scitsofreaky's Xanga

Tuesday, January 01, 2008

Tue, 01 Jan 2008 23:28:05 GMT

Wow, it's been an entire year since I posted anything here. I guess I could give an update.

I'm currently reading an awesome book Evolution of the Insects by David Grimaldi and Michael S. Engel. It is easily the most technical book I have ever read: it hasn't been dumbed down at all. So far I've been through the early insects (eg silverfish), the pterygota (eg mayflies, dragonflies, and the awesome, and extinct, huge griffinflies, aka giant dragonflies), and now I reading about polyneoptera, which is a huge group that includes stoneflies, grasshoppers and crickets, walking stick, roaches, termites, mantids and many extinct or not well known groups (I've just started the section on termites). So I'm sure you can guess that I have quite a way to go since I haven't even gotten to the beetles (Coleoptera) which is the largest order.

Not only are the insects themselves interesting, but it does discuss some of the disputes. When the general public is presented with science on the news, or even most websites, they get the message that such and such is cut and dry, but really there are many disputes behind the scenes. Facts, especially when dealing with paleontology, are rarely perfectly clear: one can draw different conclusion based on the evidence. This is why parsimony is used, since it is best, when faced with too little information to reach an obvious conclusion, to stick with the simplest conclusion until more information is obtained. But even the most parsimonious conclusion can be contentious. This is why all conclusions in science aren't set in stone.

Insect evolution doesn't get much attention (the only mention I can think of is some IDiot tried to claim that the bombardier beetle was an example of irreducible complexity), but it is very interesting. Considering just how many insects there are, one may initially be disappointed with how "small" the fossil record is, but insects don't have large, hard bones to leave behind, so I am actually somewhat amazed at just how much we have been able to find. And how many other full specimens of other animals have been found? Not many (although there is the relatively recent hadrosaur find)? That is one advantage insects (and such smaller creatures) have over the big, more famous ones.

I guess one big reason insect finds don't make the news is that people think “bugs” are “icky” and “creepy.” I obviously don't agree. All my life I have been interested in insects (not spiders as much, but they are interesting too), and my dad keeps telling me that I'm probably destined to become an entomologist, but I'm not so sure. I do find it interesting but I'm not sure I have the memory. I'm also unsure what I would do since I have a more general interest and I don't really find any one field more interesting than any other.

Wednesday, December 13, 2006

Wed, 13 Dec 2006 01:20:42 GMT

I'm finishing up an interesting book titled Evolution in Four Dimensions: Genetic, Epigenetic, Behavioral, and Symbolic Variation in the History of Life (on Amazon.com) by Eva Jablonka and Marion Lamb. And I just noticed that it now has some reviews which it didn't before, which isn't surprising since it just came out (I had it pre-ordered). Having glanced through them, I recommend reading the reviews.

This book may be representative of an important shift in evolutionary thought. While I enjoy Dawkins's books, his simplifications leave me wanting more information and somewhat frustrated. His books seem to ignore many other factors, which this book actually goes into.

This takes a sort of middle of the road approach, which usually draws my attention. For example, it never claims that genes aren't important, or even not very important. To the contrary, epigenetics seems to punctuate the importance of the genome because their affects are only felt through genes. I also think that a middle of the road path is the most sensible when we haven't done much research and therefore don't have a lot of data to base conclusions on.

I do disagree with John E. Mack (see the reviews on Amazon above) in that I think it is good that they spent time on the behavioral and symbolic affects on evolution. I do agree that they are pretty obvious, but this just means that they don't get talked about, and sometimes it seems they are forgotten. Any time there is inheritable variation natural selection can (does?) occur. So let's not forget informational and symbolic evolution, and also how they can affect genes via such things as niche creation.

This seems to be a more integral approach to evolution, and one that I think at least deserves more research to either confirm, reject or modify.

I'm ba-ack

Wed, 29 Nov 2006 13:45:09 GMT

    Sorry about bailing on this blog. I doubt that it really had any effect on anyone, but I do feel a bit guilty for my disappearance.
    I'm not sure if I'm going to ever get around to writing about perception. Maybe some day, but it is especially tough because I don't really feel like writing about it right now. I'm sure you know how hard it can be to write about subjects when you don't want to.
    I am going (to try) to start writing here again, and as usual I'm going to focus on what science or philosophy I am reading online and in the real world (e.g. books). And I am open to suggestions for topics, but I don't guarantee that I will write about what people suggest. If you see anything that you think I should read, just let me know. In fact, that is probably the best way to get me to discuss a subject you want to discuss with me.
    Wow, that sounds pretty conceited, as if I'm so friggin' awesome that everyone wants to talk to me. That is obviously not true as demonstrated by a lack of many comments. Oh well.

Saturday, February 25, 2006

Sat, 25 Feb 2006 05:10:09 GMT

I don't know how many people actually read this, be here goes.

I don't know what to write about, so what do you guys want to hear my opinion/thoughts on?

Peace, scitso

Sunday, January 22, 2006

Sun, 22 Jan 2006 21:00:36 GMT

Sorry about the delay, sometimes procrastination gets the better of me. I don't think I'm totally done, but done enough.

Self

What is the "self"? This is a question that I have posed not only here, but elsewhere as well. I had learned from experience that just asking "what is the self" usually leads to confusion, so here I also allowed people to answer "what makes you you?" It is interesting that everyone automatically assumes that these two questions are asking the same thing. Equally interesting are the people that answer the first question with the second question (you are yourself). Both of these questions are deceptively difficult for most anyone who is totally honest with themselves (not that if it isn't difficult you aren't being honest, but for most it is difficult). Why is this difficult? One reason may be that we live our lives with the feeling of separation from everybody and everything else, and we never question this separation. But once we do, we find it hard to articulate, or possibly even know where we end and everything else begins.

Humans understand the universe by splitting it up into groups (eg stars, planets, animals, plants). But we forget that our divisions are exactly that, our divisions. Every time we create a group, we are creating a boundary that is splitting up the true whole into false wholes: one group containing the subject of our grouping, one containing everything else. But the Universe contains no such separations, but we forget this and we get lost in our own boundaries.
One place this is very obvious is with the self. We split "self" into "ourself" and "yourself," but like all other boundaries, this is illusionary. Without "yourself" there would be no "ourself." As Chris pointed out when he answered my question, we define ourselves only in relation to others. So the "self" dilema is the same as the subject-object relationship (or observer-observed relationship). We consider "ourselves" as the observer and "yourself" as the observed. But these cannot exist without the other: no observer can exist without something to observe, and nothing is observed without an observer. So "ourself" has no identity separated from "yourself." So "self" contains both "ourself" and "yourself" which has obvious implications, not the least of which is that you and I are both part of the same "self."
To find what "self" is, we need at least a tentative definition to test. I define "self" as that which has an identity unto itself, ie is not defined in relation to something else. This seems simple enough, but it really isn't. You may automatically think that "you" or "I" are self defining, but they are not, "you" does not exist without "I" and vice versa. Not even "IS" is defined only by itself, it exists only in relation to "IS NOT." So "self" has to be that which contains all as well as not-all. In summation, "self" contains all duality.

Peace, scitso

Thursday, December 01, 2005

Thu, 01 Dec 2005 15:11:58 GMT

Ok, now I'm just going to ask a question that seems simple:

What is the "self"? Or, what makes you you?

Peace, scitso

Sunday, November 20, 2005

Sun, 20 Nov 2005 05:02:20 GMT

Alrighty then, it's been awhile. Here goes.

3D Philosophy

There are two prevalent views of the world, the Great Chain of Being (Aristotle) and the Web of Life (ecophilosophy).

The Great Chain, as created by Aristotle, is a veritcle vision of the planet. It starts with inanimate objects (minerals), goes up through plants, animals (excluding humans), humans, demons, angels, and then God. This is an attempt to show our relationship with God compared to everything else, or the intrinsic value of everything. This view can be seen in Judaism/Christianity/Islam: humans are chosen over everything else, Jews/Christians/Muslims are chosen over every other human.

I have a rather important problem with this. The view of God is that He is an entity, basically a big guy, that is separate from creation (a view prevalent in Abrahamic religions). It is obvious from my previous entries that this is not a view I hold. I believe that everything is a perfect manifestation of Spirit (God), so God is not closer to anything else.

The opposing view is the Web of Life. This view, held predominantly by many ecophilosophers, is that everything is just a strand in a Great Web that is made by everything. This view is focused only on the extrinsic value. So this view ignores any value anything has in and of itself (intrinsic value).

Both of these views I have problems with, but I find truths in both, namely intrinsic and extrinsic value. These two values are united with holons, which is the vary basis of my philosophy. Since holons are both wholes and parts, they have both intrinsic and extrinsic value simultaneously. As a whole, everything from atoms to animals have value in and of themselves because they are the sum of all the holons below. As a part, everything has value as an integral part of the holons it is apart of.

Questions/comments greatly appreciated.

Peace, scitso

Saturday, October 01, 2005

Sat, 01 Oct 2005 19:59:19 GMT

Ok, I wanted to share this with you. This is a response to a thread about transcendentalism (found here: http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/showthread.php?p=243513&posted=1#post243513 ):

What most people were taught, including myself, is basically generic classical deism. Classical deism was(is), at the very least, heavily influenced by the Enlightenment. It seems to me to be an utter rejection of the major religions (for the most part Abrahamic beliefs), but since it did not have a scientific replacement of creation, it had to still rely on God. There are still many classical deists today. But now deism has expanded, and it seems to be taken more as a philosophy than a religion, so people are appplying it to different religious beliefs (eg buddhism, christianity, taoism). The differences are most apparent in the different views of god. A major movement seems to be panendeism, which is the belief that the universe (or Universe, Kosmos) is part of God.

This is where one can tie in "integral." Integral philosophy as I know it is based on the ideas of Ken Wilber. It is an expansion, I guess you could say, on process theory. The main concept is that no one thing is the whole true, but (at best) a partial truth. It is also based on the idea of a holarchy in which the higher one is, the more encompassing it is because each holon is a part of the holons above. In Wibler's terms, the higher is more significant, and the lower in more fundamental. You may be seeing where this is going (unless if not it is probably my fault). With the belief that the Kosmos is a part of God, God is a higher(est?). God, or Spirit, is all encompassing, so by definition it must be a higher holon.

In regards to the idea of destroying us is destroying Spirit, since we are more fundamental, ie a part of the holon that is Spirit, if we do not exist, Spirit would not exist as it is, just as if all molecules were destroyed, all cells would be destroyed and everything above. But while we are more fundamental, Spirit is more significant because it encompasses all.

Now this is all I personally can really conclude. But I have read that most great sages have many things in common, and are at a stage that Wilber calls "nondual." This is, in a sense, a sort of ultimate integration (that is until we get beyond it perhaps?). At this level it seems that one remembers that he/she is not separate from Spirit. This is the level at which I get lost, and not surprisingly so. It is said that the higher reaches of human potential are transverbal so all words fall short (unless you have also attained this level, then you know what the words mean). So it is something that one must experience.

Friday, September 30, 2005

Fri, 30 Sep 2005 02:38:40 GMT

Ok, since I started a new blog ring I guess I should actually say what I mean by "integral" and such.

I consider myself an integral panendeist, a term coined by Travis Clemensmith (don't worry if you haven't heard of him, I don't know why you would have). Ok , so I might as well be speaking another language, right? Here is the fundamental premise one has to understand: I believe that the Kosmos (not just cosmos but everything including the cosmos) is part of holarchies. A holarchy is like a hierarchy, but it is made of holons, which are both wholes and parts. A good example of holons and a holarchy is that whole atoms make up whole molecules which make up whole cells and so on. Each step is a whole made up of other wholes. The higher holons, in this example cells, integrate all holons below it, like molecules, atoms and so on. But each holon also adds its own complexity, just like cells are more complex than molecules. Another good example is concentric circles. The outer circles contain and add to the inner circles.

Panendeism is the belief that the Universe, ie the Kosmos, is part of 'God.' This should not be confused with pantheism where it is believed that nature is God. An interesting way I have seen this described is in relation to the taoism: the Universe is the spirit of God, but not the body of God. While I can't really say this is what I believe, I think it demonstrates the difference with pantheism.

These two concepts, integral and panendeism, easily come together (at least in my mind). God is the higher(est?) holons, and since we ourselves lower levels of this same chain of holons, or holarchy, we are a part of God, but not all of God.

Hmm, I'm not sure that is as clear as I hoped it would be. Just let me know what needs some clearification. Also if you want to read some stuff by Travis, a couple things can be found here: http://www.interfaithforums.com/forumdisplay.php?f=145

Peace, scitso

Oh, and I almost forgot, for more information on integral philosophy check out the works of Ken Wilber. I suggest reading A Theory of Everything first because it is a good overview of his philosophy.

Thursday, September 22, 2005

Thu, 22 Sep 2005 03:38:19 GMT

As we develop spiritually as an individual, we must also find a place and/or role in the Kosmos. While we retain our individuality we must find a place in society, culture, amd the physio-, bio-, and noosphere. If we do not, then we will not have a positive impact. Also, as more and more people find, or even just search for their place in the Kosmos, the closer and closer the world will be united. While it is the goal of some religions to "unite" the world, it is coerced, ie you can become part of the global community as long as you believe and follow the given beliefs. But through integration, nobody is coerced into anything.