Bourgeois Science-How about Darwinism?

nemonemini at cosmiverse.com nemonemini at cosmiverse.com
Sun Dec 2 21:49:59 MST 2001


 >
> Natural selection cannot explain consciousness, nor does it intend
to.
snip

> To have large brained, co-oporative animals (proto-humans) is
perfectly within the ambit
of evolution as made known by Darwin. To have such animals capable of
basic speech and
grammar (both of which appear to be hard-wired into our brains) is
likewise explicable,

  Where is the real proof that such complex factors as basic speech
etc arise via evolution by natural selection? Where? Look at S.
Pinker's book, The Language Instinct. He started as a student of
Chomsky who had the nerve to say he was convinced (whatever his other
theories)and as far as I can tell from this book he simply decided to
switch horses. The book shows the way the issue is simply a decision
on mysterious paradigm grounds.

I simply don't believe that language arose as an adaptation via
natural selection. We have no proof in any case, and the theory
should state that.

As to consciousness, again, it is a big claim to say that hardware
slowly reached the point where social evolution could produce this
consciousness. Again, where's the proof?

I recommend a close study of my eonic effect. Close tracking of
historical emergence shows the catch 22 in these Darwinian claims. We
see the strong suggestion that cultural evolution, whatever its
connection to genetics, is beset with a macro factor, a long range
driver. It is futile to point it out, I suppose. But the model and
the evidence is there.

Was just looking at S. Kauffman's new book, Investigations. Again, he
demurs on Darwin's selectionism. His work shows perhaps the reason
the Darwin myth is so incessantly promoted, once you stop to think
through the issues, as Kauffman does, you lose the easy route of
claiming we have the answer. He is lucky, he has the prestige to
state such things. The rest of us get silenced. In any case, the
Kauffman book suggests the context of the new astrobiology, which
really amounts to the question of life in the universe as a whole,
with the suggestion that there are 'laws of life' that prompt its
appearance. Still unproven, but the point is that this perspective
can help to stand back from the Darwin claim, which is essentially a
universal generalization applied across the board and convenient to
its proponents because it fulfills the demand for naturalistic
explanation.

Anyway, as to the evolution of language, I wasn't there, but if you
look at my eonic model with its precise timing, you can see the macro
factor in history, just barely, behind many linguistic and artistic
phenomena, visible in its strange clustering. If that's the case, the
game's over for Darwin.

John Landon
http://eonix.8m.com



------------------------------------
This message was sent by Cosmiverse.
http://www.cosmiverse.com
Get Your Free Email Account Today!
Join us Today as a Digital Passenger aboard
Cosmic Voyage 2000 ( http://www.cosmicvoyage2000.com )!



~~~~~~~
PLEASE clip all extraneous text before replying to a message.



More information about the Marxism mailing list