Religion: a survival mechanism?

quote:

---

If the effect of religion on a group is to endow it with some sort of moral system, then that may give the group as a whole an evolutionary advantage

---

This is trivial or silly if the real problem is that Carnap was wrong when he said "from a modern point of view the situation looks quite different. Kant should not be blamed.." The cross generational resolution sought is not something that requires more punishment of the parent.Carnap wrote that in Kant's Synthetic A priori in the Structure of Space in Philosophical Foundations of Physics in An Introduction to the Philosophy of Science edited by Martin Gardner. The whole journal "scientific american" loooks this contraian way. That's how on reading the "brain" issue I was able to compare with Penrose on TV and think something neither in the electronic medium nor in that print. Turn out Kant had most of it if not allmost of it already. Yes my brother over there in Metz France and my other one in Washington DC tend to look in carnap's favor or your latin say, as if replacing my lack of understanding of Jammer's. The "situtation" does not look differnt in this generation. It did comparing my mother and grandmother but not my daughter and sister.

quote:

---

Geometry provided Kant with one of his chief examples of synthetic apriori knowledge. His reasoning was that if the axioms of geometry (by which he meant Eucledean geometry — no other geometry was available in his time) are considered, it is not possible to imagine the axioms as not true. For instance, there is one and only one straight line through two points. Intuition, here gives absolute certainty. It is possible to imagine a straight line connecting two points, but any other line conceived of as passing through them must be curved, not straight. Therefore, Kant argued, we have the right to complete confidence in the knowledge of all axioms of geometry. Since the theorems are all logically derived from the axioms, we are also entitled to complete confidence in the truth of the theorems. Geometry, therefore, is completely certain in a way that does not demand justification by experience. It is not necessary to make points on a sheet of paper and draw various lines in order to establish the statement that only one straight line will connect two points. It is justified by intuition; and, although a geometrical theorem may be very complicated and not at all obvious, it can be justified by proceeding from axioms by logical steps that are also intuitively certain. In short, all geometry is a priori.
On the other hand, Kant continued, the theorems of geometry tell something about the world. Consider the theorem that the sum of the interior angels of a triangle is 180 degrees. This can be be derived logically from Euclidean axioms, so there is a priori knowledge of its truth. But it is also true that, if a triangle is drawn and its angles measured, they are found to add up to 180 degrees. If the sum deviates from this, a more careful examination of the construction will always reveal that the lines were not perfectly straight or that, perhaps, the measurements were inaccurate. The theorems of geometry, then, are more than apriori statements. They describe the actual structure of the world and, therefore, are also synthetic. Yet, clearly they are not a posteriori in the way scientific laws are. A scientific law has to be justified by experience. It is easy to imagine that tomorrow an event coul be observed that would contradict any given scientific law. It is easy to suppose that the earth might go around the moon, instead of vice versa, and it can never be certain that tomorrow science mightnot make discoveries that would require a modification of what was previsouly supposed to be true. But this is not the case with geometrical laws. It is incoceivable that new discoveries in geometry could modify the truth of the Pythagorean theorem. In geometry, Kant was convinced, we have a paradigm of the union of synthetic and apirori knowledge."

---

CaRNAP p 181We may have this rather in mutation but because of moral issues made political we cant get scientists to consider this possiblity. I didnt see this as actual a few years ago but it is today.This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 03-03-2005 19:30 AM

Carnap took his view based in argument on part on Russell's THE PRINCIPLES OF MATHEMATICS and from Bertrand's history of logic Carnap attempted the logic of history asserting "This geometry says nothing about the world. It only says that, if a certain system of relations has certain structural properties, the system will have certain other characteristics that follow logically from the assumed structure. Mathematical geometry is a theory of logical strucutre. It is completely independent of scientific investigations; concernec solely with the logical imlications of a given set of axioms." op cit p 181-2 but genetical continuity MIGHT indeed proove to be both the "scientific investigation" and "mathematical geometry" of Carnap denotively but because scientists are saying that THIS IS NOT HOW SCIENCE LOOKS it is hard to say if that is because of the 'investigation' or 'geometry' connotation especially as Carnap's reliance on Russel relied on NOT ALLOWING CANTORIAN proofs on what infinity LOOKS like. Yes by accepting Russel's judgement of proof disposition the analytic is questionable but this does not stop modern molecular biology from seeing synthesis where carnap only asserted a logic that will not work for the science I try to explain.

It's only "free" if my preferred point is the point one among many, namley that the analytic is extended by transfinite math in the mutation model but I dont get that much credit. The point is that a synthetic possibility of today's point of view IS POSSIBLE thanks to comptuer modeling no matter what morals one prefers.

You cant take it yet because in Jammer's words the modern perspective was to push back the "integralness" to the condition of discrete quantum inerative states. This would still be possible in the biology as well as any paralllelisms but science needs to return to a synthetic postioning. It is not a question in any answerable sense then if religion is a suvival means as science is not there yet.I have no idea how you got from an impossibility to a possibility. I attempted to clarify what the situtation looks like. That is all. It is still the same looking situation.

Calm down.You can take what ever you want.Are you saying that there is no such thing as an analytic apriori or a synthetic apriori or did you still fail to understand that there is a modern point of view contrary to Carnaps' aposteriori?And did you really think that a meme can exist without the Classical difference of kinematics and dynamics that not this view supports which can support the notion of evolution ""of religion?If you just want to post in this style- you can take it and all the biology to boot- I think that way of discussing online is silly. If Para thinks that way, I'd be suprised. "anything I write",you say, well, thanks for all that credit. You havent had any real contact with me so I doubt such a lack of sentence applies, but carry on... I tried to say it was silly or naive to try out the question but I proceeded to exclaim that both were impossible right now for a very specific reason. You simply waited some time and then said well- I dont see a sustained defense therefore...",,, that's niave but your call. Silence is deafening sometimes.Carnap is not an obscure author. If you really want to feel that way then ignore it from me. It's no cancer off my back. Besides preciesly the way he uses Bertrand Russell to solidfy his position on physical reality is exactly contrary to MANY posts I have made on EVC. Why do you think I embraced the online environment? If all I could accomplish was what I can talk with someone on the phone it would have been to no effect. I understand Carnap's sanitation of Russell but Russell without his briefs makes even the history of logic out of date. I would prefer to read Borgues' infinity instead and think I wasnt reading fiction.This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 03-04-2005 02:39 AM

Probabalisms are emotional in the mixing sense that groups might inturn faith. Just because I can refer to a level of significance objectively that the probablity is likely to be less chaotic in an end than my attempt to join a religous group I can not simply emote away what happened in such a group with a later knowledge that the stain glass window I was looking out of during my association, participation and worship with such a group, was simply made by one of my relatives many generations back but came up in my subjectvity in ways that then if rejecting the first makes no object of the object.The same applies to EVC as a debate"".Faith was clearly a phenomenon of a group I walked up on but so is the failure to NOT think scientific subjects without probability. Dyson on listening to students at Princeton simply came to the conclusion that "Einstein's universe" is no longer ours. Well if that was the "group" then we still have faith but to use that groups' group think to gain what one other group (Dysons') couldnt retain would transgress something. Just what is hard to say.Faith is not ever "by defintion" but accepting a probablism for objectively ATTAINABLE differences in morphology is. Evolution is not a religion but swarming memes can they be thus unentagled? I doubt it. That's my opinion and I'm apparently sticking to it for/beeffect"because" every straightened meme gives a Kantian kick in the systematic constitution.I doubt memes are large enough to group with faith based sociobiological initiatives! That's supposed to be a joke.

Ok, no worries. Take your time.

Yes, yes look into it!
One thing you find is that one's notion of genetical continuity, no matter the group(,) is somewhat tied, to the one's feelings about the recent history of physics. If you think you can talk about what is taken advantage of in the "next" generation, biologically (of religin, fetishes, taste of food, spice etc) then it seems odd, to have said ("than") that you think by simply making the kind of "blanket" statements that you (do""),,, retain, any gains that Jammer narrated, as linked @Renouvier to Poincare to Bohr to Feynman say... without dealing with Kierkegaard! There are ending possibilities indeed. They/that would be just fine for a physicist but as soon as you notice Kierkegarrd in the discussion it is impossible to NOT deal with creationist issues. Now if you were Gould then perhaps you might think that you indeed carried through a biological carrer in which you simply found creationism as a CONTRADICTORY opposite. I find nothing of the sort. That is why if you cant find the means to talk with me over coffee say we can not even get on with any communication we might disagree about.You insist it seems, that I must be able in one sentence or two to communicate something that is up against the whole trend of modern science and do it as convincingly as the last 100yrs of scholarship combined. I can't, even if I wanted and it was physically possible. So love is called for. I have no problem if you want to think you might be thinking like I think Gould might have been thinking but I really CAN engage a discussion of why I think this discontinuous and digital question is a mistake. It was a mistake when APPLES' computers first appeared on the Cornell campus and we were only using the mainframe and it is the same drag; and drop-today.Jammer links rejection of actual infinity, to, a conceptual philosophy of sciencem, to Poincare's denouncement against giving up differential equations, to,, the difference of kinematics and dynamics;from newer considerations on identity but coopts, the Lucretian exiguum clinamen principiorum rather for goals I think can not be, intellectually sustained, as biological trajectories of reproduction-educate-students, about,,, the/ transitivity/of/genetic transmission. Im stuck with that. You dont need to be. Be free.The sythesis of Kant's teleology grants teleomatics that Jammer links historically but Kant's idealism as so understood did not cover the analytic of this as Carnap categorically declaimed per Jammer's concepts and thus telenomics must address more not less clasicalism but if you dont accept the ability to carry this in good will your learners of biological change will mistake translation in space with form making.
That is easier for me to write then yes and no"" to specific questions. I know you might not understand it so that is why I often, DONT post.
If you require actual rope to "tie" it in with, well thin, I obviously can not satisfy you there.If you are not interested in discussiing the following page just as you simply turned round "bifurcation logical fallacy, anyway" then I cant oblige. I committed no such regression. If you cant see that modern science has been depauperated since the founding of nuclear physics I cant help you on that level. I can always just chat however. This is page 167 of Max Jammer's "The Conceptual Development of Quantum Mechanics"
Also, before Jammer comes to the issue of individuality and identity he discusses how a Princeton prof corrected a Cornell prof. Trust me I probably know the area between Mercer and Tompkins Counties better than I dont know much but the lookout at Mystic in CT south of Providence.

"depauperated" was a term that South American's used in a better sense than New Zelanders when it came to reworking panbiogeography and I meant it, so, I guess, between loss of individuals genetically vs extinction. But this assumes what DS was not willing to agree had already been attributed.In general then, Jammer had on page 173
"Of particular importance for Niels Bohr was Kierkegaard's idea, repeatedly elborated by Hoffding, that the traditional speculative philosophy, in its claim to being capable of explaining everything, forgot that the originator of the system, however unimportant he may be, forms part of the being which is to be explained. "A system can be conceived only if one could look back on completed existence - but this would presuppose that one no longer exists. Man cannot without falsification conceive of himself as an impartial spectator or impersonal observer; he always necessarily remains a participant."It ok to get into a post modern inclination should one be able to track the discussion back. I'll have to see if this just "signal to noise" for DS or just the stimuli we all meemneedED to remember. It may be time for biology to find that formal 1-D symmetry contained the containers the substance of Jammerbiology jammed to Christian music already heard. I hate to hear Nosy say no, but what can we do? Nothing I guess to sylas yet.SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSgoes the snake. Deceptive evolution of creatures contra man say, retains the sense of 'no impartial observer or..." but needs not keep the unmoved mover reference if such was the scholarship. The faith kept it more relative than the rejection of the group sequences so far. O0pps that might mebe mimmetic. The mutation but not the man is ever present to the continuity of the variance. Now take the participant to be the percipient and we are almost home by walking rather than running. Things that go around come_____0____.

This is going to have to be quick. Feel free to get my attention again. I am going to try to respond without going here

quote:

---

In this article by Martin Richrds Beware the Gene Genies he explains that even though the study of genetic diversity is still in it's infancy, that has not stopped people from commercializing the process to tell you your genetic ancestry.

---

So, again if my response seems inadaquate in that regard tell me to click through that link as well.Before on could determine exactly the best way to track back through time one needs to be sure that the correlations one is using are really real. Without looking hard at the studies I can not be sure that Y results were not biased by the algorithms used simply because Y chromosomes have more palidromes in them or if there is not something also or seperate going on when one compared sequences' information BETWEEN another subcellualar organelle. If this is the "information" that is THEN used to track back revolutions of the Earth in human-reproductive time it is possible, to me at least, that the study itself might subtract in concluding what sequences are informative and the what not, crucial geographic pinpointers. Reductionists dont have an issue with this way of interpreting or reading genetical data but even Lewontin questions things like that.What is needed is some way to relate sequence classifications to Earth rotations independent of who has babies with whom. I have never seen such a science.The use of maternal mitchondrial inheritance patterns has also recently been used to discuss origins of female populations of salamanders but the science is in reference Yale work from the 60s that explicitly did not attempt to attend to developmental binomial ideas about physiological genetics no matter the transmission genetics. There is a tendency to supress this difference to a mere issue about the HISTORY of genetics. I take it that DS might think that the use of mitchondrial DNA and no matter what the Palidromes are that this works to sort out the geography. I dont know that it doesnt necessiate a view on a molecular clock. Those things dont need to exist. Now if the genetical continuity is taken to be "pure mathematics" in the analysis then you would be correct that the investigation mistook the analysis for a synthesis current science rejects. I am guessing that this is how my future analysis of the data you suspected will continue to be detailed by me.We can see if I am wrong on that, but i really dont want to spend all weekend working only on this, if others start to toke up a joke. I did look at the other link and it seems that one simply sequences the genes and maps them out. That really cant get to the level of use of getting beyond Carnap that I was trying to excite.Thanks for bringing this information to my attention and now that I've thought it through once it seem you are correct espcially as there was the claim that african geography works better. It would work the same if it really worked. It is just the old "its in your genes" talk but on an economic rather than a colloquial level. It's unfortunate if people let their ignorance get the better of them but I guess we do have to make some choices in the course of a day.

I think if you "Ramseyfy" Carnap's "gene" you do not get the same thing as doing WHAT HE DID for the "electron". It matters not whether you or I know what Carnap did. To justify what he thought only leads to the narrowing of the discussion but I see no stoping one from metasizing with ordertypes his ability to Ramsify any "theory" no matter what lingos or memes the scientists of the theory USE. That is my personal view. Take it or leave it but this question mark remains as I remarked it from Chapter 27 precisely.
So the particular sentence you selected is immaterial. I assert that it is due to failure to notice the signficance of nonadaptive traits that modern science hasnt seen what I already have in nature, irregardless of how we might talk about, what it is the scientists are acutally doing. Just try to imagine you are the person who selects which bird pics to include in ONE PAGE. It's not a hard thing. My grandfather wouldnt do it with stamps. He gave that job to my Grandmother. Martin Gardner also writes for Scientific American and I made my "insight" by comparing that presentation of science with another human one from TV. I try to present visually all there is to it. That's all. What else can I say? See the complex as simple. I did not want to refer to a paricular chapter at that time. NOW I DO! It is not a trick or optical illusion. You must knock over the first domino if you want to get out of jail free and not be carded.You don't suppose Dominion Seraph hacked my photobucket password do you?The relevant paragraph for your thread actually was in Chapter 27 where you or I read,

quote:

---

"Consider, for instance, the assertion, "All red-headed woodpeckers have red heads." Is it analytic or synthetic? At first you may answer that it is, of course, analytic. "Red-headed woodpeckers"means"wood-peckers that have red heads", so the sentence is equivalent to the assertion that all woodpeckers with red heads have red heads. Such a sentence is not only A-true but also L-true.
You are right if the meaning of "red-headed woodpecker" is such that "having a red head" is, in fact, an essential component of the meaning. Vut is it an essential component? An ornithologist may hve a different understanding of "red-headed woodpecker". For him the term may refer to a speices of bird defined by a certain type of body structure, shape of bill, and behavior habits. He may consider it quite possible that this species of bird, in some isolated region, may have undergone a mutation that changed the color of its head to, say, white. For sound taxanomic reasons, he would continue to call such birds red-headed woodpeckers even though their heads were not red. They would be a species variant. He might even refer to them as "white-headed red-headed woodpeckers". Therefore, if "red-headed woodpecker" is so interpreted that having a red head is not an essential component, the sentence becomes synthetic."

---

I dont have any special system of thought I just know a little bit about shapes of herps that does not match anything but what is under the rock. It is wrong only to consider it mental when it is observational. That's all. Boy was I shocked to find Bishop's "white-headed" Desmognathus under a rock in South Carolina AND have Kraig Adler say my ability to notice that a large Plethodon from Virgina was distinct from all others described to 80s date WITHOUT DNA evidence. The herpetologist cared not for my ability to sort the form(although his grad student noticed and that is why I was asked to sort through fish in Africa) but only for the latest technology to sort what I already sorted mentally. What a blow it was to see how science really worked! Some day I should get paid for my ability which I carry over to the evc discussion, but not today.

in the thread I suggest we continue, if there is still is need, as para has moved this particular thread on, was
all about BM threadwhere I noted at more;

quote:

---

this was done by a great but forgotten Englishman: William Kingdom Clifford, in 1875.
Change font
the word purpose has been used to which it is, perhaps, worth while to call attention. Adaptation of means to an end may be provided in two ways that we ar present know of: by processes of natural selection, and by the agency of an intelligence in which an image or idea of the end preceeded the use of the means. In both cases the existence of the adaptation is accounted for by the necessity or utility of the end. It seems to me convenient to use the word purpose as meaning generally the end to which certain means

---

from the logos of Gavin De Beer who went on to say the all was done with the limiting teleology to final causes and defining "teleonomics" when "blind chance" is in the community. Mayr went on to do some writing noticing word "teleomatics" and linking it to the notion of genomes'expressed as related to "programs" and thought the one long argument of evolution was made at length in part by dividing teleology into teleonomics, teleomatics, adapted systems, and cosmic teleology but this instead commits your fallcy should a transcendental analytic exist. Anyway, creationism is on the OTHER SIDE of such supposed and though while it is great for you not to care about the creation etc this is not possible should it be truely true that Mayr's side of the issue is only for the birds while THERE WAS NO OBJECTION to the phrase I noted, again at
all about BM thread.I will provide more quotes from Mayr and De Beer if you would like more documentation.The very intersting thing that happened when I went to court was that the Master heard the plaintiffs go on and on with their case WITHOUT Objection. In truth US Law did not recognize that there already was one, nor did case law and not even the psychiatrists that saw the case knew of its existence- namely to the objection of "FINAL" cause. In fact is only the modern revival of creationism that displays this objection clearly.Thus the idea of religion as a survival must survive something like this and yet it would be silly or niave should the evo psyche say not register the objection in the philsophy of final causes which is more like sophism if i was to guess outside the subject of this thread.It is not me that has the "other" hidden view of the evidence. All that was created by the elite biologists. My work looks more like a mistake than the correct visibility. It is not, but that's just me. Feel Free to do all the same you have in response to me over in this other thread. I have no probs with that. I wont be continuing in this thread if your response is only riding up parts unknown but perhaps to you and me.A meme able to operate directionally would be less a meme to me.This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 03-08-2005 08:49 AM