I've come to dislike the framing of "survival of the fittest" as it contains a self referencial tautology. The "fittest" simply being "that which survives." This heuristic doesn't explain how organisms perpetuate, which is by niche adaptation and construction. Life expands into spaces previously devoid of life with which it has no prior exposure, which is a stressful endeavor, to weave entropy into its own form. These niches are first constructed, then adapted to, then the adaptation process reaches an equilibrium with the niche and finally life expands beyond the settled niche into spaces previously devoid of life. This is why conquest, frontierism and innovation are archtypes resonant with the human psyche, but we ought to be careful because these spaces may only be devoid of agents we can recognise, not ones which we cannot. Its possible that by taking territory we are inviting a 'counter attack' from said agents. For example said agents may interact with humans by capturing the game theoretical means of perpetuation to skew in their favour, specifically making short term bargains more appealing than long term ones. In the internet space this could take the form of scams, lies and porn which increase human maladaptation to the space, reduce inter and intrapersonal trust while dissolutioning an advance into a novel energy abundant niche. I enjoyed your conversation.
I agree that a synthesis of evolution as creativity that produces diversity and directionality towards consciousness makes the most sense of the incredible directionality of the universe we observe at the highest level of conceptual resolution. In fact I'd suggest they're two sides of the same coin. You need massive diversity in order to 'find your way towards higher consciousness'. As another comment below suggests, diversity isn't just adaptation to a niches, it's the creation of niches and this creates 'ladders of complexification' that allow more and more complex organisms working together to produce more and more niches that opens the door for more and more 'layers of complexity' that allows higher levels of consciousness and cognition to operate, and eventually creates our level that finally breaks out of genetic evolution into the 'meta-evolution' of culture and technology
I'm looking forward to this discussion. Back in the heyday of new atheism and the 'great debate' on RUclips, I felt that Rupert was unfairly dismissive of the Intelligent Design movement by describing it as creationism. At the time, I felt this was inconsistent because Rupert's idea that evolution was influenced by morphic resonance seemed to have a teleological aspect. I've since heard Rupert mention Samuel Butler, but I saw the similarities when I first read Butler's books on evolution several years ago, and it seemed to me that he thought he was proposing a less mechanistic model of evolution and might have been sympathetic to the ideas of the ID people. I was also aware that Thomas Nagel had expressed sympathy for their ideas despite being an atheist and while the criticisms of materialists like Dawkins and PZ Meyer or theistic evolutionists like Ken Miller were easy enough to understand, it always seemed unclear to me exactly what others, who didn't seem to exclude that evolution might involve an element of goal seeking were objecting to. Now I understand Whitehead's philosophy and process theology a 'little' more, i think i might get it. Whether evolution is driven by insentient mechanisms like Dawkins' blind watchmaker or not, just the fact that it shows a progression that builds upon what's gone before seems inconsistent with traditional ideas of a God that's omniscient about the future - because after all, if he had a specific goal in mind and knew how to achieve it, it seems natural to assume that he'd just bring it about in the first place whereas evolution appears to be a matter of striving towards a goal or goals. I don't know if I've expressed what I was trying to say very well, but I think I might be right to think that process theology fits better with evolution whether it's purposeful process or not, and that's the core of the difference in attitude between thinkers like Rupert and the people at the Discovery Institute even though some of the latter accept evolution Edit: I just heard Rupert and Vernon refer to ID halfway through the discussion, and I wonder if they've actually read anything by ID proponents such as Michael Behe and Stephen Meyer? I have, and I don't recognise Rupert's statement that they're denying evolution at all. While some of them, like Paul Nelson, believe in special creation, most of them don't, and it's irrelevant to their core argument that biological forms display evidence of purposeful arrangement rather than being the end result of chance and physical law. I don't agree that they're muddying the waters, and certainly not in the way desribed here. What really muddies the waters is using terms in an unclear way. It can be hard to define terms when it comes to such a complex subject, but defining them incorrectly definitely doesn't help.
I find that the more I find out about evolution the more skeptical I am of natural selection. I don't think there's any such a thing except in the imaginations of human beings who believe in natural selection. I think it's what Marx said it was, Darwin imagining an inversion of Malthusian economic theory, based on the very artificial British class system imposed on nature. I think the economic interest of Darwin and his disciples is entirely what it's made of.
What we must always be aware of is the impulse to adjustment. Adapting to a structure that will only encase us more in illusions of ‘progress’. The spiritual deficiency in our times is so disheartening.
A piece of PISS thinking is the mind of the Universe. Pure Intelligent Simulated Systemic thinking. It only needs a relational network and without a pseudo network of GPUs. It's a foundational cause-and-effect law of the Universe. It's a creative evolutionary paradigm. It is in synchronisation with Bergson's Creative Evolution. Thank you for an inspiring talk by two scientists whose understanding is intact. LoU is love in Scottish! LoU is Everything referential.
7:00 'what's the source of all the creativity in nature?' That's the question; there's nothing creative about natural selection, quite the opposite, it can only remove what has already been created by some other mechanism.
I’ve watched the evolution of ai, from the classroom calculator to search bars and everything in between, including a refrigerator that thinks it’s smarter than me. If I hadn’t of evolved along side, I think if I’d been in a coma for ten years and woken up to discover the changes that had taken place, I’d want to go back to sleep. Even the social changes in internet religion, sporting (which includes ridiculous gambling) and local community events don’t have any love involved, it’s just fund raising, with a tap your card or phone donation. It’s like video killed the radio star all over again.
Thank you both so much for these inspiring conversations.
You provide a beacon of hope in these difficult times.
🙏🙏
Unfolding.
Not random, adjustment to a changing environment.? Natures tweak.
Brilliant , thank you both of you ✌️
I love mark vernon not less than the great rupert shaldrake..he's calm intelligence, he's sensible and sensitive talking is a breath of fresh air❤
I've come to dislike the framing of "survival of the fittest" as it contains a self referencial tautology. The "fittest" simply being "that which survives." This heuristic doesn't explain how organisms perpetuate, which is by niche adaptation and construction. Life expands into spaces previously devoid of life with which it has no prior exposure, which is a stressful endeavor, to weave entropy into its own form. These niches are first constructed, then adapted to, then the adaptation process reaches an equilibrium with the niche and finally life expands beyond the settled niche into spaces previously devoid of life. This is why conquest, frontierism and innovation are archtypes resonant with the human psyche, but we ought to be careful because these spaces may only be devoid of agents we can recognise, not ones which we cannot. Its possible that by taking territory we are inviting a 'counter attack' from said agents. For example said agents may interact with humans by capturing the game theoretical means of perpetuation to skew in their favour, specifically making short term bargains more appealing than long term ones. In the internet space this could take the form of scams, lies and porn which increase human maladaptation to the space, reduce inter and intrapersonal trust while dissolutioning an advance into a novel energy abundant niche. I enjoyed your conversation.
Thank you ! Love both of your works .
I agree that a synthesis of evolution as creativity that produces diversity and directionality towards consciousness makes the most sense of the incredible directionality of the universe we observe at the highest level of conceptual resolution. In fact I'd suggest they're two sides of the same coin. You need massive diversity in order to 'find your way towards higher consciousness'. As another comment below suggests, diversity isn't just adaptation to a niches, it's the creation of niches and this creates 'ladders of complexification' that allow more and more complex organisms working together to produce more and more niches that opens the door for more and more 'layers of complexity' that allows higher levels of consciousness and cognition to operate, and eventually creates our level that finally breaks out of genetic evolution into the 'meta-evolution' of culture and technology
The illusion of evolution :) thanks amazing conversation!
I'm looking forward to this discussion. Back in the heyday of new atheism and the 'great debate' on RUclips, I felt that Rupert was unfairly dismissive of the Intelligent Design movement by describing it as creationism.
At the time, I felt this was inconsistent because Rupert's idea that evolution was influenced by morphic resonance seemed to have a teleological aspect. I've since heard Rupert mention Samuel Butler, but I saw the similarities when I first read Butler's books on evolution several years ago, and it seemed to me that he thought he was proposing a less mechanistic model of evolution and might have been sympathetic to the ideas of the ID people.
I was also aware that Thomas Nagel had expressed sympathy for their ideas despite being an atheist and while the criticisms of materialists like Dawkins and PZ Meyer or theistic evolutionists like Ken Miller were easy enough to understand, it always seemed unclear to me exactly what others, who didn't seem to exclude that evolution might involve an element of goal seeking were objecting to.
Now I understand Whitehead's philosophy and process theology a 'little' more, i think i might get it.
Whether evolution is driven by insentient mechanisms like Dawkins' blind watchmaker or not, just the fact that it shows a progression that builds upon what's gone before seems inconsistent with traditional ideas of a God that's omniscient about the future - because after all, if he had a specific goal in mind and knew how to achieve it, it seems natural to assume that he'd just bring it about in the first place whereas evolution appears to be a matter of striving towards a goal or goals.
I don't know if I've expressed what I was trying to say very well, but I think I might be right to think that process theology fits better with evolution whether it's purposeful process or not, and that's the core of the difference in attitude between thinkers like Rupert and the people at the Discovery Institute even though some of the latter accept evolution
Edit:
I just heard Rupert and Vernon refer to ID halfway through the discussion, and I wonder if they've actually read anything by ID proponents such as Michael Behe and Stephen Meyer? I have, and I don't recognise Rupert's statement that they're denying evolution at all.
While some of them, like Paul Nelson, believe in special creation, most of them don't, and it's irrelevant to their core argument that biological forms display evidence of purposeful arrangement rather than being the end result of chance and physical law.
I don't agree that they're muddying the waters, and certainly not in the way desribed here.
What really muddies the waters is using terms in an unclear way. It can be hard to define terms when it comes to such a complex subject, but defining them incorrectly definitely doesn't help.
Evolution begins with awareness. Consciousness drives evolution.
I find that the more I find out about evolution the more skeptical I am of natural selection. I don't think there's any such a thing except in the imaginations of human beings who believe in natural selection. I think it's what Marx said it was, Darwin imagining an inversion of Malthusian economic theory, based on the very artificial British class system imposed on nature. I think the economic interest of Darwin and his disciples is entirely what it's made of.
What we must always be aware of is the impulse to adjustment. Adapting to a structure that will only encase us more in illusions of ‘progress’.
The spiritual deficiency in our times is so disheartening.
A piece of PISS thinking is the mind of the Universe. Pure Intelligent Simulated Systemic thinking. It only needs a relational network and without a pseudo network of GPUs. It's a foundational cause-and-effect law of the Universe. It's a creative evolutionary paradigm. It is in synchronisation with Bergson's Creative Evolution. Thank you for an inspiring talk by two scientists whose understanding is intact. LoU is love in Scottish! LoU is Everything referential.
When talkin of acceleration of complexificstion how not to think about terrence mckenna..
7:00 'what's the source of all the creativity in nature?' That's the question; there's nothing creative about natural selection, quite the opposite, it can only remove what has already been created by some other mechanism.
I’ve watched the evolution of ai, from the classroom calculator to search bars and everything in between, including a refrigerator that thinks it’s smarter than me.
If I hadn’t of evolved along side, I think if I’d been in a coma for ten years and woken up to discover the changes that had taken place, I’d want to go back to sleep.
Even the social changes in internet religion, sporting (which includes ridiculous gambling) and local community events don’t have any love involved, it’s just fund raising, with a tap your card or phone donation.
It’s like video killed the radio star all over again.