evil
Diane, Churchill reflects my position when he said of someone: "He has all the virtues I dislike and none of the vices I admire."
JLNobody
Loved that line. Never heard it before.
I'll steal it soon.
f.
quote
Frank, be my guest--no, be Churchill's guest.
Jln;
You said - "my understanding of evolution is that it has to do primarily with survival, with adaptation to environmental challenges. When the latter change, we change insofar as our species enjoys adaptive (statistically abnornal) properties acquired by beneficial mutations. Of course, this means that only the members of our species who have those properties will adapt and reproduce, producing future generations in which the adaptive properties become statistically normal."
A little clarification on the process of evolution; always remember, evolution is not proactive, strictly reactive.
A specie exists within an envoronment;
Random mutatations occur at high frequency, caused by genetic damage from interaction with elemental particles - nutrinos, etc.
The vast majority of these mutations; 99% +/-, are harmful, causing deformation, disease, difunction, etc., usually resulting in premature death, therefore no procreating; the change is lost - good!
The remaining 1% +/- are neutral (non harmful) mutations conferring on the animal a genetic diference; they may have no effect on the individual's fitness to compete for food, or a mate, but, if this turns out to be an advantageous change either improving its ability to function in the environment, or helping it to cope with a changing environment; the individual will (barring normal chance missadventure, which would serve to nulify any advantage) compete better, and reproduce sucessfully, passing on the genetic advantage, subject to the genetic makeup of the chosen mate.
Note the individual does not adapt to a changing environment; the individual with a suitable mutational genetic change, is better adapted to the changed environment, hence having a higher chance of survival.
The envoronment does not cause, or solicit adaptive changes, it merely serves to test the ability of any individual to survive, therefore scrutinizing the mutations that occur by chance.
I realize this is a subtle distinction, but important; the process is selective in its highly negative effect on species except for the very few, improved cases; requiring huge timeframes for visible improvement of the species (thus removing any "effecting mechanism" (supernatural) from the equation, but chance!).
Continuing with the "new" being of which I spoke, it would indeed be totally artificial, but, perhaps of a suedo biological nature, in that it might have have some parts of a tissue like nature (perhaps joints) allowing some repair and regeneration without replacement. But it would be powered by some form of electric, or nuclear generation, therefore having no need to paracite its biological neighbors for survival. And, with a full supply of "spare parts" available, it would be immortal.
A note on Diane's discussion of aesthetics; let's look at where the human concept of "beauty" comes from.
Again returning to the natural world consider an ancient African (australopithicus) ape, being pursued by a sabre tooth across the barren veldt. A tree to that ape would be the saviour of its existence, and surely figure in its meagre efforts at qualitative analysis as "beautiful", and pass that on around the evening fire to its progeny (if it doesn't come across a tree it probably will not have any memories).
Do you think, to a rabbit crossing a field, the vision of a raptor's sillouette, against the sun is "beautifull"? To the rabbit, it is the dense thicket of brambles, providing its safety that reads as "beautifull". These embedded memories become classified in the minds of animals (especially the hairy ape given to lengthy pondering), resulting in emotional responses to the multitude of sights and sounds, all sensory impressions, which again hark back to our distant primitive past.
And, I agree, these we do not want to lose!
evolution
Bogowo, I'm sorry to have given the impression that I am a Lamarkian, that I believe that acquired characteristics can be passed on genetically. I have always understood that an environmental challenge is not "adapted to" (and then this acquired adaptive skill passed on to fortunate progeny). Indeed, a species must already have traits that are fortuitously adaptive to an environmental challenge. So we are in agreement.
Regarding the origins of beauty, anthropologists have long since given up on the search for origins. One can do not more in this area than speculate, and speculate quite wildly. But you can indulge yourself in such fun, since so famous a philosopher as Nietzsche has done the same and no better. He argued that music arose out of primordial fears, that primitives, especially at night, cowered before sounds of thunder and nocturnal hunting animals, and eventually learned to "domesticate" these fearsome sounds in the imitation of sounds of their own making. The birth of music.
But don't let me try to discourage you from your speculations. They are both interesting and the best way to eventually generate creative and testable hypotheses--I guess.
Jln; I am highly impressed with your sources of knowledge; one can do much worse than Nietzsche, for mental energy!
credit
Bogowo, thanks but I can't take credit for the Nietzsche reference. I've only read two works of his and essays about him. My wife is IN LOVE with Nietzsche, has read everything he's written and most works about him. And she follows me around the house reading his works to me. I'm so glad he's dead.
