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.

Pastimes : Good Reads -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Sun Tzu who wrote (60)	2/27/2023 2:37:55 AM
From: sense	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 65

Two things... A first one is, I think there is an obvious error made in relation to how we think about "what a thing is"... We've devised naming for things that is useful to sort out things based on variation... but, in determining this is this species, this is that... or this variety, or that... there is a lot of artifice involved, in which we seek to impose our own constructs of "what things are" on those things... as if the property is intrinsic to those things... rather than an artifact of our own description or thinking about them. That pattern repeats is our consideration of means... as a "chaotic" process or "fractal"... seeks to categorize change, in the same way we might categorize things (as species), so we might see process as being a singular mechanistic process... "this" is what happens... "that" is not... A second thing, then... has us take all of that self induced limitation in considering mechanisms and their products... and apply it in creating a similarly limited mechanistic model of "how evolution happens"... which has us thus explaining... in a series of mechanistic events... how a fish gradually became a frog... or a monkey became a man... because of one singular, fateful, genetic mutation ? There's a lot in that conception that is patently wrong... or even absurd... beginning with the sort of view that requires "and a magical genetic change happened here"... from which point there was no going back, etc. It would be far more useful to try to step back from that perception that has us forcing an individualistic view of "change" occurring only as in context of an individual, or individual event... and try to see that "the gene pool" isn't just about random exchanges driving chance potentials in making unique individuals who are more or less competitive because of some event of re-combination occurring ? Particularly in humans... where we have to be aware that it is not just "individual effort" amplified by superior genetics in a wild population... but... the (more or less beneficial, and adaptive) value of culture... enabling us in acclimating to changing conditions [the climate suddenly changing... the emergence of AI in ChatGPT] ... or not. Culture, as often as not, punishes any such difference apparent as improvement... rather than celebrate it... perhaps making "survival" and "fitness" less of an individual function... and more about genetics in context of culture, and competition between cultures ? Instead of individualistic models... if you see the gene pool itself... purposed not ONLY in generating a constant competition for individual (or cultural) survival and superiority... but as purposed in retaining and preserving a mass of potential over time, which mass has sufficient diversity intrinsic to itself, that there rarely any existential risks or transformational benefits inherent in some singular mutation occurring.. or not ? A lot of what we think of today as "proof of evolution" occurring... probably has nothing all that much to do with genetics... at least, not in the way it is conceived of as operating as a system in making those "mechanistic" errors above... but is more about a population containing a collection of potential, in a retained RANGE in potential held within a population as a whole, that is purposed to be expressed differently after being randomly challenged, differently, by events... and, yes, biased in expression by the interaction... in ways that might alter expression "within that retained range"... without really dramatically altering the "range in genetic potential" itself, as that is still contained within a now morphologically changed population... that is still NOT really a very different population... genetically... even if individuals look a lot different than those in prior populations. Your birds... likely a fine case in point: The appearance... is not the thing... rather than one data point of expression of what is the "range of potential" contained within the population ? Plants contain lots of evidence of instances... which explains how they survive over time as continents collide, then drift apart again... while climate changes come and go... or, as mountains quickly pop up, and melt away again just as quickly (in terms of evolutionary and geologic timelines). Humans ? Why aren't these two... gymnast and basketball player... "different species" ? The answer appears to be... because they are alive, today, and not yet part of the fossil record being considered by anthropologists... and, as we all know... of course, there's only ever been one species of human alive at a time... except... genetics proves otherwise ?