Why Earle is being misled

Homepage Forums Science Why Earle is being misled

This topic contains 26 replies, has 8 voices, and was last updated by  Simon Paynton 3 months ago.

Viewing 12 posts - 16 through 27 (of 27 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #11308

    Simon Paynton
    Participant

    You could say that the waste is entropy being exported, leaving a reduction of entropy within the cell.

    #11309

    tom sarbeck
    Participant

    Simon says: You could say that the waste is entropy being exported, leaving a reduction of entropy within the cell.

    I could say that, Simon, but I won’t until I have evidence for entropy’s being a substance.

     

    #11310

    Entropy:

     

    #11311

    tom sarbeck
    Participant

    Reg, scientists and anti-science xians have different and conflicting uses for the word “theory”.

    Scientists and those who govern societies have different and conflicting uses for the words “order” and “disorder”.

    Cox uses order and disorder in a manner consonant with science.

    BTW, do you agree that large and strong pond scum have stuff in comon with those who govern societies?

    • This reply was modified 3 months, 1 week ago by  tom sarbeck.
    #11314

    PopeBeanie
    Moderator

    Tom said about Simon’s view:

    I could say that, Simon, but I won’t until I have evidence for entropy’s being a substance.

    Entropy, in the general sense, considers confined systems (like cells) as their own systems with internal vs external states of entropy, so speaking of a cell or a tissue or a body or even civilization in terms of entropy, those subunits are building up organization at the expense of where their energy is coming from. Explicitly speaking, sunlight and warmth is a pretty universal source of energy for every process in the solar system. And then the entropy of the sun itself is increasing.

    As for “the pressure to survive”, I don’t like that terminology either, but it’s still understandable in the larger sense of putting a face on the direction of life processes. We humans just love to frame everything that happens in the terms of some agency making them happen, because that’s the way we evolved… to consider anything and everything that happens as possibly having an agent behind it, which in fact is a very naturally accurate description, before God was even injected (by men) into our big, intellectualized pictures.

    #11315

    tom sarbeck
    Participant

    PopeBeanie wrote: We humans just love to frame everything that happens in the terms of some agency making them happen, because that’s the way we evolved….

    PB, religious people certainly frame stuff that way, and formerly-religious people may do so until they clear the trash from their minds. However, I’m reluctant to say that doing so is a product of evolution when it may be a product of early nurture.

    What say you?

     

    #11316

    @tom, yes I agree but I don’t think there is any need for an ad hominem attack on poor pond scum by comparing them to our politicians. Even though they are genetically related to politicians they must feel very dirty when they are reminded of that.

    #11317

    fullermingjr
    Participant

    Who is Earle and how do I find the misleading quotes he has provided?

    #11318

    PopeBeanie
    Moderator

    However, I’m reluctant to say that doing so is a product of evolution when it may be a product of early nurture.

    Sure, discussions about who did what and when, if a god caused anything, and other stories to tell children and each other came along after we  invented language. I’m mostly convinced that the neurological mechanisms were already there, long before spoken language became sophisticated enough to communicate abstract concepts. Social interaction, empathy, and theory of mind (etc) to predict how another agent feels or can think (whether as predator or prey) was probably just amplified in interactive conversations by spoken language. And then came those damned scriptures, and other fake news to really  go viral.

    My point still is that even before language came along, we had to have a pretty sophisticated theory of mind ability that could familiarize the thinker with the way other animals and people around him/her behaved, and then use that knowledge to predict future behaviors in various circumstances. In my opinion, it would be easy to conclude that invisible agents or even ghosts of ancestors could also be at work that might explain things, like forces of nature and other once-seemed-random events.

    #11319

    PopeBeanie
    Moderator

    Who is Earle and how do I find the misleading quotes he has provided?

    It all started here.

     

    #11330

    Davis
    Participant

    Yes Simon, per thriving…it’s a good definition but it’s not the best one cause not all creatures follow this. In a significant number of creatures a large number (if not an entire gender) don’t reproduce and some insects make no particular effort to stay alive and in some creatures with few natural predators strength can be rather unimportant (if not costly). What you are describing is simply the life cycle of animals. I see no added value to using the term “thrive” when it comes to most animals because when you add “thriving” it carries a lot of baggage with it as human thriving is an entirely subjective term…loaded with meaning and different immensely from one culture to the next. It ranges from the biblical command to go forth and multiply to the modern western concept of each individual realizing their best potential by using freedom of choice, many opportunities, resources, determination and life goals. Using the term thrive in a limited sense applied to animals just adds some level of confusion. Life cycle is more than sufficient to describe the evolutionary pressures as life cycles differ between species and they don’t always include reproducing, being strong or staying alive.

    • This reply was modified 3 months, 1 week ago by  Davis.
    #11333

    Simon Paynton
    Participant

    The pressure to thrive is an inevitable consequence of evolution and natural selection with competition.  Since natural selection is relative to those around us, one of the aims of life is to out-thrive, out-survive and out-reproduce the competition.

    It is the cause of Freud’s “Pleasure Principle” – the perpetual seeking of pleasure.

Viewing 12 posts - 16 through 27 (of 27 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.