tribe/m

a mathematical theory on evolution

Sun, December 10, 2006 - 6:53 AM by Unsubsc...

hi,

I just fimished putting some work together on an evolutionary concept that is based on the convergence of several mathematical concepts.

this link is to perhaps the most relevent pages but the other pages may also be of interest

malcolm.mcewen.googlepages.com/th...ion

regards

GM23


Re: a mathematical theory on evolution

Mon, December 11, 2006 - 11:52 AM by Unsubsc...

"What started this journey for me was the drawing of a diagram: three circles around a central core. It was a simple diagram and when I first drew this diagram I was writing a book on the mechanisms of Earth, ‘The Gardens of Gaia’ and could not have had mysticism and religion further from my thoughts."

I am trying really hard not to be a smart ass. But I read that and thought that it might be nice to inform you how that looks to people who aren't already immersed in mysticism. Saying mysticism was the furthest thing from you mind while writing a book called 'The Gardens of Gaia' would be like someone saying "...at the time I was writing a book called 'Popular Tantra' so, you know, sex couldn't have been furthur from my mind"


Re: a mathematical theory on evolution

Jacob Wilson, Mon, December 11, 2006 - 12:17 PM by Jacob W...

Thats one of the hugest piles of mystical crap I have read in some time.


Re: a mathematical theory on evolution

Mon, December 11, 2006 - 12:27 PM by Unsubsc...

brents comments that gaia is a 'mystical concept' are erronous..

the Gaia hypothesis is an excepted theory and was first proposed by Prof. James Lovelock.
his books are published by Oxford University Press and the New Scientist said of him

"He is to science what Gandhi was to politics. And his central notion, that the planet behaves as a living organism, is as radical, profound, and far-reaching in its impact as any of Gandhi's ideas."

New scientist.

what jacco do you call crap?

the idea that evolution can be shown to follow several mathematical processes and that these process can be shown to underly such events as the evolution of matter, of system and communication?

be a bit more specific with your criticism, else it is impossible to reply

regards

GM23


Re: a mathematical theory on evolution

Mon, December 11, 2006 - 1:42 PM by Unsubsc...

I'm pretty familiar with the Gaia hypothesis, and don't think I'm equating "mystical" with "false". But I've yet to find a justification for the Gaia hypothesis that isn't either mystical, or a far-out postulation suitable for a sci-fi novel. Its not that its wrong, but the reasons for thinking it is right are generally mystical, and people who are into it are mystical.

So fess up, you are generally prone to mystical thinking are you not?

I'm not saying that is bad. I have all kinds of mystical thoughts, everyone does, and I like mysticism and place a lot of value on it, I even like of the less naive versions of the Gaia hypothesis, but the Gaia hypothesis is never far from mysticism. Just like popular tantra is ever far from sex.


Re: a mathematical theory on evolution

Jacob Wilson, Mon, December 11, 2006 - 1:50 PM by Jacob W...

"a shift that led to the opening of the crown Chakra and the connection with the Devine knowledge system known as the Akashic records"

Mystical crap.

"At the time I had no knowledge of the Ten Sefriot let alone that it was a map of God in the image of Man."

Mystical crap.

"This second bit of numerological wisdom"

Mystical crap.

"three mathematical process, ones ‘revealed’ to me by the Lights at Pushkar"

Mystical crap.... revealed.

Look, have fun with yur beliefs, more power to you. But its just a belief. I read your page, and all you are doing are drawing bizarre paralells between things, and using a lot of fancy language to imply relationships which are not all explicit. Go have fun in a religion or mysticism or what the turd ever tribe with it. This isnt the forum.


Re: a mathematical theory on evolution

Lenny Mon, December 11, 2006 - 1:50 PM by Lenny

"the Gaia hypothesis is an excepted theory"

The Gaia hypothesis is controversial at best. This example (and by no means an isolated one!) of typical criticism is from James W. Kirchner. 2003. The Gaia Hypothesis: Conjectures and Refutations. Climatic Change 58:21-45 :
"Abstract The uncertainties surrounding global climate change provide ample evidence, if any were necessary, of the need for a whole-system view of the Earth. Arguably the most visible – and controversial – attempt to understand Earth as a system has been Lovelock's Gaia theory. Gaia has been a fruitful hypothesis generator, and has prompted many intriguing conjectures about how biological processes might contribute to planetary-scale regulation of atmospheric chemistry and climate. In many important cases, however, these conjectures are refuted by the available data. For example, Gaia theory predicts that the composition of the atmosphere should be tightly regulated by biological processes, but rates of carbon uptake into the biosphere have accelerated by only about 2% in response to the 35% rise in atmospheric CO2 since pre-industrial times. Gaia theory would predict that atmospheric CO2 should be more sensitively regulated by terrestrial ecosystem uptake (which is biologically mediated) than by ocean uptake (which is primarily abiotic), but both processes are about equally insensitive to atmospheric CO2 levels. Gaia theory predicts that biological feedbacks should make the Earth system less sensitive to perturbation, but the best available data suggest that the net effect of biologically mediated feedbacks will be to amplify, not reduce, the Earth system's sensitivity to anthropogenic climate change. Gaia theory predicts that biological by-products in the atmosphere should act as planetary climate regulators, but the Vostok ice core indicates that CO2, CH4, and dimethyl sulfide – all biological by-products – function to make the Earth warmer when it is warm, and colder when it is cold. Gaia theory predicts that biological feedbacks should regulate Earth's climate over the long term, but peaks in paleotemperature correspond to peaks in paleo-CO2 in records stretching back to the Permian; thus if CO2 is biologically regulated as part of a global thermostat, that thermostat has been hooked up backwards for at least the past 300 million years. Gaia theory predicts that organisms alter their environment to their own benefit, but throughout most of the surface ocean (comprising more than half of the globe), nutrient depletion by plankton has almost created a biological desert, and is kept in check only by the nutrient starvation of the plankton themselves. Lastly, where organisms enhance their environment for themselves, they create positive feedback; thus Gaia theory's two central principles – first, that organisms stabilize their environment, and second, that organisms alter their environment in ways that benefit them – are mutually inconsistent with one another. These examples suggest that the further development of Gaia theory will require more deliberate comparison of theory and data."


Re: a mathematical theory on evolution

Mon, December 11, 2006 - 2:46 PM by Unsubsc...

Oh wow. I didn't even get that far. Its much clearer now: when your into that sort of mystical stuff the Gaia hypothesis is going to seem like some major hard-science.


Re: a mathematical theory on evolution

Mon, December 11, 2006 - 2:50 PM by Unsubsc...

Hi lenny

>>The Gaia hypothesis is controversial at best. This example (and by no means an isolated one!) of typical criticism is from James W. Kirchner. 2003. The Gaia Hypothesis: Conjectures and Refutations. Climatic Change 58:21-45 : <<

Certainly not everyone subscribes to it, but then few theories receive universal acceptance and even fewer when first proposed; perhaps Darwin’s ideas are the best example of this. However whilst it is not universally accepted I would aver that if it were “controversial at best” Prof. Lovelock would not hold as a consequence his seat as a Fellow of Oxford University nor would the New Scientist have heaped such praise on him. Whilst it may be a hypothesis you disagree with such opinion is clearly not shared by one of the world’s oldest and most prestige’s universities nor the worlds top selling science journal.


>>In many important cases, however, these conjectures are refuted by the available data. For example, Gaia theory predicts that the composition of the atmosphere should be tightly regulated by biological processes, but rates of carbon uptake into the biosphere have accelerated by only about 2% in response to the 35% rise in atmospheric CO2 since pre-industrial times. Gaia theory would predict that atmospheric CO2 should be more sensitively regulated by terrestrial ecosystem uptake (which is biologically mediated) than by ocean uptake (which is primarily abiotic),<<

sorry but aquatic sequestration of CO2 is largely biotic and performed by phyto- plankton; the reason why most carbon deposits are in the lithosphere in the form of carbonates.

>>but both processes are about equally insensitive to atmospheric CO2 levels.<<

actually in recent years satellite data has identified regular and increasing frequency of algal blooms and whilst there is conclusive evidence of the cause of this the indications are that it is in response to climate change.

>>Gaia theory predicts that biological feedbacks should make the Earth system less sensitive to perturbation, but the best available data suggest that the net effect of biologically mediated feedbacks will be to amplify, not reduce, the Earth system's sensitivity to anthropogenic climate change.<<

this line doesn’t actually make sense… it looks good and attempts to imply that the data suggests an amplification as in an increase in CO2 in response to anthropogenic production… the so called run away greenhouse effect…. In fact both scenarios are possible as different mechanism come into play: i.e the melting of permafrost may result in the arctic becoming a net source of CO2 as diasotroph activity during the extended summers exceeds the deposition of plant material over the same period; whilst at the same time sequestration in the surrounding oceans increases due to phyto-plankton responses in warmer seas. But in truth the statement actually doesn’t make sense…

>>Gaia theory predicts that biological by-products in the atmosphere should act as planetary climate regulators, but the Vostok ice core indicates that CO2, CH4, and dimethyl sulfide – all biological by-products – function to make the Earth warmer when it is warm, and colder when it is cold.<<

I think your use of lake Vostok data is rather spurious given that it is deep in the Antarctic, has been frozen for millennia and is used more in hypothesising about the ability of life to form in the absence of sunlight than in climate studies. If one place on earth has been omitted in taking part in evolution its lake Vostok. In general it is Icelandic ice cores that are used for paleo-climate studies and they indicate a very different story to one that you attempt to create here.

>> Gaia theory predicts that biological feedbacks should regulate Earth's climate over the long term, but peaks in paleotemperature correspond to peaks in paleo-CO2 in records stretching back to the Permian; thus if CO2 is biologically regulated as part of a global thermostat, that thermostat has been hooked up backwards for at least the past 300 million years.<<

on the contrary, that data supports both climate change and the Gaia hypothesis. As you state in the opening line… over the long term, the system has and I would aver is responding but it hs only just begun

>>Gaia theory predicts that organisms alter their environment to their own benefit, but throughout most of the surface ocean (comprising more than half of the globe), nutrient depletion by plankton has almost created a biological desert, and is kept in check only by the nutrient starvation of the plankton themselves.<<

Actually its 7/10ths of the Earth’s surface that is covered by water and I doubt many would share your view that the oceans are “a biological desert”. Furthermore the nutrient of limitation is saline situations is iron and it is naturally low.. your scenario would result in boom and bust effects if it was as a consequence of the organisms themselves.

>> Lastly, where organisms enhance their environment for themselves, they create positive feedback; thus Gaia theory's two central principles – first, that organisms stabilize their environment, and second, that organisms alter their environment in ways that benefit them – are mutually inconsistent with one another.<<

This isn’t the Gaia hypothesis; the Gaia hypothesis maintains that the system operates as a whole and not as individual organisms acting independently to alter the environment for selfish ends; . That’s Darwinian.

>> These examples suggest that the further development of Gaia theory will require more deliberate comparison of theory and data."<<

clearly as I point out your examples are either incorrect (oceanic CO2 sequestration), based on spurious examples (lake Vostok) or quoting the wrong theory (survival of the fittest)

regards

GM23


Re: a mathematical theory on evolution

Mon, December 11, 2006 - 3:05 PM by Unsubsc...

Hi brent,

I would aver quite differently but the Gaia hypothesis does indicate that the planet is a living organism and as such the definition falls outside the normal perameters for defining life; but then so phages (viruses).

Whether or not I'm prone to mystical thinking (and before the events of 2004 I was not one with a particularly leaning ) is irrelevent. by the same token you should dismiss anyones ideas if they similarly have religious/ theological beliefs.... such people would include

G Lemaitre (the man who proposed big bang)
Issac Newton(perhaps the greatest scientist ever)
C Linaeus (called all his plant collectors disciples and believed he was unraveling God's great plan)
A Einstein (quotes...God doesn't play Dice... and religion without science is lame whilst science without religion is blind)

incidentaly Einstein also said "I dont see words and numbers I see pictures and then interpret them"

I now understand inplicitly what he meant by that last phrase...

regards

GM23


Re: a mathematical theory on evolution

Mon, December 11, 2006 - 3:21 PM by Unsubsc...

is it possible for you jaco to pick out more than one or two words?

like a paragraph that appears after thei ntroduction which is there toput things in context.

you don't have to agree with my interpretations as to the events that led up to what I learned but you could at least comment on the actual processes that are summarized.

so far this thread has simply shown how closed your minds are and how one word you dislike or misunderstand results in ceasing reading and refuting the entire work....

tut tut....

regards

GM23


Re: a mathematical theory on evolution

blue-j Mon, December 11, 2006 - 3:21 PM by

i always find mary midgley's thoughts intriguing, right or wrong, and here's a link to a booklet she wrote about gaia that's interesting:

www.demos.co.uk/publications/gaia

please ignore the marketing blurb; as usual, they don't get the subtlety of her position and misrepresent it.


Re: a mathematical theory on evolution

blue-j Mon, December 11, 2006 - 3:21 PM by

midgley's booklet as a free PDF:

www.demos.co.uk/files/gaia.pdf


Re: a mathematical theory on evolution

blue-j Mon, December 11, 2006 - 3:29 PM by

"Go have fun in a religion or mysticism or what the turd ever tribe with it. This isnt the forum. "

it certainly is the forum for a reasonable refutation of such sentiments. evolutionists are in the small minority in the US at least and don't have the privilege of assuming such high ground. i for one don't want to limit my contact to the "choir" too much, or we'll end up a marginalized ghetto!

that being said, my initial critique of this species of pattern-making is to point out that the mundane is mystical and there is no need to uncover numerological patterns to find a source of magic. just take some time and look at the dirt in your backyard. numerology and magical thinking i think is fueled by a flatness of normalcy that is borne of alienation. making the familiar strange and feeling the miracle of the fact of the universe in the trivial is a more rooted goal in my mind.


Re: a mathematical theory on evolution

Lenny Mon, December 11, 2006 - 4:37 PM by Lenny

"Certainly not everyone subscribes to it, but then few theories receive universal acceptance and even fewer when first proposed; perhaps Darwin’s ideas are the best example of this. However whilst it is not universally accepted I would aver that if it were “controversial at best” Prof. Lovelock would not hold as a consequence his seat as a Fellow of Oxford University nor would the New Scientist have heaped such praise on him. Whilst it may be a hypothesis you disagree with such opinion is clearly not shared by one of the world’s oldest and most prestige’s universities nor the worlds top selling science journal"

As a rule of thumb, acceptance can be judged by the space theories garner in university texts. Darwin's theory and the modern synthesis that sprang from it *are* universally accepted in the science community--to a degree that is rarely matched and completely unsurpassed by any theory in any of the sciences. If you look in a university ecology text, you will be lucky to find even a brief mention of the Gaia hypothesis. I invite you to do just that and satisfy yourself that it is true.

"clearly as I point out your examples are either incorrect (oceanic CO2 sequestration), based on spurious examples (lake Vostok) or quoting the wrong theory (survival of the fittest)"

They aren't *my* examples--that was an abstract from a paper by a legitimate authority in a peer reviewed journal. I have little interest in debating the particulars, but your claim that theory is widely accepted is demonstrably false--the theory is contested in the primary literature and almost completely absent from university texts.


Re: a mathematical theory on evolution

sexie reverie Mon, December 11, 2006 - 6:12 PM by sexie r...

Although I am not a subscriber to the 'Gaia' theory in its more anthropomorphic or mystical manifestations, I have some of the same criticisms of the Climate Change abstract that GM does. And I will say, that GM deserves some credit for that rebuttal. Whatever his mystical ideas, my oceanographer's assessment is that he's proved himself no lightweight when talking about global climate regulation.

However, GM, I also read sections of your book, and had trouble seeing how it related to biological evolution, the usual discussion on this tribe, or how it could be used to generate specific testable hypothesis about evolution. (Not that there aren't other off-topic topics here that people like to talk about - i.e. religion.) But I suspect you won't get as sympathetic a hearing here as you might in the Kabbala or dmt tribes....


Re: a mathematical theory on evolution

Mon, December 11, 2006 - 6:21 PM by Unsubsc...

yes and there is also a correlation between the time something has been in the literature and the degree to which it is aired..... hence a theory that is over 100 years old is in more text than one that is 10.

Whilst in the states you may find Gaia as a theory not taught in Universities (as you imply) I can assure you that the same is not the case here in the UK. that's not to say that Darwins work isn't or shouldn't be there but the debate here is not so polarized nor is it seen as being opposing ideas.

Also whilst I accept that the work you quote is not your own it would also seem that you take it on trust... in science nothing is ever clear cut..... politics often underlies an argument and your author would not be the first to select data that supported his hypothesis rather than review all that was available and form an opinion on balance... a case of the advasarial verses the inquisitorial approach... I personally favour the latter.

in my own field (carbon and nutrient cycling in terrestrial ecosystems) a classic example of polarized views is that with regard to soil sequestration of CO2. On your side of the atlantic no till is seen and supported by data as a viable means of sequesting carbon whereas on this side it is not and regarded as having the potential to worsen the situation since CH4 production increases under no till systems... its a bit more complicated but essentially each side of the atlantic argues that the same action results in an opposing outcome.

that said the point of this post was to canvas opinions on the models in the work on the web pages... so far that opinion has determined that the use of terms such as Akashic records,Crown Chakra, etc... mean the work is invalid and negates the need to read it or to comment beyond calling it 'mystical crap'

whilst there is a mystical element there it is not the only aspects but seems to be the only thing that any contributor has chosen to comment on.

given that this is not a mystical tribe I had hoped thatcomments would be on thoseaspects that did have relevence....

so its getting all a bit tiring really...

regards

GM23



Re: a mathematical theory on evolution

sexie reverie Mon, December 11, 2006 - 6:43 PM by sexie r...

To that end, I was hoping you'd answer my questions about the relevance to biological evolutionary theory of your ideas, and what sort of testable hypotheses might come out of them.


Re: a mathematical theory on evolution

Lenny Mon, December 11, 2006 - 7:07 PM by Lenny

"yes and there is also a correlation between the time something has been in the literature and the degree to which it is aired..... hence a theory that is over 100 years old is in more text than one that is 10"

This is nonsense. The Darwinian Synthesis isn't in all the textbooks because it is old, it is in all the textbooks because it well supported by the evidence and enjoys an overwhelming consensus. The Gaia hypothesis is rarely even mentioned in the textbooks because it is poorly supported--at best--and doesn't enjoy anything approaching a consensus.

"Whilst in the states you may find Gaia as a theory not taught in Universities (as you imply) I can assure you that the same is not the case here in the UK."

I'm not in the USA, and I'm not implying it, I'm stating it very clearly. It enjoys much the same status as the Aquatic Ape Hypothesis. It is mentioned in passing if at all.

"that's not to say that Darwins work isn't or shouldn't be there but the debate here is not so polarized nor is it seen as being opposing ideas"

I was replying to the notion that they are comparable in terms of degree of acceptance. But your claim that "The Gaia hypothesis maintains that the system operates as a whole and not as individual organisms acting independently to alter the environment for selfish ends; . That’s Darwinian." Puts these theories very much at odds. I am familiar for the evidence that the Darwinian model can muster--I am waiting to see what you can offer that fits the data better.

"Also whilst I accept that the work you quote is not your own it would also seem that you take it on trust... "

Then you had better read what I wrote again. It was offered only as an example of ongoing debate in the primary literature. The truth is that I grabbed the first abstract that popped up. As I have already said--at this point I am arguing the point of wide acceptance (or lack thereof), not substance...yet.


Re: a mathematical theory on evolution

Mon, December 11, 2006 - 8:00 PM by Unsubsc...

Hi dr r,

Thanks for sharing my sentiments on climate aspects. Actually I was in the process of replying to you when my PC crashed….. so here it is again

Whilst I accept your criticism that the model doesn’t specifically address species evolution it is however not intended to and if I was to specifically address organic evolution the models required to explain this sufficiently would be enormous. What it does do I feel is provide a framework into which the evolution of many things can be explained through the interaction of mind and matter.

When I first drew this model I was building a means to explain how the chemical, mechanical and micro-biological components co-operate to produce a terrestrial system. That first model was built around the concept of soil fertility. When I subsequently went to expand components into it I did so from a functional rather than a taxonomical perspective. This itself requires throwing out many of the accepted methods of organization however it similarly reveal a means by which components in a system co-operate. Such co-operation is obvious in an organism but not so in a system.

Whilst Darwin’s ideas (I actually prefer to credit Wallace) are valid in many situations they are not in many others. Two classic examples spring to mind, one the eye and the other the evolution of the angiosperms as both require negotiating a period of redundancy if they are the product of adaptation. Effectively the eye needed to be in place and not work as its various components evolved, similarly the brain needed to develop a visual cortex in advance. Such a situation would have required an organism spending several generations with a resource hungry organ that provided no benefit… it might still have evolved but not because it was fitter.

Angiosperms though could not have evolved if a period of redundancy had to be surpassed since such redundancy would have meant either getting over a period of sterility (one that would last several generations and end in extinction every time) or to maintain a duel reproductive system. There are no such plants today or in the fossil record that have any evidence of a duel reproductive system… either you’re an angiosperm or a gymnosperm.. no in between….

Darwin himself called flowers an Abominable Mystery and its no surprise.. they just don’t fit his theory. The first flower was believed to be Amborella (think that’s how it’s spelt) and it appeared around 140 million years ago (height of the cretaceous period) within 70 million years flowers not only covered the planet and dominated the flora but all the families we have today had evolved… I don’t know how familiar you are with evolutionary time frames but 70 million years is but a blink in the eye. Somehow flowers not only appeared ‘overnight’ but they also managed to evolve all the necessary components without a redundancy phase… one redundant phase = sterility = extinction.

This exceptional event is similarly mirrored by the rapid and necessary evolution of the pollinators. Flowers need bees and bees need flowers: there is no room for gradual convergence…

Flowers are by no means simple structures and nor are they energy efficient. Therefore some other mechanism must be operating to account for this. There must be some sort of interaction that pre-empts the physical evolution of the flower; one that ‘plans it’ so that there is no redundant phase. Similarly such ‘planning’ must include the pollinators.

What the model does is show a mechanism by which such co-operative evolution is achieved. Admittedly I don’t go into that aspect particularly in the work but even at that level we are talking about a considerable number of interactive aspects that act as some form of rudimentary mind, one that exists both within the plant to organise the flower and between the flower and the insects. This mind, just as the human mind is, is non physical; It exists between rather than in the components and this is what the model demonstrates… this is what I saw and it blew my head off…….

If you bother to read through the other chapters, which are not relevant to evolution per say you will read about a place called Sharda… A place I had no prior knowledge of before having very traumatic and powerful visions of it in Goa. At Sharda I found the very model that started it all; only it was drawn by mystics 1200 years ago and is a representation of ‘universal mind’. Had this event and the subsequent existence of the diagram at Sharda not happened I would have written everything off as a form of psychosis… but it did and after I managed to get back on my feet I came to the conclusion that operating between everything is a form of mind and that evolution is as a consequence of interaction between this mind and the material.

Those diagrams are an explanation of how this happens; it applies to all levels of evolution from the atomic nuclei to the universe itself. It isn’t an alternative to Darwinian it’s the main mechanism whereas Darwinian is just a supportive mechanism or rather an example of species mind interacting with species matter.. but the same model applies.

Regards

GM23


Re: a mathematical theory on evolution

Mon, December 11, 2006 - 8:15 PM by Unsubsc...

ps

with regard to hypothesis testing.....

I have issues with this method and up until 40 years ago I was not alone .. there is a great paper by a guy called cline (1965) and he quotes a 1920's writer bridgeman. Clines paper was on soil taxonomy wheras (can't remember his name) yes i can bridgeman was having a ago at quantum physics (never got my hands on his work)

they both criticise hypothesis testing calling it "the prejudice of the past" and I totally relate to it....

hypothesis generally requires one having a preformed idea of the out come... it either is or it is not... the null hypothesis.

hypothesis has become the basis of modern science yet Einstein never used it, nor did newton and nor did Darwin..... in fact you will be hard pressed to find many radical ideas come out from being first organised by a hypothesis ... square pegs just don't fit in round holes and some things can never be put to hypothesis...

Einstein is agood example.. he published his work in 1906... it wasnt until the eclipse of 1921 that it was actually shown to be true... no way of prior testing

regards

GM23


Re: a mathematical theory on evolution

Mon, December 11, 2006 - 8:43 PM by Unsubsc...

yes and there is also a correlation between the time something has been in the literature and the degree to which it is aired..... hence a theory that is over 100 years old is in more text than one that is 10"

>>This is nonsense. The Darwinian Synthesis isn't in all the textbooks because it is old, it is in all the textbooks because it well supported by the evidence and enjoys an overwhelming consensus. The Gaia hypothesis is rarely even mentioned in the textbooks because it is poorly supported--at best--and doesn't enjoy anything approaching a consensus.<<

that’s not nonsense at all… today’s discoveries take time to filter through whether that is the class room or the high street.. if you work in science and I’m assuming you do then you will know that at the cutting edge of research ( that does make me laugh.. more like the hanging about watching an experiment go wrong) you use not books but communicate directly with others. Any university course is constructed over years and in many cases remains unchanged for many more than it should.

>>I'm not in the USA, and I'm not implying it, I'm stating it very clearly.<<

apologies, my mistake for both misplacing your location and being polite.. But Lovelock is a fellow of Oxford, do a google on his name and restrict the criteria to ac.uk and you will find nearly 1000 references to him from oxford, reading, leeds, the royal society, centre for hydrology and ecology, etc… these are all 5* research establishments.. but heck what do they know?

Putting the Gaia hypothesis with Morris’s aquatic ape is like putting Banksy up with Picasso… there both artists but they are not in the same class.

>>I was replying to the notion that they are comparable in terms of degree of acceptance. But your claim that "The Gaia hypothesis maintains that the system operates as a whole and not as individual organisms acting independently to alter the environment for selfish ends; . That’s Darwinian." Puts these theories very much at odds. I am familiar for the evidence that the Darwinian model can muster--I am waiting to see what you can offer that fits the data better.<<

I refer you to my post to Dr r

"Also whilst I accept that the work you quote is not your own it would also seem that you take it on trust... "

>>Then you had better read what I wrote again. It was offered only as an example of ongoing debate in the primary literature. The truth is that I grabbed the first abstract that popped up. As I have already said--at this point I am arguing the point of wide acceptance (or lack thereof), not substance...yet.<<

yes you took it on trust… you didn’t referee it… did you??

And as regards wide acceptance.. as I stated earlier Darwin was ridiculed by his peers, the same was the case when plate tectonics was first proposed.. the same happened to Hubbard after he predicted the 1972 oil crisis… all good and correct work when published but cost the authors their careers… lack of initial acceptance is not indicative of being incorrect and I would aver that if history is anything to go by its indicative of being correct !!

Regards

GM23

ps its way past my bed time so i won't post again till tommorow

good night


Re: a mathematical theory on evolution

Mon, December 11, 2006 - 9:04 PM by Unsubsc...

bit curious lenny....

your tibes include celtic pagans and shamanism... I would have thought that given the simularities of many of my diagrams with the celtic spiral and shamanic ideas that you would have welcomed something that tried to show that many of these ancient concepts can actually be shown to have there roots in wisdom and actually preceed modern understanding....

are you just trolling?? or do you have a bit of a bi-polar issue here?

regards

GM23


Re: a mathematical theory on evolution

blue-j Mon, December 11, 2006 - 11:00 PM by

come on gm, stick to lenny's statements and don't start playing teams. we're a little too old for that crap here.


Re: a mathematical theory on evolution

Lenny Tue, December 12, 2006 - 4:21 AM by Lenny

"that’s not nonsense at all… today’s discoveries take time to filter through whether that is the class room or the high street."

The Gaia hypothesis isn't new. Lovelock came up with it in the 60s. He was mentioning it in papers in the early 70s and formally published the theory in 1979.

"if you work in science and I’m assuming you do then you will know that at the cutting edge of research ( that does make me laugh.. more like the hanging about watching an experiment go wrong) you use not books but communicate directly with others. Any university course is constructed over years and in many cases remains unchanged for many more than it should."

The reason for the delay is that it takes time for a hypothesis to be tested and the findings to be replicated and clarified before any kind of consensus is built, which is why inclusion in textbooks is a fair way to judge whether an idea has gained wide acceptance in the scientific community. The Gaia hypothesis has been around for decades--far newewer theories have nmade their way into the textbooks.

"But Lovelock is a fellow of Oxford, do a google on his name and restrict the criteria to ac.uk and you will find nearly 1000 references to him from oxford, reading, leeds, the royal society, centre for hydrology and ecology, etc… these are all 5* research establishments.. but heck what do they know?"

I am aware of who Lovelock is--I live in Canada, not a cave. How many of those references are supporting the Gaia hypothesis in peer reviewed journals? Lovelock's public fame largely is due to the Gaia hypothesis, but it is hardly the cornerstone of his credentials or professional standing. This isn't about Lovelock, it's about the hypothesis and that's how it should stay.

"Putting the Gaia hypothesis with Morris’s aquatic ape is like putting Banksy up with Picasso… there both artists but they are not in the same class"

They are both theories that have captured the public's imagination but have garnered little support in the ecientific community and are mentioned as footnotes--at best--in texts.

"I refer you to my post to Dr r"

Oh, I read it. I'm hoping you have something better than a tired argument from incdedulity. Irreducible complexity fares far worse in the scientific community than even the Gaia hypothesis, and if that's all you've got then you are empty handed indeed.

"yes you took it on trust… you didn’t referee it… did you?? "

I used it only to illustrate my claim that the theory remains controversial--my argument doesn't hang on any particulars of the content

"… lack of initial acceptance is not indicative of being incorrect and I would aver that if history is anything to go by its indicative of being correct !! "

I didn't claim that the theory's lack of broad acceptance indicates it is wrong, I simply challenged your assertion that it is widely accepted. My problems with the theory itself are with its conflict with the predictions of Evolutionary Theory.


Re: a mathematical theory on evolution

Lenny Tue, December 12, 2006 - 4:30 AM by Lenny

"your tibes include celtic pagans and shamanism... I would have thought that given the simularities of many of my diagrams with the celtic spiral and shamanic ideas that you would have welcomed something that tried to show that many of these ancient concepts can actually be shown to have there roots in wisdom and actually preceed modern understanding....
are you just trolling?? or do you have a bit of a bi-polar issue here?"

I have interests besides science. I also know good science from bad science and where science ends and the unscientific begins. I do not welcome mysticism masquarading as science. And I have a rather large problem with the antiscientific--with unscientific beliefs that are actively opposed to science.


Re: a mathematical theory on evolution

kage Tue, December 12, 2006 - 2:03 PM by kage

:: The Gaia hypothesis isn't new.

it's also not a hypothesis in any rigorous sense of the word. for example, how can it be proven false? it's an interpretive stance, and not one that i'm totally closed to, but it's no more 'true' than dennett's intentional stance (which does not claim to be true nor false). useful? maybe -


Re: a mathematical theory on evolution

blue-j Tue, December 12, 2006 - 2:08 PM by

kage, check out midgley's booklet on it and let me know what you think. she's all about its utility as a stance rather than its validity as an hypothesis. lenny, i know you've sniffed mary before and recoiled, so i won't ask... dr.? gm? i'd love a dialogue around it, because i find her work intriguing.


Re: a mathematical theory on evolution

Tue, December 12, 2006 - 4:25 PM by Unsubsc...

true i would agree that the Gaia hypothesis isn't new, my first encounter with what is effectively the concet of a collective psyche was reading Marais 'soul of the white ant' and Matterlinks 'life of the bee' but that said Lovelock was the first to try and quantify the concept and apply it to the whole planet. In some respects I'm suprised he 'doesnt make better use of those earlier works since the concept is easier to digest when looking at it through social insects.

The social insects are good examples of the concept of many acting as one (a collective organism) for every member of the hive acts as a cell in a greater organism. The popular concept that the queen is in charge in some sort of hierachy is of course incorrect for she is as much a 'slave' to the hive as the workers, hence the hive has its own identity. The only difference is she lays eggs and lives for several years whilst the workers live for only three weeks; but the greater organism, the hive can potentially live indefinately.

I bracket the word 'slave' for it is a poor choice; all the bees are willing subordinates; only in old age do they develop any kind of personal survival instinct (old workers are reluctant to leave the hive but are forced out to forage and to die in the flower). They also exhibit other individual characteristics; for instance the sap of lime trees is particularly favoured by workers as it ferments slightly in their stomachs and they get drunk..... however such behaviour is not tollerated by the guard bees who will attack any offenders and in the case of repeat offenders will even bite their legs off. bit servere.

No single bee is in charge, the hive exhibits its own psyche and as such is a good example of the concept of Gaia as I understand it: a collection of individuals who act as one.

regards

GM23


Re: a mathematical theory on evolution

blue-j Tue, December 12, 2006 - 5:08 PM by

"No single bee is in charge, the hive exhibits its own psyche and as such is a good example of the concept of Gaia as I understand it: a collection of individuals who act as one. "

well, there are differences between how cells behave in a body and how social insects or creatures behave in a hive. the metaphor is not just a clear copy-and-paste here. "its own psyche" is a stretch as well, since there is no single locus for such a psyche to exist; it is not a singular entity and can only be considered as such from an abstracted observer standpoint. in the case of an organism comprised of cells, there are cells which specialize in awareness or reaction to external stimuli, and they communicate with the other cells -- this is not the case with social insects. therefore, the idea that a "hive exhibits its own psyche" is not accurate. you are "personifying" the emergent behavior of the group as a single organism.


Re: a mathematical theory on evolution

Lenny Tue, December 12, 2006 - 5:16 PM by Lenny

"The social insects are good examples of the concept of many acting as one (a collective organism) for every member of the hive acts as a cell in a greater organism"

Social insects tend to work towards the same ends because their degree of genetic relatedness means they have considerable common interest. But they are not genetically identical and the theory of evolution predicts that under certain circumstances conflict of interest arise within a hive or colony. Workers and queens for example transmit their genes in different ways. While a queen transmits her genes equally efficiently through both sexes, the workers transmit their genes, as a result of the haplodiploid sex determining system, three times as efficiently through sister queens than through brothers. Hence, there exists a queen-worker conflict over optimal sex allocation, with the workers favouring a 3:1 female biased sex allocation, in contrast to the equal investment favoured by the queen. When the queen is multiply mated or when several queens co-exist in the nest, there will also be a conflict among the workers themselves over who will reproduce. Theory predicts that workers are always expected to try to lay their own eggs, but that they will be counterselected to raise other worker's eggs in colonies where worker-worker relatedness is low (low relatedness can result from multiple maternity or paternity). Such inhibition of each other's reproduction can act as a social policing mechanism, maintaining social cohesion even when relatedness among colony members is low. So far, it has only been extensively documented in honey bees.


Re: a mathematical theory on evolution

sexie reverie Tue, December 12, 2006 - 6:34 PM by sexie r...

No one can deny John Lovelock's significant contributions to atmospheric chemistry. But I'm sure that when he published his neat little book in 1979, he never dreamed that his ideas about the homeostasis of the earth's climate and biogeochemistry by the biosphere would become the banner of 'soft' environmentalism, and that these inflated claims for 'Gaia' would become the fodder for endless straw man arguments by those fearful of letting any poetry creep into science (It is interesting to note, how uncritically many have accepted Dawkins' metaphoric musings on evolution).

Despite the skepticism of many, the subject of climate homeostasis is still alive and in play in the scientific literature, particularly in climate modeling and theoretical biology. A number of papers have been published in the last 3 years demonstrating means by which natural selection could result in climatic self-regulation (e.g. Sugimoto T, JOURNAL OF THEORETICAL BIOLOGY 218 (4): 447-455 OCT 21 2002). Modeling experiments with Lovelock's 'daisyworld' have led to a variety of theoretical implications for climate modeling. My impression is that Kirchner, the author of the abstract that Lenny posted, as well as a number of other such detractive papers, is a bit of a strident lone voice, but I don't see a consensus behind his view.

Clearly, it would be hard to argue that there are no self-regulating negative feedbacks between climate and the biosphere. Similarly, one would not want to argue that there are *only* positive feedbacks. The history of earth's climate seems to suggest some broad limits to climate change. However, at this point it is probably unwise to use the expression 'Gaia' in scientific writing - it has too much baggage and one is just asking for trouble. However, there is nothing wrong with investigating feedbacks between the biosphere and earth systems.

Lovelock's book is a delightful read, and should be on every earth systems scientist's shelf. But broad claims about 'Gaia' as a living, self-regulating entity belong in poetry and metaphysics, not natural science.


Re: a mathematical theory on evolution

blue-j Tue, December 12, 2006 - 7:25 PM by

"However, there is nothing wrong with investigating feedbacks between the biosphere and earth systems. "

i tend to think of it perhaps in an opposite way to how i hear the gaia principle used: organisms and life are just aspects of the planetary system that replicate and mutate. the totality is not aware or alive or "self-anything".


Re: a mathematical theory on evolution

sexie reverie Tue, December 12, 2006 - 7:45 PM by sexie r...

That is not to say that there cannot be feedbacks between conditions in the larger system and metabolic evolution in the individiual organisms. That's how you could get self-regulation.

What was interesting about Watson and Lovelock's 'daisyworld' model, was that it showed how self-regulation could arise without recorse to teleology see e.g. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daisyworld if you're unfamiliar with this model. Although the orginal model has been critisized as unrealistic, recent theoretical work with evolutionary daisyworlds has kept the idea alive.


Re: a mathematical theory on evolution

Lenny Tue, December 12, 2006 - 7:53 PM by Lenny

"i tend to think of it perhaps in an opposite way to how i hear the gaia principle used: organisms and life are just aspects of the planetary system that replicate and mutate. the totality is not aware or alive or "self-anything""

And therein, I think, lies the difficulty that the the theory faces. I don't think anyone has a problem with the notion that systems can have locally stable equilibria, or that living organisms are part of those systems and can be factors contributing to the the nature and performance of those systems. Nor do I think people have a problem with the notion that such a functional relationship can be driven by natural selection provided they conform to the logic of natural selection. The problem is that the Gaia hypothesis doesn't stop there. By positing that such stable equilibria constitute regulation 'by the biosphere, for the biosphere', the theory invokes a higher level of organization than is necessary, and the scientific mind reflexively recoils at that--it smacks of mysticism and the contamination of science with ideology.


Re: a mathematical theory on evolution

sexie reverie Tue, December 12, 2006 - 10:16 PM by sexie r...

This is the critisism that the 'daisyworld' model was developed to refute. See my link below if you're not familiar with this. There is no need for recourse to a higher level of organization. Let's update our criticism here.


Re: a mathematical theory on evolution

bhall Wed, December 13, 2006 - 12:16 AM by bhall

Well, to be fair, I read through most of chapter 4, and I'll be honest, GM23, I don't really know what you're talking about. Here are some comments that I hope you don't take personally:

1. I don't see how this is a mathematical theory of anything. In fact, I hardly see any math at all. And believe me, I know what 'math' is like since I work in applied math. Clearly you have read about some math some places and include some mathematical ideas. But that isn't a mathematical theory. The theory of L2 spaces is a mathematical theory. Quantum mechanics is a mathematical theory. Different base number systems are old news. Integer sequences are many. Just because one happens to fit into some nice other ideas that happen to be like this other thing from this other place doesn't 'mean' anything. Or maybe it does if you tripped on dmt and fasted for 10 days and then went to india where people supported your delusions as 'holy'. But you need to come back to earth. And you certainly need a different title for chapter 4.

2. I guess I just don't get/like your writing style. If you have a theory, then you don't usually explain how this happened to you and then that happened blah blah blah. Frankly, it's boring. Also, your writing is too convoluted. If you want nonscientists to understand what you are saying, then you have a long way to go.

3. You're use of science fact is too arbitrary. You say something like, well hypothesis testing is problematic but talk about dark matter like it is fact. You talk about physics when convenient etc. Free association = interesting, fun, good etc. is does not equal meaningful, true etc...
As you say, the brain is a giant pattern recognition machine. So you recognized some patterns that others recognized? I guess I don't get it, do you really think you are onto something here?

4. I suggest you read about fuzzy logic etc. I also don't understand why you talk about different bases as better or worse etc. There is one set of real numbers (Real = R in math speak). The base you use is arbitrary and for convenience only. Computers use base 2 because, well they can. Base three is nice. So is base 6. But the underlying structure of the real numbers is the same regardless of base.

I'll again be totally honest. This reads like a bunch of tripped out pseudo-science babble, GM23. You're a smart guy, certainly have read a lot, and I don't know, maybe you have some new, or at least good ideas. But if you want anyone to care or take them seriously you need to do some serious thinking and rewriting.

Best of luck
-bh


Re: a mathematical theory on evolution

Wed, December 13, 2006 - 3:25 AM by Unsubsc...

If there is only one set of real numbers how come we can both use, say, the number "4" at the same time. e.g. I'm sure someone is using 4 somwhere else in the universe at the same time I'm using "4" in the statement

4+2=6


But clearly that "4" did its part in making "6", ergo, there is more than one set of R, and the Akashic record exists. QED


Re: a mathematical theory on evolution

Lenny Wed, December 13, 2006 - 4:08 AM by Lenny

"This is the critisism that the 'daisyworld' model was developed to refute. See my link below if you're not familiar with this. There is no need for recourse to a higher level of organization. Let's update our criticism here"

I *am* familiar with it--it reinforces the point that regulation 'by the biosphere for the biosphere' isn't the most parsimonious explanation of environmental stability. There is no need to invoke a kind of organic homeostasis with the biosphere ascting as a coherent entity when the cumulative effect of natural selection in individual species can produce the same effect. Nor does that perspective take into account that while natural selection can lead to living species being part of a functional homeostatic mechanism, it is just as possible for natural selection to lead to species that disrupt such a system.


Re: a mathematical theory on evolution

sexie reverie Wed, December 13, 2006 - 7:15 AM by sexie r...

Well, I just wondered, because in your earlier post you said homeostasis required a higher level of organization when it does not necessarily. However, I am unclear why "the cumulative effect of natural selection in individual species" producing "the same effect" doesn't just amount to the same thing. In fact, I think this is the tack that the recent theoretical work is taking.

There are important formal criticisms of the 'daisyworld' model, which would be interesting to discuss, it's just that the criticism that it invokes a higher level of organisation is not one of them.

There are also important empirical criticisms of the homeostasis concept. I just think that the discussion here has tended to focus on bashing straw men.

Well, if I have time, I'm going to familiarize myself with the literature a bit more, and see what there is to see.

Well,


Re: a mathematical theory on evolution

bhall Wed, December 13, 2006 - 9:10 AM by bhall

hahaha ;-)


Re: a mathematical theory on evolution

Lenny Wed, December 13, 2006 - 9:50 AM by Lenny

"Well, I just wondered, because in your earlier post you said homeostasis required a higher level of organization when it does not necessarily."

That depends on exactly what you mean by homeostasis. If you merely mean a robust system with feedback mechanisms producing a locally stable equilibrium then it doesn't require a higher level of organization, but it also isn't homeostasis in the strict sense in which biological homeostasis is defined. That equivocation is part of the problem.

The Gaia hypothesis seems to me (and many others) to imply that the 'homeostasis' is homeostasis in the narrow sense--that the biotic Earth can be seen as an active adaptive control system, exhibiting atmospheric homeostasis by and for the biosphere. That *does* imply a higher level of organization.

Stephen H. Schneider (who on the whole is very supportive of the program of study examining the interactions of biotic and abiotic factors) made the point in his editorial, A GODDESS OF THE EARTH?:THE DEBATE ON THE GAIA HYPOTHESIS- AN EDITORIAL (1986. Climatic Change 8:1-4) that:
"Feedback can be a two-way street, so to speak. Feedback processes, of course, are not
just interactions which tend to stabilize, but also can be interactions which tend to desta-
bilize - like the Ice Age-biomass-CO2 case mentioned earlier. I believe that life and the
environment have co-evolved, but I also believe that those interactions have not always
been optimum to all forms of life - or even to the overall biomass. Neither have they
maintained a 'constant' climate over geological time. Even over the relatively 'short' time
of the past 100 million years, global average climatic conditions have varied by some 20 ~
from the warmth of the Mesozoic era to the depth of the last glacial maximum. Inter-
actions between life and climate can lead to mutual change - some benefecial and some
detrimental for some forms of life at some times. That alone is enough to sing the praises
of those looking beyond the separate and narrow disciplines of biology, climatology, geo-
physics, chemistry and so forth. We need more people who insist that the organic and in-
organic parts of the planet must be viewed as coupled systems that can be organized at
various levels of aggregation. However, it strikes me as speculation at best and environ-
mental brinksmanship at worst to believe that somehow Gala, through self-regulation,
will protect the planet from the negative consequences of all external forces, including
human intervention.
Coevolution is not the same as homeostasis - that is, self-regulation. To some the idea
of planetary-scale homeostasis, which is the principal intellectual thrust behind the Gala
hypothesis, is more like religion than science. As religion I find Gala deep, beautiful and
fascinating. As science, I find the hypothesis in need of more explicit formulation, so
that empirical testing can be designed."

A. Kleidon tried to deal with just this equivocation in his paper TESTING THE EFFECT OF LIFE ON EARTH’S FUNCTIONING: HOW GAIAN IS THE EARTH SYSTEM? (2002. Climatic Change 52: 383–389). Kleidon used models of biogeophysical effect of vegetation on climate to test 4 hypotheses about the interaction of biotic and abiotic factors and concluded that "...life has a strong
tendency to affect its environment in a way which enhances the overall benefit (i.e.,
GPP(EB) > GPP(EA)) at fixed external forcing. Life-enhancing effects outweigh
the life-destructing ones, leading to a net benefit of increasing carbon uptake. This
life enhancing tendency seems plausible and can be understood as an emergent
property of evolution since life-enhancing effects would be favoured by natural
selection."
But with the caveat: "Note that this notion does not imply homeostatic behaviour."


Re: a mathematical theory on evolution

Lenny Wed, December 13, 2006 - 10:05 AM by Lenny

"I am unclear why "the cumulative effect of natural selection in individual species" producing "the same effect" doesn't just amount to the same thing. In fact, I think this is the tack that the recent theoretical work is taking"

It's more or less the same reason that kin selection and Group Selection ala Wynne-Edwards don't amount to the same thing even though they produce the same effect. The Gaia hypothesis posits that the biosphere is acting as a unit to promote its own interests in the same way that group selection posits that the species is acting as a unit to promote its own interests.


Re: a mathematical theory on evolution

Wed, December 13, 2006 - 11:48 AM by Unsubsc...

Hi bhall,

So you read through most but not all… that in itself is revealing…

>>1. I don't see how this is a mathematical theory of anything. In fact, I hardly see any math at all. And believe me, I know what 'math' is like since I work in applied math. Clearly you have read about some math some places and include some mathematical ideas. But that isn't a mathematical theory. The theory of L2 spaces is a mathematical theory. Quantum mechanics is a mathematical theory. Different base number systems are old news. Integer sequences are many. Just because one happens to fit into some nice other ideas that happen to be like this other thing from this other place doesn't 'mean' anything.<<

on the contrary the set of sequences and BT base compliment each other and do show a mechanism by which hyper-spatial dimensions can be generated within such complimenting systems. One such hyper-spatial dimension could be and I do call it “mind”. And different base numbers are >>old news<<

yes… and what’s your point, ‘anything old is not relevant????’ Bizarre position to hold for someone who claims to be involved in mathematics.

>>Or maybe it does if you tripped on dmt and fasted for 10 days and then went to india where people supported your delusions as 'holy'. <<

You do yourself no favours resorting to cheap and unsubstantiated remarks. For the record my knowledge and subsequent postings on the dmt tribe are a consequence of research into the patterns and images I experienced in India; many of which bear a striking resemblance to the images recorded by shamans and not the other way round. It was I believe valid to subsequently explore this avenue and if you bother to read through the other chapters you will see that I refer to T Leary whom after reading I felt had formulated his ideas from his drug experiences and as such let them cloud his analysis.

Similarly you comments that I >> went to india where people supported your delusions as 'holy'<< is not only incorrect but bordering on racist. The vast majority of our mathematical and philosophical knowledge owes its existence to mystics.



>>2. I guess I just don't get/like your writing style. If you have a theory, then you don't usually explain how this happened to you and then that happened blah blah blah. Frankly, it's boring. Also, your writing is too convoluted. If you want nonscientists to understand what you are saying, then you have a long way to go.<<

so you don’t like my style…Well can’t please everyone….. and I disagree strongly, background information or the absence of it is why science literature receives little attention by a wider audience: It’s dry and boring, non scientist prefer things set in a wider context.

>>3. You're use of science fact is too arbitrary. You say something like, well hypothesis testing is problematic but talk about dark matter like it is fact. You talk about physics when convenient etc. Free association = interesting, fun, good etc. is does not equal meaningful, true etc... <<

Actually I don’t talk about hypothesis testing at all in the work, I point out in a reply to Dr r that I don’t regard it as the sole means to do science. I similarly point out that many theoretical ideas can’t be tested by hypothesis (this is particularly true in cognitive and psychological work) and quote Cline (1965) and Bridgeman (1927) both of whom had reservations about the use of hypothesis which they felt “caused a prejudiced of the past”. This is particularly the case when hypothesis is used to test living system responses which have the ability to adapt and learn. Hence a hypothesis that states that herbicide X will destroy a given population of weed Y was true in 1950 but as weed Y adapts it becomes false in 2000. This is the problem with hypothesis it is not only temporally specific but it states a thing is true and thus shapes future research.

Similarly Dark matter and Dark Energy are terms used by the whole cosmological discipline to describe two things that are definitely there and can be measured but not understood or explored by any existing techniques. You may dispute the existence of them but data and the cosmologists don’t. If I referred to black holes or gravitons; for which there is no evidence outside of theory, I would accept your criticism, but I don’t.


>>As you say, the brain is a giant pattern recognition machine. So you recognized some patterns that others recognized? I guess I don't get it, do you really think you are onto something here?<<

that’s exactly what the brain is.. it receives information by the senses and then generates a pattern which is then recorded… you don’t see or hear everything or know exactly what is there in the world around you .. you only have an interpretation which you record as a pattern… don’t get me wrong it’s an amazing ‘machine’ but it is totally reliant on the senses for input so it formulates patterns accordingly, hence different organisms (i.e. insects), who have different sensory perception see or interpret a very different world when looking at the same thing… therefore what one sees it what one creates in the mind, not what is actually there (and the quantum scientist would argue that at its most fundamental level nothing is actually there!!)

>>I suggest you read about fuzzy logic etc. I also don't understand why you talk about different bases as better or worse etc. There is one set of real numbers (Real = R in math speak). The base you use is arbitrary and for convenience only. Computers use base 2 because, well they can. Base three is nice. So is base 6. But the underlying structure of the real numbers is the same regardless of base.<<

I don’t talk about different bases as being better or worse I state clearly that BT is a unique base that isn’t uni-directional. I’m not alone in this view and quote senior authors in computer language in this respect. As a mathematician you should be familiar with the rounding issues of base ten and binary, which make complex mathematics (i.e stochastic) impossible with modern computers that use dos or windows software. BT doesn’t have these issues: at least that’s what the experts in this field say and I share that view.

>>I'll again be totally honest. This reads like a bunch of tripped out pseudo-science babble, GM23. You're a smart guy, certainly have read a lot, and I don't know, maybe you have some new, or at least good ideas. But if you want anyone to care or take them seriously you need to do some serious thinking and rewriting.<<

A bit of a back-handed compliment. I take solace in the fact that any new or different idea/approach (i.e. as quoted in an earlier post Darwin, Einstein, Plate tectonics, etc) is always initially received poorly and encourages the wrath of those who have built and wish to maintain careers built on incorrect premise. That’s not to say everything new or different is correct. Similarly I think it is regrettable that you chose to make cheap remarks in an attempt to discredit (tripped out pseudo babble). This is why Einstein hid the mystical origins of much of his work instead only alluring to it in many of his now famous quotes.. i.e. ‘God doesn’t play dice’… ‘religion without science is lame whereas science without religion is blind’… and perhaps the most revealing one ‘I don’t see words and numbers I see pictures and have to interpret them’. And just to clarify I’m not putting my self in the same bracket as uncle Albert, I’m just not denying the true origin of it; something Einstein sadly did, much I would aver to our cost.


Regards

GM23


Re: a mathematical theory on evolution

bhall Wed, December 13, 2006 - 12:45 PM by bhall

yawn...


Re: a mathematical theory on evolution

Wed, December 13, 2006 - 12:54 PM by Unsubsc...

do us a favour bhall....

yawn elsewhere... t

his thread is already getting to long and convoluted to do it justice without childish posts.....

Hi lenny,

>>Social insects tend to work towards the same ends because their degree of genetic relatedness means they have considerable common interest. But they are not genetically identical and the theory of evolution predicts that under certain circumstances conflict of interest arise within a hive or colony. Workers and queens for example transmit their genes in different ways. While a queen transmits her genes equally efficiently through both sexes, the workers transmit their genes, as a result of the haplodiploid sex determining system, three times as efficiently through sister queens than through brothers. Hence, there exists a queen-worker conflict over optimal sex allocation, with the workers favouring a 3:1 female biased sex allocation, in contrast to the equal investment favoured by the queen. <<

Sorry lenny but this is totally incorrect… only the queen is fertile, all the workers are sterile females an there is no gene transmission by the sterile workers.

>>When the queen is multiply mated<<

the queen is nearly always multiply mated… during the nuptial flight she mates with as many drones as possible, a process that involves ripping the genitals off the drone resulting in their death and I suspect horrified surprise.

>>or when several queens co-exist in the nest, there will also be a conflict among the workers themselves over who will reproduce.<<

Queens never co-exist; there is only ever one however the hive has a mechanism for maintaining itself… every so often queen cells are constructed and whilst the incumbent queen objects she has no choice but to lay eggs in them as her maids determine where eggs are laid. The incumbent queen is then starved in order to lose weight as after one of the new queens hatches she immediately destroys her sisters using her unbarbed sting (she is the only one with such) and the hive evicts the old queen with a stock of workers. The old queen leaves and re-establish the colony elsewhere. Hence the origin of swarming.

>>Theory predicts that workers are always expected to try to lay their own eggs, but that they will be counterselected to raise other worker's eggs in colonies where worker-worker relatedness is low (low relatedness can result from multiple maternity or paternity). Such inhibition of each other's reproduction can act as a social policing mechanism, maintaining social cohesion even when relatedness among colony members is low. So far, it has only been extensively documented in honey bees.<<

As I stated earlier the workers are sterile… only the queen is fertile. What is interesting is that the promiscuous habits during the nuptial flight can result in the queen mating with more than one species of done.. hence the European honey bee can mate with African. The African has a shorter gestation period than the European and during queen replacement any virgin queen that’s is the product of such cross species mating will emerge sooner than her European sisters… hence the colony becomes Africanised.. given the aggressiveness of the African honey bee this has been a major problem in the southern part of the USA where apiaries have become increasingly dominated by Africanised hives.

Fortunately there is a solution….. one which flies in the face of the idea of genetic similarity being the determining factor .. a hive once deprived of a queen will die and as bee keepers routinely destroy queen cells to prevent swarming it is not uncommon for a hive to suddenly lose the queen .. as can be the case with the parasite veroa… however the hive identifies this and a new queen, one that shares no genetic relationship with the hive can be installed. If an attempt to do is done whilst the existing queen is alive the introduced queen is destroyed.

Such non-genetic relationships whilst rare are not unique in the animal kingdom. There is a species of Arabian sea eagle that nests so far from the sea and source of food that it requires three adults to raise one chick; this is usually a non related juvenile male. Male penguins sometimes form pairs and incubate an egg donated by a female, one that has not mated with either male. Male adult ostriches heard up chicks from other pairs to form a nursery that may contain over 100 chicks but only a fraction are their own progeny. These examples whilst uncommon are sufficiently widespread to cast doubt over the contention that genetic similarity is the sole driving force. They are similarly restricted to creatures that form pair bonds and share rearing whereas most of the arguments for supporting genetics as the determining aspect use examples where males adopt a ‘love em and leave em’ approach to fatherhood. The picture is clearly more complex than the genetic imperative would imply……

Regards

GM23


Re: a mathematical theory on evolution

Wed, December 13, 2006 - 1:52 PM by Unsubsc...

"As a mathematician you should be familiar with the rounding issues of base ten and binary, which make complex mathematics (i.e stochastic) impossible with modern computers that use dos or windows software. BT doesn’t have these issues: at least that’s what the experts in this field say and I share that view."

First of all look up "stochastic"

Second of all the operating system has no bearing on the mathematical operations able to be performed (unless your talking about an operating system that is so poorly designed that the operating system bogs down the computer to much for any program running on it can't do anythign useful in a reasonable amount of time. While windows may have some security and minor stability issues relative to some other OSs, performance isn't a big issue.) I dont' know what the hell you could possibly be talking about here. What matters is the way numbers are able to be stored on the computer. Even different proccesor design philosophies (RISC vs. CISC) don't really make much of a difference here.

Rounding is always an issue regardless of base when dealing with reals, it simply follows from the fact that most reals can't be expressed by a finite sequence (i.e. stored in a finite computer). There is no base that is superior in this respect. An irrational number is irrational in ANY base.


Re: a mathematical theory on evolution

Lenny Wed, December 13, 2006 - 1:53 PM by Lenny

"Sorry lenny but this is totally incorrect… only the queen is fertile, all the workers are sterile females an there is no gene transmission by the sterile workers."

You haven't done your homework.
By way of example, here is the abstract from BRUNNER Elisabeth ; TRINDL Andreas ; FALK Karl H. ; HEINZE Juergen ; D'ETTORRE Patrizia. 2005. Reproductive conflict in social insects : Male production by workers in a slave-making ant. Evolution 59:2480-2482. :
"In insect societies, workers cooperate but may also pursue their individual interests, such as laying viable male eggs. The case of obligatory slave-making ants is of particular interest because workers do not engage in maintenance activities and foraging. Therefore, worker egg laying is expected to be less detrimental for colony efficiency than in related, nonparasitic species. Furthermore, as slave-making workers usually do not perform brood care and thus might have little power in manipulating sex allocation, they might be more strongly selected to increase their direct fitness by producing their own sons than workers in nonparasitic species. In this study we investigated worker reproduction in four natural colonies of the slave-making ant Polyergus rufescens, using highly variable microsatellite markers. Our results show that workers produce up to 100% of the males. This study thus presents the first direct evidence of an almost complete takeover of male reproduction by workers in ants.

And here is the abstract from RL Trivers and H Hare. 1976. Haploidploidy and the evolution of the social insect. Science 191:249-263. :
"Halminton (1) was apparently the first to appreciate that the synthesis of Mendelian genetics with Darwin's theory of natural selection had profound implications for social theory. In particular, insofar as almost all social behavior is either selfish or altruistic (or has such effects), genetical reasoning suggests that an individual's social behavior should be adjusted to his or her degree of relatedness, r, to all individuals affected by the behavior. We call this theory kinship theory. The social insects provide a critical test of Hamilton's kinship theory. When such theory is combined with the sex ratio theory of Fisher (9), a body of consistent predictions emerges regarding the haplodiploid Hymenoptera. The evolution of female workers helping their mother reproduce is more likely in the Hymenoptera than in diploid groups, provided that such workers lay some of the male-producing eggs or bias the ratio of investment toward reproductive females. Once eusocial colonies appear, certain biases by sex in these colonies are expected to evolve. In general, but especially in eusocial ants, the ratio of investment should be biased in favor of females, and in it is expected to equilibrate at 1 : 3 (male to female). We present evidence from 20 species that the ratio of investment in monogynous ants is, indeed, about 1 : 3, and we subject this discovery to a series of tests. As expected, the slave-making ants produce a ratio of investment of 1 : 1, polygynoys ants produce many more males than expected on the basis of relative dry weight alone, solitary bees and wasps produce a ratio of investment near 1 : 1 (and no greater than 1 : 2), and the social bumblebees produce ratios of investment between 1 : 1 and 1 : 3. In addition, sex ratios in monogynous ants and in trapnested wasps are, as predicted by Fisher, inversely related to the relative cost in these species of producing a male instead of a female. Taken together, these data provide quantitative evidence in support of kinship theory, sex ratio theory, the assumption that the offspring is capable of acting counter to its parents' best interests, and the supposition that haplodiploidy has played a unique role in the evolution of the social insects. Finally, we outline a theory for the evolution of worker-queen conflict, a theory which explains the queen's advantage in competition over male-producing workers and the workers' advantage regarding the ratio of investment. The theory uses the asymmetries of haplodiploidy to explain how the evolved outcome of parent-offspring conflict in the social Hymenoptera is expected to be a function of certain social and life history parameters."

"Queens never co-exist"

Again, you haven't done your homework. For example, STRASSMANN Joan E. ; SULLENDER Barry W. ; QUELLER David C. 2002. Caste totipotency and conflict in a large-colony social insect. Proc. - R. Soc. Lond., Biol. sci. 269:263-270. :
"In most social insects with large, complex colonies workers and queens are morphologically quite distinct. This means that caste determination must occur prior to adulthood. However workers and queens in the swarm-founding epiponine wasps are often morphologically indistinguishable, or nearly so, suggesting that caste determination in these wasps could be quite different. To determine the extent of caste lability in the epiponine, Parachartergus colobopterus, we removed all the queens from one colony and all but one from another colony. Worker aggression diminished after queen removal. A week later the colony with no queens had a new, young cohort of mated queens. These must have been either adults or pupae at the time of queen removal, and so could not have been fed any differently from workers. Relatedness patterns confirmed that these new queens would normally have been workers and not queens. A model of inclusive fitness interests shows that workers ought to suppress new queen production, except at low queen numbers, a prediction supported by our empirical results. The patterns of social conflict over queenship resulting from swarm founding in a many-queen society may help to explain the unusually weak caste differentiation in the epiponines."

and from R. L. Hammond1, M. W. Bruford2 and A. F. G. Bourke. 2002 Ant workers selfishly bias sex ratios by manipulating female development. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London Series B 269: 173-178. :
"Kin selection theory predicts that social insects should perform selfish manipulations as a function of
colony genetic structure.We describe a novel mechanism by which this occurs. First, we use microsatellite
analyses to show that, in a population of the ant Leptothorax acervorum, workers’ relatedness asymmetry
(ratio of relatedness to females and relatedness to males) is signficantly higher in monogynous (single queen)
colonies than in polygynous (multiple-queen) colonies. Workers rear mainly queens in monogynous
colonies and males in polygynous colonies. Therefore, split sex ratios in this population are correlated
with workers’ relatedness asymmetry. Together with signficant female bias in the population numerical
and investment sex ratios, this finding strongly supports kin-selection theory. Second, by determining the
primary sex ratio using microsatellite markers to sex eggs, we show that the ratio of male to female eggs
is the same in both monogynous and polygynous colonies and equals the overall ratio of haploids (males)
to diploids (queens and workers) among adults. In contrast to workers of species with selective destruction
of male brood, L. acervorum workers therefore rear eggs randomly with respect to sex and must achieve
their favoured sex ratios by selectively biasing the final caste (queen or worker) of developing females."


Re: a mathematical theory on evolution

bhall Wed, December 13, 2006 - 1:54 PM by bhall

there are an awful lot of social insect species GM23. my girlfriend, an entomologist, discovered *6* previously unknown ant species in the sonoran desert last year alone.

>> only the queen is fertile, all the workers are sterile females and there is no gene transmission by the sterile workers.
www.sciencedaily.com/release...3251.htm

>> Queens never co-exist; there is only ever one however the hive has a mechanism for maintaining itself
beheco.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/c.../6/870
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi
adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1994...255...55B
www.blackwell-synergy.com/links...0350.x


do us a favor GM23

come back with your facts straight...


Re: a mathematical theory on evolution

Wed, December 13, 2006 - 1:58 PM by Unsubsc...

"What matters is the way numbers are able to be stored on the computer. Even different proccesor design philosophies (RISC vs. CISC) don't really make much of a difference here."

I meant to say: What matters is the way numbers are able to be stored on the computer: and all extant operating systems have basically the same methods. Your talking about something that is MACHINE dependent, not OS dependent. But all extant machines today store numbers in basically equivalent ways. Some cutting edge computing methods take advantage of whats equivalent to massive parralell processing (e.g. labratory DNA computing) and therefore can theoretically make some intractable problems (nameles NP complete problems) tractable, but thats not an issue of the number storage. (i.e. base)


Re: a mathematical theory on evolution

bhall Wed, December 13, 2006 - 2:09 PM by bhall

Exactly!

"I don’t talk about different bases as being better or worse I state clearly that BT is a unique base that isn’t uni-directional. I’m not alone in this view and quote senior authors in computer language in this respect. As a mathematician you should be familiar with the rounding issues of base ten and binary, which make complex mathematics (i.e stochastic) impossible with modern computers that use dos or windows software. BT doesn’t have these issues: at least that’s what the experts in this field say and I share that view."

BT isn't unique in that regard either, a balanced quinary would do it, etc...

Again, all bases are functionally equivalent. Some are just more convenient. Why do computers use base 2. Because it's easy to make transistors into binary logic gates. However, ANY computation that can be done with a ternary computer can be done with a binary computer and vise versa. Search Theory of Computation for example. No expert anywhere says otherwise. Knuth's comments on BT are based on the simplicity of certain computations in that base. But rounding will be an issue for any base because, as brentt says, digital computers necessarily have finite memory. The entire discipline of numerical analysis is based around that idea.

I recommend the wiki page on numeral systems. Note that while called number systems colloquially, they are really numeral systems because the numbers, an abstract concept, don't change. The representation changes. A good example is the cantor set. Easy to write down base 3. Hard to write down base 10. So if you want to analyze the cantor set, maybe base 3 is a good choice.

Also, in terms of logic systems, there are an infinite number of multi-valued logic systems (this in ref to your comments regarding binary as T/F). Even for binary logic that distinction is arbitrary. In computers it is simply 0 or 1. But since you can represent any number base 2, you can convert ternary etc. logical statements into binary ones etc... IE IT DOESN'T MATTER WHAT BASE YOU CHOOSE!!!!!


Re: a mathematical theory on evolution

Wed, December 13, 2006 - 2:29 PM by Unsubsc...

Hi jeff…

You state….

>>well, there are differences between how cells behave in a body and how social insects or creatures behave in a hive. the metaphor is not just a clear copy-and-paste here. "its own psyche" is a stretch as well, since there is no single locus for such a psyche to exist; it is not a singular entity and can only be considered as such from an abstracted observer standpoint. in the case of an organism comprised of cells, there are cells which specialize in awareness or reaction to external stimuli, and they communicate with the other cells -- this is not the case with social insects. therefore, the idea that a "hive exhibits its own psyche" is not accurate. you are "personifying" the emergent behavior of the group as a single organism.<<

well yes jeff, I am, the Hive does exhibit its own psyche and that psyche is a reflection of the members, hence when a hive becomes Africanised it becomes more aggressive as that Africanization takes over. Similarly different hives in the same apiary have different personalities, ask any bee keeper. There’s similarly an old saw that says the hive attends the bee keepers funeral…and there are documented cases where this has actually taken place…

Also the psyche doesn’t have a locust… there is no seat of consciousness in the brain, who and what a person is, is a reflection of their entire physical being not a specific organ, just as is the case in the Hive. Both I would aver are hyper-spatial and that hyper-spatial characteristic can be exhibited by any collective entity, whether a single species, a social collective or an entire planet. .

Further to this idea the growth in transplant surgery has yielded some interesting effects… recipients of organs often adopt aspects from the donor, these include recognising the donors family, develop an interest of the donors, ie music, sport, art, etc….. thus giving weight to the idea that who and what we are is as a result of the collective contribution of all the parts and not one single locust


Re: a mathematical theory on evolution

Wed, December 13, 2006 - 2:42 PM by Unsubsc...

i have got my facts correct bhall...

ALL YOUR REF bar the first refer TO ANTS.... NOT HONEY BEES!!!!!!!

As I dont have any experience of ants and have all my posts have refered to bees your comments are off subject... your just trying to fillibust...

as regards your first ref.. I suspect is dubious... it claims that a worker egg is infertile and similarly results in a male offspring.... it cant be both infertile and viable...

similarly how exactly does an XX parent produce an XY offspring... whilst there are insects which can produce offspring without mating those off spring would share the same sex as the parent...

your clutching at straws.....

similarly if any bee other than the queen could lay then this would negate the whole purpose of the queen excluded (used by bee keepers to keep the honey free of grubs)

so bhall ... I have got my facts right... your quoting un related data...

regards

GM23


Re: a mathematical theory on evolution

Jacob Wilson, Wed, December 13, 2006 - 2:52 PM by Jacob W...

Well, this is exactly why I was dismissive of this in the first place. Its crap, but worse, its energy sapping crap. You can go aroudn and around the merry go round with people who confuse mysticism with something useful to the human experience. I do it sometimes. In the end you just end up exhausting time and energy you could be using to do something more useful.


Re: a mathematical theory on evolution

Wed, December 13, 2006 - 2:55 PM by Unsubsc...

look up stochastics?? why???

it is an area of statistics used extensively in part of my discipline... and I can assure you that many of the calculations can not be done with standard windows machines...

and balanced quinary.... what a pile of rubbish......

this has become rather tedious and pointless...

carry on if you must but I elect to take no further part

regards

GM23


Re: a mathematical theory on evolution

bhall Wed, December 13, 2006 - 2:59 PM by bhall

fare thee well.


Re: a mathematical theory on evolution

bhall Wed, December 13, 2006 - 3:03 PM by bhall

>>it claims that a worker egg is infertile and similarly results in a male offspring

from the article (citing peer reviewed science in American Naturalist)
"females with ovaries, who although unable to mate, can lay unfertilized eggs which turn into males if reared."

eggs are present at birth. It does not say the egg is infertile. It says it is unfertilized, two different things. If the ant lays it is becomes a male. How? ...

>>similarly how exactly does an XX parent produce an XY offspring.

Because males are haploid


You truly are an idiot.


Re: a mathematical theory on evolution

bhall Wed, December 13, 2006 - 3:04 PM by bhall

If the bee lays it...


Re: a mathematical theory on evolution

bhall Wed, December 13, 2006 - 3:05 PM by bhall

Stochastics??

Not a part of statistics. Sorry. Related yes. A subfield of probability. Computations on computers: irrelevant to the discussion.


Re: a mathematical theory on evolution

bhall Wed, December 13, 2006 - 3:06 PM by bhall

so true.... sigh...


Re: a mathematical theory on evolution

Lenny Wed, December 13, 2006 - 3:07 PM by Lenny

"i have got my facts correct bhall... "

Clearly you did not.

"ALL YOUR REF bar the first refer TO ANTS.... NOT HONEY BEES!!!!!!!
As I dont have any experience of ants and have all my posts have refered to bees your comments are off subject"

The first reference *was* to honey bees, and none were off subject since your claim was "The social insects are good examples of the concept of many acting as one (a collective organism) for every member of the hive acts as a cell in a greater organism." and "In some respects I'm suprised he 'doesnt make better use of those earlier works since the concept is easier to digest when looking at it through social insects."

"as regards your first ref.. I suspect is dubious... it claims that a worker egg is infertile and similarly results in a male offspring.... it cant be both infertile and viable..."

If you bothered to do some research you would see that the claim isn't dubious at all.

"similarly how exactly does an XX parent produce an XY offspring... whilst there are insects which can produce offspring without mating those off spring would share the same sex as the parent..."

That isn't how sex determination works in these animals. Males are haploid.


Re: a mathematical theory on evolution

Jacob Wilson, Wed, December 13, 2006 - 3:11 PM by Jacob W...

The only way windows machines cant run calulations is because the software was written for some other machine or if the hardware is just so bad it locks it up each time you try to run it. Software is software, I can write anything for a windows machine I can write for an Apple machine, in theory. They may look different, run slower or faster, but if its just math (no graphics / etc) it can be programmed.


Re: a mathematical theory on evolution

blue-j Wed, December 13, 2006 - 3:40 PM by

"Also the psyche doesn’t have a locust [sic]… there is no seat of consciousness in the brain, who and what a person is, is a reflection of their entire physical being not a specific organ, just as is the case in the Hive."

in the case of a seat for consciousness in humans, for example, there are no candidates outside of the brain. the anterior cingulate cortex is a vey strong candidate, for example. no one would argue that consciousness resides in a cell on your little toe. you can lose consciousness from head trauma, but not from pinky trauma (unless it hurt badly enough). consciousness certainly resides in the brain.

groups may have characteristics, but that is not identical to saying that the group physically has a psyche or singular anchor to such characteristics. such characteristics are the sum of the parts as patterned by an observer and communicated one-by-one.

as for bees attending funerals and donor recipients recognizing familes.... i'd need reliable evidence to believe such claims. would you?


Re: a mathematical theory on evolution

blue-j Wed, December 13, 2006 - 3:44 PM by

"You truly are an idiot."

come on dude, no reason to take it down to this level whatsoever. damn, i am tired of a lot of men and their conversation styles sometimes. knock it off.


Re: a mathematical theory on evolution

bhall Wed, December 13, 2006 - 4:23 PM by bhall

There was ample time to demonstrate otherwise... but, okay, point taken.


Re: a mathematical theory on evolution

Amber Wed, December 13, 2006 - 5:05 PM by Amber

>>>as for bees attending funerals and donor recipients recognizing familes.... i'd need reliable evidence to believe such claims. would you?>>>>

Absolutely. Lets hear it. I am a nephrology nurse at the moment and would be fascinated to see some evidence.


Re: a mathematical theory on evolution

blue-j Wed, December 13, 2006 - 5:53 PM by

it's cool. just wanted you to stay on the high ground and win points fair and square.


Re: a mathematical theory on evolution

Wed, December 13, 2006 - 8:59 PM by Unsubsc...

The last word…. from GM23

Consciousness

www.susanblackmore.co.uk/journ...01.htm

www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/...prob.html

this one is perhaps too enquiring for you here

novaspivack.typepad.com/nova_s...io.html

on transplant or cellular memory

an article from the far right of the British press (so easily digestible here)

www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/li...main.html

an article and podcast from BBC.co.uk

www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/woma...47_wed.shtml

and from that ‘indisputable’ source… the Oracle of wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cellular_memory

on bees at the funeral…
as I stated it is an old saw, that can be neither proved nor disproved and one I learned from working with bee keepers; one in particular told me that he had twice witnessed bees turning up at a fellow bee keepers funerals. The relationship that some of these old keepers had with their bees was special; they didn’t need protective clothing and could handle their bees like pets… but here is a link to an independent account.. like I say its an old saw and whilst I’ve never witnessed it, it is one I’ve heard several times and from trusted sources. And whilst I will admit that my earlier claim that all the workers are sterile is incorrect the same does not mean that they compete or can usurp the queen. At best they could pass on genes to an unknown hive but the little research I just did identified that such ‘cuckoos’ are invariable destroyed by the other nursery workers.

www.wildchildpublishing.com/cont...3/44/

there is a lot more to this world and the universe, to quote Saul Perlmutter, leader of the Supernova Cosmology Project headquartered at Princeton University and Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory "The universe is made mostly of dark matter and dark energy, and we don't know what either of them is." And whilst a degree of scepticism is valid and healthy what has been generally exhibited in this thread is cynicism; which is more akin to disease… and decidedly unhealthy.


Re: a mathematical theory on evolution

blue-j Wed, December 13, 2006 - 10:33 PM by

why "the last word"? you're safe from abuse here. let's continue discussing matters!

"Consciousness
www.susanblackmore.co.uk/journ...01.htm
www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/...prob.html
this one is perhaps too enquiring for you here
novaspivack.typepad.com/nova_s...io.html"


why yes, i've read numerous articles by blackmore, and several of her books, including 2 on consciousness. not a single word she has written refutes my statements or supports yours, that consciousness isn't anchored in the brain. "too enquiring for you here"? no, actually the citation you provide lacks any substance whatsoever.

good lord, consciousness as fundamental to the universe? i just spent days refuting this position in another forum, i can't get back on the same horse here. i think you have mystical positions and then seek science to back you up, and i read science and try to form a position that makes sense while remaining open to change.

define consciousness for me, and then show me how it's fundamental to the universe. i believe you've mistaken the interactionist effects of perception and attention with matter as meaning consciousness is omnipresent.


"an article from the far right of the British press (so easily digestible here) "

the schwartz citation lacks any substance, and reads like a tabloid article. all your citations are referring to "the heart's code," a work i'm not familiar with and won't dismiss or support offhand until i have a chance to look at at it. and permit me a snarl at your "easily digestible" crappy remark.

if neuropeptide chains in fact do encode memories, that still doesn't equate to consciousness. memories are memories, and if they are somehow stored outside the brain, that still doesn't mean they aren't accessed and processed via the brain, made conscious in the brains, nor that consciousness resides outside the brain. you leap to conclusions.


as far as the bee stuff, i'll just file that away as an interesting anecdote and see if anything else ever comes up to corroborate the stories as anything more than wishful thinking.




Re: a mathematical theory on evolution

Thu, December 14, 2006 - 7:54 AM by Unsubsc...

I decided to repost as bhall knowledge of maths was so lacking that it annoyed me..

This balanced quinery is a nonsense base.. it doesn’t exist and I challenge him to show otherwise; a simple table showing the conversion of the first ten digits of base 10 to this BQ notation will do.. I doubt he can and predict he will in fact take one of three routes to try and falsely prove this….

1) he will produce a table that is actually base 5 and so still needs the prefix +/- to denote the direction of progression
2) he will produce a table that is actually ordinary ternary but instead of using the +/- prefix will incorporate the notation with two of the characters thus making it an overcomplicated form of ordinary ternary
3) he will be unable to prove its existence as an independent base and will simple not respond.

Similarly not one contributor has so far been able to offer a plausible explanation for the evolution of the Angiosperms despite the fact that it not only fails to fit Darwinian evolution but the man himself was aware of this hence him calling flowers an abominable mystery… I wont ask you to also account for the similarly rapid and necessary co-evolution of the pollinators … just how the Gymnosperm managed to evolve into the Angiosperm without having to negotiate a period of redundancy; a period that would result in extinction.

Or am I correct in thinking that what you cannot support you will ignore and like Luddites hanging onto unsupportable theories will, from my perspective, simply join the genesis creationists who take an identical approach?


Re: a mathematical theory on evolution

Lenny Thu, December 14, 2006 - 8:52 AM by Lenny

"Similarly not one contributor has so far been able to offer a plausible explanation for the evolution of the Angiosperms"

Did you try actually looking? No, of course you didn't.
try PR Crane, EM Friis, KR Pedersen. 2002. The origin and early diversification of angiosperms. Nature 374:241−291; and OTTO R[ GOTTLIEB and MARIA RENATA DE M[ B[ BORIN. 1998. EVOLUTION OF ANGIOSPERMS VIA MODULATION OF
ANTAGONISMS. Phytochemistry 49: 1-15

Start doing your own research--preferably *before* you come to a conclusion.


Re: a mathematical theory on evolution

Thu, December 14, 2006 - 10:04 AM by Unsubsc...

>> good lord, consciousness as fundamental to the universe? i just spent days refuting this position in another forum, i can't get back on the same horse here.<<

yes correct… got it in your opening two words… so what forum… post a link

>>. i think you have mystical positions and then seek science to back you up, and i read science and try to form a position that makes sense while remaining open to change.<<

on the contrary.. it was science that led me to the mystical interpretations; my specific field is soil science; regarded by some as a minor field but as one of the few fields that is multi-discipline it cannot be studied in isolation and requires a whole system approach. Hence it has a tendency to identify a ‘hidden’ component. It’s a bit like putting a jigsaw together, only when all the pieces are in place do you realise one is missing… that piece only reveals itself by its absence of form.

>>define consciousness for me, and then show me how it's fundamental to the universe. i believe you've mistaken the interactionist effects of perception and attention with matter as meaning consciousness is omnipresent.<<

that is the problem I can no more define consciences than you can. Both of us agree it exists what differs is you bound it, I don’t; but neither of us can define it. In many respects my ‘definition’ encompasses yours but the reverse is not true. So yes I would aver that consciousness is omnipresent, in fact I would go further and say that it as the actual condition of the singularity… the state of oneness, a state of pure thought.

>>if neuropeptide chains in fact do encode memories, that still doesn't equate to consciousness. memories are memories, and if they are somehow stored outside the brain, that still doesn't mean they aren't accessed and processed via the brain, made conscious in the brains, nor that consciousness resides outside the brain. you leap to conclusions.

Consciousness and memories are interdependent; in order to be conscious there must exist some form of memory. Consciousness is in essence awareness and in order to be aware of the present one must be able to distinguish it from the past; hence one must remember the last moment in order to experience and distinguish it from the next: to be conscious one must therefore have memory or ability to access to it.

I would aver the popular view of consciousness is that of being able to interact; hence a person who is unable to interact would be classed as being unconscious. If they are unconscious then they should similarly be unaware yet there is ample anecdotal evidence of persons being in an unconscious state (i.e. near death) yet conscious of what is happening around them. If consciousness is a characteristic of the brain and the brain alone then if that brain has ceased to function, albeit temporarily, so should consciousness. Such examples will always remain anecdotal, it would I aver be highly dangerous and unethical to try and subject such a condition to the rigours of scientific testing but that doesn’t therefore mean that such examples should be dismissed. What I would contend is that rather than being the source of consciousness the brain is simply the focus; it acts rather like a radio but instead of receiving one signal it receives many. It similarly transmits, hence consciousness is a collective state and memories are or can be stored within organs. The locust of both is not in any one but between them all.

This is where the example of the honey bee is useful; the hive is an example of both a collective memory and a consciousness or to be more accurate a psyche. These terms are though difficult to define; none of us has a precise definition for them but we all know they exist, and so to a degree they are interchangeable, but I fear we will just descend into arguing semantics rather than agreeing a more lose definition.

Taking a wider view we can say that both an individual honey bee and the hive have or exhibit a psyche, we can see the same thing in individual humans and the mob. I don’t know if you have ever experience or been in the thick of a riot but if you have then you may well have experienced the mob mentality: it’s a low primordial one.

Whilst anecdotal I found myself in the thick of a riot in London once, a peaceful demo that began at 8.00am with just 100 of us swelled to over 2000 by 8.00pm. We were hemmed in by over 5000 police and the mood began to change.. I felt it and as the phrase goes “you could cut the tension with a knife” I had to exercise extreme control not to engage in the mayhem… to let my psyche rein or maintain control over the mob mentality and exit rapidly. I have known others become completely consumed by that ‘collective psyche’ and to subsequently pay a high price for it…..

If you have been able to follow me then what I am arguing is that consciousness or psyche has ‘layers’ at its highest level it is contained within a smaller component, that could be argued to be the brain, at its next level it extends to encompass the whole individual, then the collective (the hive)… and on and outwards….. It has no locust but instead degrees of complexity.

This ‘psyche’ evolves.. it goes through steps that are determined by the degree of interaction… the highest degree of interaction is within the brain, then the body, then the collective…. As it evolves it reaches critical points and these are what the evolutionary sequence (1, 1:1, 4, 13, 43) refer to.

I’ll admit that the work published on line is vague but you have to turn everything upside down. Normally we see the whole as being more advanced than the components that it is composed of.. but in this evolution of mind the reverse is true. The evolution is what I call ‘bounced’ like a wave… it passes down from the whole then back out .. hence when a component reaches a particular point in the sequence it returns the wave back out… at some point that results in an evolution at the next level.

As a species Man has pretty much completed physical evolution. This situation was arrived at with the advent of tool making… there is no need to grow an extended finger to pull out winkles if you can make a pin.. tools are an elementary form of this extended evolution bouncing out, as is society then agriculture was next.

In this respect Agriculture is a good example as it did not have a single locust but five (Middle East, Asia, China, Central America and I forget the fifth). 10,000 years ago man stopped gathering and started sowing in five independent centres.

Sympathetic or parallel evolution is well documented in animal species and this I would aver, just as the parallel evolution of agriculture was, is as a consequence of the evolution of mind…. The next step… is not the technological age.. but the environmental…… like I say it’s a ‘wave’ it keeps extending out ……

At the early stage in writing the work I called it the ‘grand opportunity’ : Man as mind. Now that doesn’t strictly fit with the ‘Gaia hypothesis’ but it has similarities. Equally it doesn’t fit with the standard concept of what mind or consciousness is.

Other examples of this are, as I have referred to repeatedly, the evolution of angiosperms. In all cases these are not oddities or minor points in evolution but major changes. Darwinian evolution implies gradual change/adaptation and whilst individual species could make dramatic leaps between periods of stability the evolution of all species should smooth out and follow a straight line but it doesn’t. Evolution occurs in leaps of approx 26 million years apart (hence the old Nemesis theory).. this could be as a consequence of that wave rippling through, bouncing up.

Regards

GM23


Re: a mathematical theory on evolution

blue-j Thu, December 14, 2006 - 2:13 PM by

"that is the problem I can no more define consciences than you can. Both of us agree it exists what differs is you bound it, I don’t; but neither of us can define it."

before we really dig in, let me begin with a thought: what characteristics does something that is unbounded have? an all-inclusive set can not logically be defined. if you want to play semantics, say so, but otherwise, consciousness is a term that generally denotes something specific.

wiki: "Consciousness is a quality of the mind generally regarded to comprise qualities such as subjectivity, self-awareness, sentience, sapience, and the ability to perceive the relationship between oneself and one's environment."

when people say the universe is comprised of consciousness, they obviously mean something other than the standard usage of the term. usually it's a misapplication of quantum mechanics, where one assumes there must be an observer wherever there is matter. a ludicrous claim that is logically absurd, since the very pre-observed substrate must pre-exist in order to be observed, albeit perhaps with some undetermined characteristics.


Re: a mathematical theory on evolution

blue-j Thu, December 14, 2006 - 2:19 PM by

"yes correct… got it in your opening two words… so what forum… post a link "

religiouscrossroads.tribe.net/thr...ff9e


Re: a mathematical theory on evolution

blue-j Thu, December 14, 2006 - 2:20 PM by

"So yes I would aver that consciousness is omnipresent, in fact I would go further and say that it as the actual condition of the singularity… the state of oneness, a state of pure thought. "

pure thought? who's thinking it? and if someone or thing is thinking it, what is that comprised of?


Re: a mathematical theory on evolution

Thu, December 14, 2006 - 3:31 PM by Unsubsc...

i'm reading that you see mind as a product of matter...

wheras I see matter as a product of mind...

its a view point that I would aver only really matters in the first instance.. a chicken or egg situation (although if you give this analogy some thought you realise that the egg came first since it need not necessarily be laid by a chicken, only something that was almost a chicken)

similarly I see mind and matter as co-evolving.. one (matter) is the means by which the other both experiences and then that experience manifests as more complex matter.

pure thought ... thats why its pure.. no one is thinking it....

and before yoy say that requires a leap of faith.. all early evolution requires a leap of faith..

the concept of the singularity (a point or region in which matter has an infinite density and a zero volume) requires faith as does the subsequent differentiation of the four fundemental forces... none of which currently exist in the absence of matter but once they did all be it for less than 3 minutes.... requires faith.....

I see this state (the singularity) as being one best desribed as pure thought...

you may aver differently but it is a philosophical distinction and whilst you may feel that it is incorrect it is at worst equally valid at best correct.

regards

GM23


Re: a mathematical theory on evolution

Thu, December 14, 2006 - 3:51 PM by Unsubsc...

your wiki definition supports my premise....

wiki: "Consciousness is a quality of the mind *generally * regarded to comprise qualities such as subjectivity, *self-awareness*, *sentience*, *sapience*, and the ability to perceive the relationship between oneself and one's environment."

this definition is full of terms that are poorly understood and defined *......*

only in recent years have we included animals as having sentience ... 100 years ago a cow or chicken was not regarded as sentient... they are now...

but is a fish? a beetle, a worm or even a tree? are they

self awareness... one could argue that a reasonable proportion of the human population are not truely self aware... does that mean they are not conscious?

and as regards sapience... that I would aver is a rare quality.....

'the ability to perceive the relationship between oneself and one's environment' ... decidely Gaian wouldn't you say or at least Anthrophilosophical (steiner)...

this definition doesn't place consciouness in the brain but in the mind... this isn't semantics this are distinct one is physical in nature one is not

so where is your boundary?


Re: a mathematical theory on evolution

blue-j Thu, December 14, 2006 - 3:57 PM by

i'm sorry gm, i just don't have the juice for this right now. i just answered all these claims in the linked thread, and got nowhere, and i'm burned out. good luck!


Re: a mathematical theory on evolution

blue-j Thu, December 14, 2006 - 4:11 PM by

if you're so ready to destabilize a definition of consciousness, what the hell are you doing confidently proclaiming it to be omnipresent?


Re: a mathematical theory on evolution

Thu, December 14, 2006 - 4:53 PM by Unsubsc...

accepted jeff....

I read through about half of that thread and accept totally that youdon't want to persue it here...

if the boot was on the other foot neither would I .

Some of my views are shared by those in that thread some are not ...

but the truth I'm just as confused as the next person... none of us really know... perhaps thats the whole point... perhaps there is no point...

I will say though that I felt more comfortable when I was nearer the 'no point ' than the spiritual view... what changed that was sharda...

your clearly an enquiring and intelligent guy... but I'dd change that pic... before the wind changes....

you don't know me nor do you know if I tell the truth about my experiences.... but in the chapter the secret of the chakras

malcolm.mcewen.googlepages.com/se...iot

if you skip through the first part, which is subsequent interpretation you will find a section called the visions....

they are interesting... you could take the view that I constructed them, but they are the reason I hold the view I currently do...... without that episode I (particularly the first, the Goa visions) I would have dismissed my journey as psychosis.... but seeing and recording what I saw which later came so true and discovering that a diagram i drew in Cardiff was the symbol of that temple.. a ruin in off limits Pakistan Kashmir... was too bizzare.. I have re-examined this so many times its unreal.. and whilst I cannot fully explain it I can dismiss psychosis as a cause

regards

GM 23


Re: a mathematical theory on evolution

bhall Thu, December 14, 2006 - 4:54 PM by bhall

First, GM23, I want to apologize for my tone and comments previously. There is no reason for being so mean regardless of my intellectual opinion. So in the spirit of civil discourse let me continue.

Second, I want to say that I try *very* hard to not talk authoritatively about things I am not that knowledgeable about. I really do, because I loathe the opposite behavior in others. Not only that, but when you are surrounded by experts in their fields you don't get many points by saying stupid bullshit.

Turns out, there are a few things I *do* know a lot about, and what I don't know, I know where to find or who to ask. Note that you don't see me responding about angiosperms, the gaia hypothesis etc... Why? Because I don't know *enough* to have clear arguments/opinions. It just so happens that in regards to this discussion there are two areas in which I have a lot of expertise: math/computers and social insects. The first is because I have studied it all my life. I was a math nerd kid who went to a special math middle school, won first place in the FL state science fair in computer science in 8th grade, built a computer from scratch and programmed it in hex code in college while getting a degree in physics/math, worked programming hardware for atmospheric physics experiments after, got a graduate degree from UofA, taught college math there, and now works as an applied math modeler who does math and programming all day modeling population genetics stuff. For the last 3 years my office was in the math building at UofA. It's the real deal GM23. For insects, I happened to have a long-term partner who is a field ecologist studying ants in northern mexico. We have boxes and boxes of insects in our house. I hang out with bug and math people all the time and I know many of the scientists who write the papers you and others read. We have world experts give lectures here every week on things like reproductive skew in bees. I'm not telling you this to impress you or claim 'authority'. I firmly believe that especially in math, you *must* check for yourself. I am telling you this to let you know that I am not just spewing this shit out of my ass to be right. It is just true. Check the refs. They will all check out. Seriously, check it for yourself. Ask some other math people. Ask entomologists about hymenoptera. The reason I get frustrated is the utter refusal by many to integrate new data or knowledge into their own, or consider later criticism of things they thought before. I am continuously wrong. I was just wrong about our project data in a big way. So was my advisor. But that is okay. We learn, and move on. ALWAYS if someone presents information that is new to me that checks out I will go with it. And biology is messy. Period. The main rule is that almost every rule has an exception. So precision and vast knowledge are mandatory and par for the course. It ain't easy to integrate everything.

Mathwise there are lots of beautiful connections and strange results. Personally, I don't think they 'mean' anything. For example:
e^(i Pi) = -1
is a famous relation that relates the constants e, pi and the imaginary number i. It is one of the nicest relations in all of math.


In regards to BQ:

Balanced ternary is one example of the general class of number systems known as "balanced number systems" also referred to by
'balanced radix notation' or 'symmetrical signed-digit systems'. They are number systems that don't need to use a '-' modifier to denote negative numbers. You can have a balanced number system for any odd digit, 3, 5, 7, etc. so there are a countably infinite number of them. Perhaps the term balanced quinary is not commonly used, but then again neither is the system. That does *not* mean it doesn't exist however. Base 26 exists but is not used or discussed just the same because it isn't that useful. There isn't too much on the web that I found, but that also does not mean much; I find that many math topics are often absent from the web beyond a cursory discussion. Books on number theory, counting systems, or computation would discuss this further.

Here are a couple of sites that discuss it:
www.americanscientist.org/templ...page/5
www.sciforums.com/showthread.php
If you read carefully you will see they discuss odd radix as the only condition necessary for a balance number system.

Here is a classic paper by Shannon (founder of information theory) on symmetrical signed-digit systems. If you take the time to actually read what it says you will see that in fact, BT naturally generalizes to any odd number as I say above. You will see his charts also agree if you look.
tinyurl.com/uqrgl

One way to think of balanced ternary is that integers are represented as:
d_0 + d_1*3 + d_2 * 3^2 + ... + d_n*3^n
with d_i in {-1, 0, 1}
you will have to write this out to see. d_i means d with a subscript i. It is standard notation. So you are writing things as powers of three where the coefficient can be -1, 0 or 1. You can write *every* integer like that with a unique representation.

Similarly, for a different radix, say 5 you would have the same idea:
d_0 + d_1*5 + d_2 * 5^2 + ... + d_n*5^n
with d_i in {-2, -1, 0, 1, 2}

One way to think of these systems is using a balance. If your set of weights is 1, 3, 9, 27 etc. the integer in balanced ternary gives the weights you would put on the balance to equal that number. Same for other radices. For 5, or balance quinary, your set of weights would be 1, 5, 25, 125 etc...

For a larger radix you need more 'coefficients' to represent all numbers.

I made a pdf posted here:
tinyurl.com/y53375
that shows the numbers -15 through +15 in decimal, ternary, balanced ternary, quinary and balanced quinary. I used different symbols for quinary to show the symmetry. Again, this also stresses the point, the actual 'numerals', their shape etc. is irrelevent. You could use {a,0,b} or {p, a, 0, b, q} for BT and BQ if you wanted. If you look at the table, you will see the relation to BT. This could be easily extended to any odd radix.

Note also that in analogy to BT, you can tell the 'sign' of a number in BQ by the leading numeral.

Using the above formulas show how the integers are represented. In BT the number 14 is given by +--- or {1, -1, -1, -1} because:
14 = (1)27 + (-1)9 + (-1)3 + (-1)= 27-9-3-1= 14

In BQ the representation would be +=- or {1,-2,-1} because:
14 = (1)25 + (-2)5 + (-1) = 25 -10 -1 = 14

Arithmetic in BQ is similar to BT etc...
Balanced number systems are equivalent insofar as all number systems allow the representation of the same underlying numbers, here the integers. But BT and BQ are NOT the same in that the radix is different. BT uses 3 symbols, BQ uses 5.

It is also simply not correct that the rounding issues are avoided computing in BT. I agree with the many who say that BT is a beautiful system for computations. But again, rounding issues are fundemental to ALL digital computers, ALL operating systems etc...

I hope you will take a moment to look through and consider how balanced number systems work and why there is a natural generalization to any odd radix. Do not hesitate to check with people other than me. But please do not respond until you fully consider what I have posted and even checked with others. I screw around sometimes. But not when it comes to math. I agree that BT is nice and it has many nice properties. But it is not unique in the 'balanced' sense.

-bh


Re: a mathematical theory on evolution

bhall Thu, December 14, 2006 - 5:03 PM by bhall

in case you don't have access to JSTOR, the Shannon paper is also here:
tinyurl.com/vgs94