Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : View from the Center and Left -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Katelew who wrote (101880)	1/25/2009 11:58:33 PM
From: spiral3	Respond to of 542970

Actually, if you read the whole article, Good idea, <g> but honestly it's a bit much for me to take in right now. Also, I know nothing about the specifics of it. However... The paradox itself, however, is something of a rejection of the idea that the two functions could have evolved, even interdependently, because they each depend on the other to exist. At least that's how I took it. If the functions evolved interdependantly, too me it means precisely that they depend on each other to evolve, that they co-arise. They didn't just jump out from nowhere fully formed, but my assumption is that this involved some sort of interdependant evolutionary process. I think, too, he was somewhat acknowledging that reciprocal causality was the answer....it just wasn't there as an answer....yet. :) The exact mechanisms may not be apparent at this stage, we might get there. If not we might just land up calling it random or chance or whatever word we lean on to explain the inexplicable <g>