective, in which at some level there is conscious deception going on here; and there is an opposing perspective in which it can be reasoned that for an ontology that incorporates "deception" to be relevant to more than just the misbehavior of higher animals, that ontology must take on board a broader conception of deception that is not linked to consciousness ... but your example of "symbiotic adaptation" also provides a hint of a third road ... cannot a species, through its evolution, be said to remember what works and what doesn't? ... cannot a species, through its evolution, be said to interact with, respond to, and be part of a dynamic ecology? ... and if it can remember and interact, can it deceive in some way that resembles 'consciously misleading or withholding information'? ...

2 Replies

@paulhanke,

every leaf-greenness of insect or frog is deception, too.
Why is that not mimickry ?
Chameleons are doing it all the time.
How do you know that Viceroys came after Monarch ?

0 Replies

@memester,

memester;107925 wrote:

How is it ascertained that the Viceroy is mimicking ?

... in a situation where predators abhor Monarchs but like Viceroys, the Viceroy's evolutionary pressure would be for it to look more like the Monarch (if it's mistaken for a Monarch, it won't get eaten) while the Monarch's evolutionary pressure would be for it to look less like the Viceroy (if it's mistaken for a Viceroy, it will get eaten) ... so it would be a race of sorts, with the Viceroy on the tail of the Monarch ... I think to determine whether or not this is what is really going on would require detailed measurements of Monarch and Viceroy coloration patterns over many generations to see if the Monarch leads and the Viceroy follows ...

---------- Post added 12-03-2009 at 04:56 PM ----------

memester;107931 wrote:

every leaf-greenness of insect or frog is deception, too.
Why is that not mimickry ?
Chameleons are doing it all the time.
How do you know that Viceroys came after Monarch ?

... I think mimicry and camouflage are close cousins, often spoken of in the same breath and sometimes used interchangeably ... (does a walking stick deploy camouflage? mimicry? both?) ... as for which came first, the Viceroy or the Monarch, strictly speaking it doesn't matter ... even if the Viceroy had been around for millions of years and the Monarch only a few hundred thousand, evolution is an opportunist and will jump on any advantage that presents itself ...

1 Reply

@paulhanke,

IP = Intellectual Property - typically cases where someone is accused of stealing someone else's idea

paulhanke;107928 wrote:

... from the perspective of an ontology that incorporates "deception" as a key concept, there are at least to roads to take here ... there is the (jeeprs?) pan-consciousness perspective, in which at some level there is conscious deception going on here; and there is an opposing perspective in which it can be reasoned that for an ontology that incorporates "deception" to be relevant to more than just the misbehavior of higher animals, that ontology must take on board a broader conception of deception that is not linked to consciousness ... but your example of "symbiotic adaptation" also provides a hint of a third road ... cannot a species, through its evolution, be said to remember what works and what doesn't? ... cannot a species, through its evolution, be said to interact with, respond to, and be part of a dynamic ecology? ... and if it can remember and interact, can it deceive in some way that resembles 'consciously misleading or withholding information'? ...

I suppose you are right, and also holding me to an argument I have already advanced; but deception has an ethical connotation that mimicry does not.

In the religious context, I am reminded of the saying 'the devil is the father of lies'. I think by this is meant that 'the devil' conceals, distorts or prevents to perception of the reality, of truth. In this context, the idea of deception has a definite ethical connotation. There is a conscious intent to mislead.

Perhaps you can say (and here is an out for my pan-conscious argument) that humans are sufficiently evolved to employ guile and trickery for their own conscious and self-interested ends. I don't think creatures are capable of slef-interest in the same way, even though in some ways the same principle, namely deception, is involved. In this sense, creatures are 'innocent', albeit at the cost of 'being able to do no wrong' because the capacity of self-awareness is not sufficiently present.

1 Reply

@paulhanke,

paulhanke;107938 wrote:

... in a situation where predators abhor Monarchs but like Viceroys, the Viceroy's evolutionary pressure would be for it to look more like the Monarch (if it's mistaken for a Monarch, it won't get eaten) while the Monarch's evolutionary pressure would be for it to look less like the Viceroy (if it's mistaken for a Viceroy, it will get eaten) ... so it would be a race of sorts, with the Viceroy on the tail of the Monarch ... I think to determine whether or not this is what is really going on would require detailed measurements of Monarch and Viceroy coloration patterns over many generations to see if the Monarch leads and the Viceroy follows ...

---------- Post added 12-03-2009 at 04:56 PM ----------

... I think mimicry and camouflage are close cousins, often spoken of in the same breath and sometimes used interchangeably ... (does a walking stick deploy camouflage? mimicry? both?) ... as for which came first, the Viceroy or the Monarch, strictly speaking it doesn't matter ... even if the Viceroy had been around for millions of years and the Monarch only a few hundred thousand, evolution is an opportunist and will jump on any advantage that presents itself ...

But what if Viceroy already looked like it does, before Monarch did ?

The appraisal, that "it makes sense", doesn't address what actually happened.

e.g. I might have a great potential gain from stealing your hundred dollars when you were drunk, but that doesn't mean I did so, or that anybody did so.

Or...what if Viceroys also are unpalatable ? What if Monarchs are heading toward Viceroy, or maybe both are approaching a common point , and Monarchs are moving faster toward it than Viceroy ?

1 Reply

Doesn't darwinian theory fall apart on ontological grounds?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know