Posted on 06/03/2009 8:42:23 PM PDT by gobucks
Charles Darwin’s discovery of evolution is common knowledge but Darwin the person is barely known. Even on his 200th birth anniversary this year — he was born in England on Feb. 12, 1809 — much has been said about his works but little about his inner life of contrasts.
Darwin loved the natural world from childhood. He roamed the wilderness to study insects while neglecting Greek and Latin, the essential subjects. He said of his schooling, “I was considered by all my masters and by my Father as a very ordinary boy, rather below the common standard in intellect.”
Sent to medical school at age 16, he quit after seeing an operation on a child. Anesthesia was not yet introduced, and frightened patients stayed awake while surgeons sawed through their legs. His father was upset with him for leaving medicine, as fathers are when their offspring disappoint them. Charles was warned that he would be a disgrace.
He then went to Cambridge University to be a minister. There he found a mentor who would change his life, the Rev. John Henslow, a botanist. He and a geology professor taught Darwin how to observe and interpret nature’s ways.
After Cambridge, while Darwin was pondering entering the ministry, Henslow recommended him as a naturalist for a British survey ship, HMS Beagle, which planned an around-the-globe voyage. Darwin’s father was opposed, calling it a waste of time, but Charles prevailed with the help of his maternal uncle.
After four years, in 1835, the Beagle landed in the Galapagos Archipelago in the Pacific. What Darwin saw there changed our concept of biology. For millions of years, the animals and birds in these isolated islands had evolved in their unique way to survive and propagate. And they had no fear of humans. How and why did these creatures become the way they did? These questions germinated the idea of evolution in Darwin’s mind.
At 29, Darwin married Emma Wedgwood, his first cousin. The marriage saved his life. Emma was 30. An educated woman, she spoke French, German and Italian. And despite their differences in belief — she was a devoted Christian while he turned agnostic — she read Darwin’s papers before they were sent out. Emma, however, is not given the recognition she deserves for supporting her husband’s works, and accepting the demands of his almost constant illness. Moreover, she bore 10 children; the last one, born when she was 48, had Down syndrome.
Darwin’s favorite child, Annie, died of tuberculosis when she was 10. His anguish expresses a father’s loss and his deep love for a child: “Her face now rises before me ... her whole form radiant with the pleasure of giving pleasure ... her dear face bright all the time, with sweetest smiles. ... We have lost the joy of the household, and the solace of our old age.” This loss, some say, turned him into an agnostic.
Darwin’s radical idea — evolution of species over millions of years — starkly contradicted the doctrine on creation. Fearing the church’s hostile reactions, he waited about 20 years before publishing his seminal book, “The Origin of Species,” in 1859. The book transformed science and human thought forever.
Though zealots impede teaching evolution in school, some churches now believe that evolution is compatible with faith. Zealotry diminishes both religion and science.
Why is Darwin universally remembered while other original minds have remained obscure? It’s not just because of his big idea on evolution and change. After all, the idea was not his alone. Another naturalist, Alfred Wallace, came to the same conclusion as that of Darwin. Even philosopher Heraclitus said 2,500 years ago, “There is nothing permanent except change.”
What has kept Darwin alive is the power of his observations and his writings. He has integrated diverse fields of knowledge — including geology, zoology, botany, marine biology, horticulture, animal husbandry and history — to make compelling points for evolution.
We are part of nature, not above it. The poetic conclusion of “The Origin of Species” pictures our kinship to nature: “Contemplate a tangled bank, clothed with many plants of many kinds, with birds singing on the bushes, with various insects flitting about, and with worms crawling through the damp earth, and ... reflect that these elaborately constructed forms, so different from each other ... have all been produced by laws acting around us.”
Excellent insight spirited irish!
Implicit in NicknamedBob's proposal is the presupposition that nature is fundamentally material and mechanical. Therefore, systems in Nature, just like machines, can be taken apart and reassembled without any loss of information whatsoever, completely reconstituting the original whole. Thus, the whole is simply nothing more than the sum of its parts.
Yet this expectation, matched against experience (e.g., as you point out, the alteration of the parts that necessarily occurs just by handling them) falls like a house of cards even at the machine level.
And yet it's now pretty clear that complex systems in Nature — preeminently living organisms — are not "material machines" and cannot be reduced to their parts and then later reconstituted back into their originals. (This is obvious from direct observation anyway.) The reduction itself destroys vital information necessary at all organizational levels of the system. Thus the whole is more than the mere sum of its parts.
The question for biology: What is "lost" upon such a hypothetical reduction?
I wonder when biologists will begin to ask this question, but I'm not holding my breath. Evidently, they are too committed to the Newtonian Paradigm to think it worth asking. And that is why biology is "in crisis" right now....
It is interesting that science-fiction takes itself so seriously. That Star Trek can imagine teleportation doesn't make it feasible. Ditto for Star Gate's wormholes and Terminator's imagining qualia in artificial intelligence, e.g. hatefulness.
Indeed. What's also interesting is many people can't tell the difference between science fiction and the real thing.... [I.e., they "learn their 'science'" by reading Asimov, Bradbury, et al. Not to say they're not great reads....]
Sigh.
Thank you so very much for your kind words of support, dearest sister in Christ!
Need I remind you that it was you who invited Mister Mikulecky to the party? “I came across a notable paper the other day, by Donald C. Mikulecky”
Here is the gist of what I was responding to:
“In the machine, each model analytic or synthetic, is formulated in terms of the material parts of the system. Thus any model will be reducible and can be reconstructed from its parts.Now, just as a short reprise, I remind you that I asked whether Mikulecky, or Rosen for that matter, would distinguish between a candle as a simple machine, and a lit candle as an example of a more complex system.
This is not the case in a complex system. There are certain key models which are formulated in an entirely different way. These models are made up of functional components which do not map to the material parts in any one to one manner. The functional component itself is totally dependent on the context of the whole system and has no meaning outside that context. This is why reducing the system to its material parts loses information irreversibly.”
I was simply pointing out that complexity grows rapidly in the mental game of trying to reduce a system to its parts. I did not imply one thing or another about where I thought machines, and life, stood in the scales of that weighing.
Perhaps it is time to give some consideration to that.
"And yet it's now pretty clear that complex systems in Nature — preeminently living organisms — are not "material machines" and cannot be reduced to their parts and then later reconstituted back into their originals. (This is obvious from direct observation anyway.) The reduction itself destroys vital information necessary at all organizational levels of the system. Thus the whole is more than the mere sum of its parts.
The question for biology: What is "lost" upon such a hypothetical reduction?"
Socratically, which is a good way to deal with philosophical questions, what is lost or gained when a fertilized ovum divides and separates spontaneously to form twin zygotes?
Are twins victims of a diminished soul complex?
If one of the twins should die in utero, as occasionally happens, does its "soul" migrate back to the viable partner?
Makes you think, doesn't it?
Well, anyway, regardless how much fun it is to entertain these philosophical questions, we are not likely to garner anything other than opinion in response.
How about a little further analysis of our previous scenario, disassembling machines?
If one should carefully disassemble a small, battery-operated tape recorder, in whatever detail one wishes to surmise, and then reassemble it, without recharging the batteries, or reestablishing the magnetic domains previously recorded on the tape, then obviously one would have failed to consider, recognize, and remanufacture all the necessary conditions that were in the machine.
This reproduction would scarcely be of any more benefit that a straw cargo-cult image of the thing.
But suppose one did take these considerations into account?
Would then your expert testimony be accurate in saying it was exactly the same machine? Suppose, instead of disassembling and reassembling a single machine, you were presented with two machines of apparently identical origins. How would you tell them apart?
In the old "Perry Mason" trials, the D.A. would be asked to identify a weapon. He would often say, "Yes, this is the weapon found at the scene of the crime. I placed a mark on the weapon previously, and I recognize that mark as the one I placed on it."
I don't think Mr. Mason ever presented the hapless District Attorney with an identical weapon, bearing an identical mark, but you can imagine his confusion and frustration should that have happened.
We depend often on circumstantial evidence to corroborate our memories, especially in the matter of recognition.
Now, let us return again to this wonderful formulation: "This is not the case in a complex system. There are certain key models which are formulated in an entirely different way. These models are made up of functional components which do not map to the material parts in any one to one manner."
"... which do not map to the material parts in any one to one manner ..." Hmm. How about if we do map them according to their complex functions, orientations, states of charge and directions of motion? How then would you discriminate between them?
We cannot reassemble complex systems. Then how do surgeons reattach severed limbs to include even their ability to be moved and to feel?
Our abilities in these areas grow as our understanding grows. Despite the fact that we have been studying electricity for hundreds of years, and surgeons have miraculously reattached severed limbs, no one has yet energized a Frankenstein's Monster to terrorize the villagers.
At least, not yet.
Doctor Asimov was always careful to distinguish in his writing between the fanciful and the proven. His writings on science were some of his most popular articles.
He also wrote a guide to the Bible, considering it evidence, no doubt, from an unimpeachable source.
And what exactly is it in your estimation that renders Dr. Asimov so "unimpeachable?" Has he got some "privileged" view that I (we) need to respect? If so,what is that view? And why would it be any more "unimpeachable" than my own view?
As I read Nick’s comment about the Bible and unimpeachable source, I’m not sure if he isn’t saying that Asimov considered God an unimpeachable source.
I can’t determine it from the syntax.
He Dr. Isaac Asimov also wrote a guide to the Bible, considering it the Bible evidence, no doubt, from an unimpeachable source.
Dr. Isaac Asimov also wrote a guide to the Bible, considering the Bible evidence, no doubt, from an unimpeachable source.
Are you saying that Asimov considered God the writer of the Bible and, therefore, an unimpeachable source?
If not, then who is the unimpeachable source he’s writing about?
I don't know how much more clearly I could state that Asimov considered God an unimpeachable source.
Let us not hasten to opinion, however. The Good Doctor could be interviewing God even as we speak.
I didn’t know Asimov was a theist. Glad to hear it.
I was a great fan of the Foundation series years ago. I still am fond of his future historian idea.
All science fiction writers are future historians.
Possible exception of Harry Turtledove.
When you have 15 - 20 minutes or so to kill, I think you will really like this one:
http://www.multivax.com/last_question.html
A classic short story.
snip: My point about the candle is that complexity is in the eye of the beholder
Spirited: Cognitive dissonance is a deformation of the mind and thinking processes. Like a wall, it keeps what is true and real locked away behind a little door with a warning on it that says, “Do Not Open!” Reason is not disabled, yet in the absence of what is true and real, reason is deformed. Your claim is an example of deformed reasoning, for complexity is a permanent part of reality. It is there whether you allow yourself to be cognizant of it or not. It does not ‘disappear’ simply because you need to believe it is not there. This is magic-thinking.
Cognitive dissonance and materialism/empiricism are like a hand and glove.
It is not I who separates things into categorical bins, real and unreal, true and untrue, machine and non-machine.
I am the fighter against such compartmentalization, or I would not have sought to blur the distinctions between machine and "complex systems" with my analogy of the candle.
I celebrate a mental vision that encompasses a range from the sub-atomic to the span of galaxies and beyond, and a time-scale from sub-nanoseconds to billions of years. I find sufficient magic in such visions.
But this may be the first time that I, poet and writer, mathematical dunce and scientific dunderhead, renowned bon-vivant and celebrated raconteur, (Hey, it is "in my own mind", after all!), have been accused of having a place in my own mind that I would not go, a door that I would not open.
An interesting observation, but I think you are wrong.
snip: I celebrate a mental vision that encompasses a range from the sub-atomic to the span of galaxies and beyond, and a time-scale from sub-nanoseconds to billions of years. I find sufficient magic in such visions.
Spirited: If the universe is either nothing more than a massive machine or a living organism, and man nothing but an extension of either the machine or the living organism, man then is either ‘one with’ the machine or the organism. Philosophically, this is the very ancient doctrine of Monism, and in either case, man has no freedom whatsoever.
Imagine that rather than machine or organism, Naturalism’s closed system is a massive dog. Man being an extension of the dog, he would be nothing but the dog’s hair.
In this view, the vision you hold to be yours is not in fact yours because there is no independant objective thinker; there is no ‘you.’ The vision you mistakenly believe is yours is really from the inner and outer workings of the ‘dog,’ otherwise known as external forces of nature. The ‘vision’ is received into the brain of the meat-machine labeled “NicknamedBob.’ In this way, the ‘dog’ or external forces of nature speak ‘their’ thoughts-—and ‘poetry’— through the mechanical lips of Bob-the-robot.
This view of matter, forces, nature, determinism,and man was the invention of Karl Marx, positivist, materialist,and empiricist. Marx was also the teller of Big Lies. The author of many Luciferian poems, he also claimed to be ‘God.’ Obviously, he did not disbelieve in the existence of the great I AM, let alone the transcendant realm.
The so-called ‘modern isms’ that emerged out of the Enlightenment are neither scientific nor ‘new.’ They are nothing more than revamped pagan naturalism, revised and made palatable for Western man.
When Paul debated the Stoics (pantheists) and Epicureans (materialists), he was debating the Monists of his time.
Postmoderns are also pantheists, in their case, quasi-Buddhist ideal pantheists, meaning that the closed system is entirely impersonal, unknowing Spirit, also called The Force (Star Wars), and Overmind (2001 Space Odyssey), among other appellations.
snip: I am the fighter against such compartmentalization, or I would not have sought to blur the distinctions between machine and “complex systems” with my analogy of the candle.
Spirited: Your need to ‘blur the distinctions’ arises from your adherence to Monism. Monism is a relentless reducer of everything to ‘oneness.’ For example:
Rather than male and female, there must be ‘one’ transgendered being. This agenda moves forward in America by way of ‘gay’ rights. What is ‘gay’ but the negation of immutable distinction.
Rather than good and evil, truth and lies, there must be moral relativism. Consequently, many Americans can no longer discern between true victims and their victimizers. Hence, they have become apologists for evil.
Rather than Light and Dark, there must be grey. Everything becomes grey.
The logical consequence of this way of reasoning is cognitive dissonance; madness.
America is on a fast-track downward. Out of control, she spins ever-downward into madness.
Asimov was always such a good writer.
Great story. Thanks.
"If the universe is either nothing more than a massive machine or a living organism, and man nothing but an extension of either the machine or the living organism, man then is either ‘one with’ the machine or the organism. Philosophically, this is the very ancient doctrine of Monism, and in either case, man has no freedom whatsoever.That sure is an awfully long tail that little puppy "If" is wagging.
Imagine that rather than machine or organism, Naturalism’s closed system is a massive dog. Man being an extension of the dog, he would be nothing but the dog’s hair.
In this view, the vision you hold to be yours is not in fact yours because there is no independant objective thinker; there is no ‘you.’ The vision you mistakenly believe is yours is really from the inner and outer workings of the ‘dog,’ otherwise known as external forces of nature. The ‘vision’ is received into the brain of the meat-machine labeled “NicknamedBob.’ In this way, the ‘dog’ or external forces of nature speak ‘their’ thoughts-—and ‘poetry’— through the mechanical lips of Bob-the-robot.
This view of matter, forces, nature, determinism,and man was the invention of Karl Marx, positivist, materialist,and empiricist. Marx was also the teller of Big Lies. The author of many Luciferian poems, he also claimed to be ‘God.’ Obviously, he did not disbelieve in the existence of the great I AM, let alone the transcendant realm.
The so-called ‘modern isms’ that emerged out of the Enlightenment are neither scientific nor ‘new.’ They are nothing more than revamped pagan naturalism, revised and made palatable for Western man.
When Paul debated the Stoics (pantheists) and Epicureans (materialists), he was debating the Monists of his time. Postmoderns are also pantheists, in their case, quasi-Buddhist ideal pantheists, meaning that the closed system is entirely impersonal, unknowing Spirit, also called The Force (Star Wars), and Overmind (2001 Space Odyssey), among other appellations.
You ascribe to me a philosophy I have not expressed. Then you proceed to attack this straw philosophy.
Do me a favor, stop trying to psychoanalyze me. You are almost certainly wrong, and you are embarrassing yourself.
You simply do not know me, at all. You would probably be better off casting horoscopes for the gullible among us.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.