|
makeiteasyable (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
ty
janesatorres (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
Definitely a stunner. Nicely crafted video. Just awesome.
naturalpreservation (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
@Flat Earth FabsWilson is an ecologist, as am I. At this moment in time 'Big Pollution' is trying to get Congress to weaken The Clean Air Act so that it can pollute the air more, like 90 million tonnes of pollutants into the air each and every day isn't enough. Humans override nature when they:(1) industrially pump 90 million tonnes of pollutants into the atmosphere each and every day (2) humans legislate through designed, written laws that regulate behaviour.The power of artificial earther
naturalpreservation (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
@Flat Earth FabsThe tide is turning and your shallow gene-centrism is being exposed by the day. This is the way of things when new technologies emerge, new ways of thinking. We need to look out for the Luddites, or in your case the Flat Earthers. .I didn't invent the truth that humans have created and designed their own world.I didn't invent brain science changing in the light of neuroplasticity.I didn't fiction up 151 year of neo-Darwinian shortcomings on culture..It's called reality.
naturalpreservation (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
@MissyYou wrote: "I don't have to look up that article to know you're quote mining.".I understand why you say that because it challenges the weak narrative you are clinging to but then you'll have to accuse New Scientist magazine on 'quote mining' as well because right in the middle of page 26 (New Scientist, 17th July, 2010) it says in very bold text:."There is almost nothing we do with our brains that is hard-wired.".We're 'Super learners' learning from a world we have designed Luddite.
naturalpreservation (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
@MissyIn 'Consilience' Wilson calls the social sciences "hypercomplex" and I've already mentioned Michael Shermer calling culture "the really hard problem". The deeper reason the social sciences are called the soft sciences is because we deal in this causative dynamic soft matter of meaning..To say that something 'matters' is always to say that it is meaningful. Meaning has a weight, yet is non-corporeal but causative. It is not amenable to biological explanation. 151 years and still counting
naturalpreservation (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
@MissyYou don't look up articles because it looks like you generally don't read and that explains the non-thinking Missy. The hardware/software analogy is a good one. Biologically hard-wired species in stable localised environments over geological time is the foundation for evolution. However, due to a causative transfer from hardware to software we have the emergence of meaning (causative, personal information) and culture. .Biology has fundamental limitations in dealing with the soft world
naturalpreservation (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
@MissyRemember, the very idea that culture was a system of motion acting through a bosy (society) appeared as quite a surprise to you, and in that you have similarities with your Flat Earth Fabs sister who denied that cultural change was faster than evolutionary change at the species level. This is what happens when you dogmatically box yourself into the "It's all genes, it's all evolution" corner..It's only going to get darker in there Missy. IQ is mostly in the genes? Social Darwinist you.
naturalpreservation (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
@MissySo another day we can add to the 151 years since Darwin and no theory of culture from the biological and/or natural sciences. It certainly isn't going to come from you because on culture (like Flat Earth Fabs) you are uncritical of thought and it's beyond both your domain and intellectual capacity gene-centrist..Evolutionary biologist John Maynard Smith said that culture "was the second hereditaty system" and it's a non-biological system that humans 'man'age dialectically Missy.
naturalpreservation (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
@MissyGee, you are an epistemological luddite deary. I thought so, a narrow gene-centrist. Don't worry the scientific bandwagon "It's all in the genes" is slowing down and no mistake. You can only laugh when you watch Steven Pinker on The Colbert Report misleading the viewers that it's all in the gene and then Stephen asked him if there was anything interesting that Pinker found in his genome and he said genetically he had an 80% change of being bald. Have you seen Pinker's hair?.Take a seat. |
