Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Prof Denies Human Free Will
Ben!
Member (Idle past 1398 days)
Posts: 1161
From: Hayward, CA
Joined: 10-14-2004


Message 16 of 24 (253111)
10-19-2005 4:36 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by Brad McFall
10-19-2005 3:45 PM


Re: Will Provine at Cornell
Brad,
What I could understand:
  • Kervran's concepts of biological transmutations
    (Cool. The article makes it seem that the claim of biological transmutation is controversial. Why would people be reluctant to accept that an organism can transmutate one element to another?)
  • propinquity
  • verisimilitude
  • Help me with:
  • "vicarying reproductive communities" (Google search returned 2 results; both simple term listing from a Hennig book from Amazon.com)
  • "first natural affinity graph by Agassiz"

  • if you can spare the time. Even if you can provide a link, that would help.
    Thanks as always Brad.
    Ben
    This message has been edited by Ben, Wednesday, 2005/10/19 01:38 PM

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 15 by Brad McFall, posted 10-19-2005 3:45 PM Brad McFall has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 17 by Brad McFall, posted 10-20-2005 7:21 AM Ben! has replied

      
    Brad McFall
    Member (Idle past 5032 days)
    Posts: 3428
    From: Ithaca,NY, USA
    Joined: 12-20-2001


    Message 17 of 24 (253276)
    10-20-2005 7:21 AM
    Reply to: Message 16 by Ben!
    10-19-2005 4:36 PM


    Re: Will Provine at Cornell
    The "big guys" are probably going to say something similar to Mayr's chastisment of Waddingtion, to paraphrase, "If you keep generalizing language and biology you might as welll say that the 2nd law of thermodynmics is teleological". This kind of possible response to some question of mine if, might be , but it begs the stage of the science where we find or do not find the aggregates of molecules the statement denotes either postively or negatively. It is even possible if I see my way the mass spectrilization of such post-Gibbsian aggregates that creationists will simply move on from there.
    I did get an invite. To the event. I was not planning on challenging Will on creationism but only on hierarchical thermodyanmics.
    That is posible but if the tact is to put a tack in the way getting the material decision that is an error on the part of the current crew. I do not see how macrothermodynamics as it relates to evolution rates MUST be teleological. This does not preclude man from patenting its what appear at this point as conspiring motions (but are not). The issue simply seems to be if the evironmental divisions can not be better categorized by using thermodynamics when investigating otherwisely deployed diverse categorications of forms.
    You really dont need to figure out how this will "sound" in Janpanese etc. I either crazy or just seeing something others in position of authority refuse to acknowledge IS in the literature or else they dont wear ICR "biblebias" glasses.
    Look this looks like a fish to me:
    Furthermore the pargonal clinamen drawn by the artist looks like a fish scale with a secondary circulatory system ( I did take that book out but will if you want the pic)
    Instead to get some TIME Hennig takes the curvature in Huxkely's

    and finds a wedge of some format between his vicariously different populations of sexually reproducing differences. I assert thatthat wedge is a scale not a triangle.

    Propinquity runs through the foreground of these figures but if you invert the black in the first figure into a white representation of fish scales with black marks for attributes of a deviated circulatory system I thought I had seen the remarks necessary to give pressure parameterization to Gladyshev's still qualitative presentation. Seeing quantity is harder than quality unless it is tabulated and added up. We need the molecules to do that. Saying that the 2md law is teleological and thus not worthy of funds belies the error of trying to find the largest species rather than geneus but it PRACTICALLY or pramgatically keeps research from searching out a possibility. My envirnoment is larger than the current economic instantiation of gov supported science and frat boy funded elite university endowments.
    They can do this because Nelson and Platnick framed up a bird's eye or suns position view of the earth not an earth's position of its own life (I do not mean GIA). This is clear from page 481-2. I find it INSTRUCTIVE that Croizat wrote to Craw that "either chance dispersal or vicariance is to go". In the 80s I knew more about Croizat than anyone at Cornell it so seems to me and that was by only reading him for about 6months. Liebherr who was actually trying to use his method seemed to not follow as many rabbit trails as I was doing by then.
    The introduction to the first pic in this post N&P was on page123
    1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111
    Material from "Phylogenetic Systematics" by Willi Hennig and "Systematics and Biogeography" by Nelson and Platnick
    I will give you quotes from Hennig and Nelson.
    quote:
    The idea of "natural affinity" in the sense of "propinquity of descent" early and easily lent itself to graphic representation i the form of a branching diagram - soon to be called a "family tree", "phylogenetic tree", "phyletic tree," etc. An early geneological diagram of this kind was published by Duchesne in 1766 (figure 2.61), another by Lamarck in 1809 (figures 2.62,2.63). A similar diagram, the first of many published in this style during the next 130 years, was published by Agassiz in 1844. Interestingly, Agassiz's digram (figure 2.64){the one I, BSM, copied above} was not intended to reflect evolutionary relationships, for Agassiz was not an evolutionist(Patterson 1977). Another, entirely theoretical, diagram was published by Darwin..."
    p123 "Systematics and Biogeography Cladistics and Vicariance"
    I am rather solidly being able to establish in my own mind that this diagram can not be so narrated into the bunch of family grams. Croizat wrote a later paper, in the early 80s, if I recall correctly asking people who wrote on vicariance to maintain proper citations. This has NOT been done. In the late 80s no one was really teaching much vicariance but since then, that changed and yet no one teaches the senistivity to the word itself. "Barrier" is not always the correct denotation.
    I found Kant's 1800 Logic text p 72 (Philosophical Library 1963) helpful in keep the thoughts clearly seperated when not suspended on principle. Kant said in chapter "X"(Look closely at B.Russel's chapter "X" in his book on Principles of Mathematics and the History of logic)
    quote:
    To the doctrine o the certainity of our knowledge belongs also the doctrine of the knowledge of the probable, which is to be regarded as an approximation to certainty.
    By probability we are to understand an assent from inadequate reasons, which however bear a greater proprotion to the adequate reasons than do the reasons for the opposite. By this definition we distinguish probability (probabilitas) from mere (versimultude), which is an assent from inadeaquate reasons in so far as these are greater than the reasons for the opposite."
    What I mean to say is that series of fish fossils are not arguably the same objects as sequences of fish fossils with other "more complex"(Sic!) coldbloods and warm bloods (going away not to Tunicates and Vent Worms etc om the sketching).
    I will quote Hennig on individuality, reality, Woodger's difference from Russel, and SQUARE methodical beginings.
    quote:
    It is more difficult to determine the particular individuality character of the species. There can be no doubt that , like the higher categories of the phylogenetic system or any other divisional hierarchy . Thus all categories of phyogenetic system are characterized by individuality and reality, in contrast to the abstract and timeless categories of the morphological system . Our conclusion that all categories of the phylogenetic system havge individuality and reality is true, of course, only if our system reflects accurately the divisional hierarchy to which its elements belong in nature”p83
    by Willi Hennig Phylo-Genetic Systematics
    Organisms DO NOT have perpendiculars in them. No one has defined the possible one in the population. Is it any wonder that Russel went from one woman to the next and STILL claimed he was "looking for certainty?" I could not do that. What Hennig and Nelson wrote was inadequate although it did begin something for computer use in biology.
    This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 10-27-2005 11:57 PM

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 16 by Ben!, posted 10-19-2005 4:36 PM Ben! has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 19 by Ben!, posted 10-26-2005 9:17 AM Brad McFall has replied

      
    Brad McFall
    Member (Idle past 5032 days)
    Posts: 3428
    From: Ithaca,NY, USA
    Joined: 12-20-2001


    Message 18 of 24 (254402)
    10-24-2005 8:16 AM
    Reply to: Message 6 by Nuggin
    08-31-2005 12:39 AM


    Re: Frost Bite on the Brain
    You were not off topic there is a difference between Will and Rawlings. see news todayin the SUN.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 6 by Nuggin, posted 08-31-2005 12:39 AM Nuggin has not replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 20 by Philip, posted 10-26-2005 11:35 AM Brad McFall has replied

      
    Ben!
    Member (Idle past 1398 days)
    Posts: 1161
    From: Hayward, CA
    Joined: 10-14-2004


    Message 19 of 24 (254877)
    10-26-2005 9:17 AM
    Reply to: Message 17 by Brad McFall
    10-20-2005 7:21 AM


    Re: Will Provine at Cornell
    Hi Brad,
    I see you attended the lecture last night... sorry, I was hoping to get back to you before the lecture on this stuff, but things got busy again...
    So how did it go? Any interesting points you want to bring up here? And did you get to ask any questions? I'm curious to know how things went...
    Ben

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 17 by Brad McFall, posted 10-20-2005 7:21 AM Brad McFall has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 22 by Brad McFall, posted 10-26-2005 2:48 PM Ben! has not replied

      
    Philip
    Member (Idle past 4722 days)
    Posts: 656
    From: Albertville, AL, USA
    Joined: 03-10-2002


    Message 20 of 24 (254893)
    10-26-2005 11:35 AM
    Reply to: Message 18 by Brad McFall
    10-24-2005 8:16 AM


    Anti-IDists: Rawlings and Provine *Willfully Damned* by Hyper-Empiricism?
    Choosing and/or Doing *good* vs. *evil* . on whatever level .
    A matter of perspective perhaps, yet are we not all universally punished by our peers and/or God for our volitions and actions, despite science-processes and/or God *ruling all things*.
    If I were a theist and/or doctor of science . I might well hypothesize predestination, predetermination, NS-evolution, science mechanisms, and/or supernatural influences upon ”quarks-to-psyches’.
    In other words, my own *free will* and artistic ID seems *driven*, *arbitrary*, and *damned* according to science. Likewise, the Bible (Romans 7-8) supports the hypothesis: “When I would do good evil is present in me . God hardeneth whom he hardeneth”, etc.
    And it seems Rawlings damns ID while many peers and/or God damn Rawlings: Rawlings himself publicly exhibits a ridiculous and vain damning-judgment, a *first-degree (premeditated) judgment* that appears both volitionally and intelligently designed . if judged by his peers and/or God.
    I wonder how many rich people pay actually for such utter vanity and vexation out of their hardened Cornell professors (with their prestigious presidential appearances) while poor Haitian children down south are starving.
    In an ironical sort of way, Rawlings and Provine seem correct to damn ID/free-will in persons. What a sarcastically cold and cruel reprobation of all proud professors, hardened by hyper-empiricism!
    This message has been edited by Philip, 10-26-2005 11:39 AM

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 18 by Brad McFall, posted 10-24-2005 8:16 AM Brad McFall has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 21 by NosyNed, posted 10-26-2005 1:19 PM Philip has not replied
     Message 23 by Brad McFall, posted 10-26-2005 2:59 PM Philip has not replied

      
    NosyNed
    Member
    Posts: 8996
    From: Canada
    Joined: 04-04-2003


    Message 21 of 24 (254907)
    10-26-2005 1:19 PM
    Reply to: Message 20 by Philip
    10-26-2005 11:35 AM


    Reading too much of Brad?
    I think, Philip, you should stop reading Brad's posts.
    This message has been edited by NosyNed, 10-26-2005 01:20 PM

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 20 by Philip, posted 10-26-2005 11:35 AM Philip has not replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 24 by Brad McFall, posted 11-11-2005 7:44 AM NosyNed has not replied

      
    Brad McFall
    Member (Idle past 5032 days)
    Posts: 3428
    From: Ithaca,NY, USA
    Joined: 12-20-2001


    Message 22 of 24 (254914)
    10-26-2005 2:48 PM
    Reply to: Message 19 by Ben!
    10-26-2005 9:17 AM


    Re: Will Provine at Cornell
    I need to get the quotes from Hennig on individuality and reality out so that you can read/listen for the science and not the politics.
    It is important to understand the good will of Will with respect to primate phylogeny & bacterial phylogeny. I was not affected by this in the 80s because I had my own personal and kept to myself idea about how the mind materially works. It was wrong but I had it nonetheless.
    The evening was delightful. I knew all the topics presented quite intimately and so enjoyed everything even the quip by Will that he could not proceed until he "clicked" onto Phil's head on the projection in front of us.
    I have said in other links what this article today said about Behe but the person writing it, one of only about 30 others there, was reading only for the DIFFERENCE of creation and evolution and not for the science underlying the rhetoric.
    Will had many of the mannerism of the Stanford debate but I can not see that his position has changed any bit since the 80s. That is probably a very good thing. I think it is. I dont know if he will read any of the Gladyshev papers I gave him. He was being his usual curteous self. He knows where to reach me if he wants more.
    I learned about how he came to disbelieve in pursposeful evolution by reading Dobshanky AND THEN finding Chardin quoting Dob. Aside from the individual reality of phylogram depictions, he has quite conviently found it necessary (by talking with Lyn Margulis etc)to find that the "tree of life" is not valid, hence easily avoiding my citation of Aggasiz's fish but he said he recently aired new book material of his that claims that drift in the Wrightian sense or any other did not exist. I would likely be found to have or be writing this part of evolutionary theory if macrothermodyanmics HAS a thermostat. I suspect it does if only that there once was a fish in tank in Faraday's Cambridge.
    Will opened with an interesting observation of Darwin on Asa Gray and excursions into how to retract papers on the subject. He also reported that he retracted a paper on free will where when he and Raup went to Biola to honor Johnson...He may be debating him later this year again at Cornell.
    The reporter for the Sun made it seem by quoting that Will thinks that one can be a Christian and be an evo if one disses miracles but in truth it was Raup said that. Raup said that one must "give up something". Provine let that go.
    If you ever get a chance to study me and will you will find that where Will says "yes" I say "no" and where I say - NO - he said "blank". I even got to finish a sentence for him, as I did as his student. A question was asked how his change from Dobshanky and Chardin affected the four generation of past Presbyterian clergy in his family; Will said his sister was clear (on that) that his family was ( long pause) in their graves. I said "turning". He said, "WRONG!" try "writhing".
    I heard him say how he differed from Mayr once again. This time I understood. He also said that Richard Lewontin stuck it in for him on the drift thing. That is what I need to read. I can care less for issues surrounding rejection of gene pools and family trees.
    I will get the Hennig material so you can read around the simple question of what do you believe, later. The crux of Will's antiID is simply to challenge between bacterial and primate phlyogeny if creationsts are willing to diss systematics as a whole.
    Ben my memory did fail a bit, it was "RUSE" not "RAUP" above. I did not change the above proper noun as it might be material. For me it is not.
    This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 10-28-2005 03:38 PM

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 19 by Ben!, posted 10-26-2005 9:17 AM Ben! has not replied

      
    Brad McFall
    Member (Idle past 5032 days)
    Posts: 3428
    From: Ithaca,NY, USA
    Joined: 12-20-2001


    Message 23 of 24 (254915)
    10-26-2005 2:59 PM
    Reply to: Message 20 by Philip
    10-26-2005 11:35 AM


    Re: Anti-IDists: Rawlings and Provine *Willfully Damned* by Hyper-Empiricism?
    There is this difference between Provine and Rawlings. It is not right that that happened to me (you name it) because they differ about "intellectual guidance" at Cornell. Will simply thinks that ID is not something he would talk about in a Presidential Address. It was an easy target/shot.
    In fact Rawlings did not "damn" it earlier than the report I provided. It was in his thoughts before he was confronted by a reporter but his idea of religion and Cornell extends to contention that Civil War Cornell is the same then as it is today. That it has held up well and is to be accepted for that. ID if true would mean that this is a wrong time to take the perspective "back" to, Will knows better, but first ID must be more than some internal cadre.
    Will noted this difference quite starkly by calling the lack of participation from the audience compared to his high school audiences as a consequence of CU students being "repressed". I looked back at them. They only smiled.
    You have to understand , Will does not believe there IS free will. So do his students, apparently from the one I talked with.
    Will does have a point on that. If free will is such a big deal why isnt God a bigger deal?
    I am not interested in the politics of Johnson tricking Ted Kennedy but only if we can get a hierarchical theory of evolution that can help solve the human population issue not divide the citizenry any forther than it further has farther. Will's position is not the problem Rawlings' might be if they can just decide HOW students are to be guided. I was not.
    This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 10-27-2005 07:18 AM

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 20 by Philip, posted 10-26-2005 11:35 AM Philip has not replied

      
    Brad McFall
    Member (Idle past 5032 days)
    Posts: 3428
    From: Ithaca,NY, USA
    Joined: 12-20-2001


    Message 24 of 24 (258788)
    11-11-2005 7:44 AM
    Reply to: Message 21 by NosyNed
    10-26-2005 1:19 PM


    Re: Reading too much of Brad?
    It is not true that Cornell is only still "godless." Baer's voice can be heard here from time to time.
    Rawlings DID try to structure his talking as sectarian vs nonsectarian.
    What we have being dicussed now is this above.
    which I think Will only figuratively manuvered around with his above.
    Instead what we get along with the tiny voice of Baer is simply this picture. The only difference is that I would be on the left side of the picture in real space and time in the evenings in the 80s and now I am on the left side only in the mornings.
    So in so far as there is any cve it does not even exist in the margins I made here above.
    I would like to see the discussion of Jefferson continued
    EvC Forum: talking to god
    but the issue of Islamic people and their religion as in the mind of ONE individual (Phil Johnson) is the reason that Will
    RETRACTED his publication on FREE WILL from the conference where he presented it. WIll is using this as the Carrot and Stick rather than the pillars seperating Wright from Bateson in the picutre. On reading Kant's introducation to logic and applying it to what everyone has available on EVC I was lead to the inevitable conclusion that evc is destined currently for being collectively in a state of mental retraction. After seeing Will after so many years, what did I really and actually hear?, his reason for being in a state of retraction!!!
    http://EvC Forum: The Plausibility of Life: Resolving Darwin's Dilemma -->EvC Forum: The Plausibility of Life: Resolving Darwin's Dilemma
    debate has ended up currently to have fallen prey to what Kant recited in a different
    context as, a situation of retraction. Kant had said,
    “The suspension of one’s judgment on priniciple requires a practiced faculty which is only found in advanced years. On the whole, it is a difficult thing to reserve our assent, partly because our understanding is so eager to extend itself by judgments, and to enrich itself with cognitions, partly because our inclination is always directed more to some things than to others. But the man who has often had to reverse his assent, and has thereby become prudent and cautious, will not so quickly grant it, fearing lest he should afterwards be obliged to retract his judgment. This retraction is always mortifying, and leads a man to mistrust all other cognitions.”(Kant, 65)
    When one’s judgement is left in dubio it does not always suit the end and interest in the
    thing but when the same is left in suspenso one always has an interest in the thing (Kant,
    op.cit.). This is an appropriate admonition as death is as much a part of the comparision
    as life is its’difference.
    References-
    The Cornell Daily Sun
    Sewall Wright and Evolutionary Biology by William B.Provine
    Genetics and the Origin of Species retitled as Genetics of the Evolutionary Process by Theodosius Dobshansky
    This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 11-11-2005 07:55 AM

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 21 by NosyNed, posted 10-26-2005 1:19 PM NosyNed has not replied

      
    Newer Topic | Older Topic
    Jump to:


    Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

    ™ Version 4.2
    Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024