Religion: a survival mechanism?

quote:

---

The Jewish people did survive, though.

---

Now you're talking about another type of survival. Survival of a genetic group.Who do the genetics start with? Noah, Abraham, Israel, People of the Exodus, After the Exile....Who determines what are pure Jewish genetics?IMO, their religious beliefs actually threatened their genetic survival.

quote:

---

Even under the most extreme of pressures, they didn't fall apart.

---

What do you call falling apart and what makes you believe that they didn't?

---

"The average man does not know what to do with this life, yet wants another one which lasts forever." --Anatole France

Was there a point to this exercise in free association?

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.

As far as DNA is concerned, there is no other type. It starts with the first reproductively isolated group. The boundaries of the group define the contents. Dissolve the boundaries while immersed in a much larger pool, and genetic material will be lost. 7 generations, and you're down to individuals with only 0.78% of the original group's material.
They are effectively extinct. 'Falling apart' = dissolution. This has not happened.
The boundary has become somewhat porous, but the survival of the genetic material is not in jeopardy as long as it remains dominant within the group.This message has been edited by DominionSeraph, 03-03-2005 20:29 AM

I'll take that as a no, as your 'point' is that a possibility is a possibility.This message has been edited by DominionSeraph, 03-03-2005 20:36 AM

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.

As I did, I obviously can. I don't care what anyone else said. The point is that you are saying absolutely nothing. This is not a sentence. And I have no idea where you came up with that 'impossibility'. All I did was point out that all you were doing is referring to a possibility as being possible. I don't think anything you write qualifies as 'clarification'.Here's a hint: Write out the WHOLE thought.This includes refraining from posting something out of the middle of some obscure paper, since if nobody has any freakin' clue where is started or ended, they ain't gonna be able to tie it into the debate. "The situation still looks the same."And now clarify just what situation you're talking about.

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.

Hi Brad,You have posted a lot of material on this thread, but since I don't have much time right now, I could only have a quick look at it. I will get back to you, but I would ask you to have some patience, because it will take some time.I am glad that you have taken the trouble to post in a considerably improved style. Now, if you could just start to add a comma in the right spot every once in a while, you'd make me quite happy. (Don't take that last remark too seriously.)See you.

Ok, no worries. Take your time.

quote:

---

But in this thread, I would like to hear your opinions about the "survival mechanism" theory.

---

I think its weak - obfuscating real phenomemon in favour of theist8ic abstractions is not useful for surivival IMO - its much more likely to get you killed.Religion only makes sense as a doctrine of social order and thus extortion.

quote:

---

It starts with the first reproductively isolated group.

---

Which is when?According to Rabbi James Cohn

quote:

---

The boundaries of the group define the contents.

---

What are the boundaries of this group?

quote:

---

'Falling apart' = dissolution. This has not happened.

---

Dissolution of what?

---

"The average man does not know what to do with this life, yet wants another one which lasts forever." --Anatole France

DominionSeraph, I realize that you are new around here! We respect your youthful zeal and passion, but don't give old Brad too hard of a time...He thinks rather abstractly yet actually makes sense if you take the time to untangle the knot. Lets show him some respect.BTW Brad, you actually have gotten clearer over the past year...have you been eating your Wheaties? (I like that Drivers License)This message has been edited by AdminPhat, 03-04-2005 04:17 AM