Evolution

Originally posted by twhitehead
So what puts sand on the beach? Look around you. Do you see brown slush everywhere? No? Nearly everything you see is matched up in some way. Who selected all the soil and put it down there, who selected the clouds and put them up there, who selected all that water and put it in the oceans, and while we are talking about water, who took all those oxygen at ...[text shortened]... to all those hydrogen atoms?
A mindless matching process that you apparently don't know about.

The sand on the beach is not a "selection" but one product amongst many of the interaction of the ocean and of the ground. I look around me and I see the environment, which is not "selected" but a product of the interaction of the involved observes. The clouds are a product of another interaction, and the oceans a product of another interaction, and the water of the oceans a product of yet another interaction, and the hydrogen atoms of the ocean a product of yet another interaction.

I do not recognize a mindless matching process but Karma
😵

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
My argument is that 'selection' is not selection at all.

Only because you are stuck on a wrong understanding of the word.

The sand grains on the beach have not been selected at all, they have merely washed up there more or less randomly.
When did you last go to a beach? You surely don't think that the size of grains is random.Whether you like the word 'selected' or not, you must surely accept that there is a definite process whereby grains of a certain range of sizes are more likely to end up on the beach than other sizes.

There is no process, in the sense of a course of action designed to achieve a result.
Again, the word 'process' does not imply agency, intelligence or planning. Or are you going to dispute the term 'natural process' too?

Of course this problem stems from applying human language to the Big Other. Pace Nietzsche: 'I am afraid we cannot get rid of God because we still believe in grammar.' (Twilight of the Idols).
I wasn't aware that we were talking about a 'Big Other'.

Now I take 'natural selection' to mean that nature, the environment, is the 'selector'. But here you are saying that the environment also furnishes the criteria of selection. How does the selection process work if the environment is both the selector and the criteria of selection at once?
The same way a sieve works as both criteria and selector. If anything 'criteria' and 'selector' mean the same thing, though 'criteria' is more of the 'what' and 'selector' is more of the 'how'.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Only because you are stuck on a wrong understanding of the word.

[b]The sand grains on the beach have not been selected at all, they have merely washed up there more or less randomly.
When did you last go to a beach? You surely don't think that the size of grains is random.Whether you like the word 'selected' or not, you must surely accept that th criteria' is more of the 'what' and 'selector' is more of the 'how'.[/b]

Not at all, just scrutinizing a technical term haunted by a Victorian ghost.

Does the Nietzsche quote mean anything to you?

A sieve is usually manipulated by some agent. Incidentally, is the environment itself subject to natural selection? And if the objects of natural selection shape the environment themselves, are they self-selecting?

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
Not at all, just scrutinizing a technical term haunted by a Victorian ghost.

Is there is a Victorian ghost. Did people have a similar problem with the word in Darwins day? I was brought up with evolution so the usage of the term has always seemed perfectly natural to me.

Does the Nietzsche quote mean anything to you?
No.

A sieve is usually manipulated by some agent.
Not always. There are plenty of sieves in nature both 'operated' and not operated They all perform the same function, the fact that man made ones were made with purpose by intelligent beings does not in any way affect their function.

Incidentally, is the environment itself subject to natural selection?
The environment is enormously influenced by life and is subject to natural selection. Remember thought that evolution requires more than just natural selection (replication, inheritance etc). All forms of life have other forms of life as part or all of their environment (diseases for example) and thus their environment is most definitely evolving too.

And if the objects of natural selection shape the environment themselves, are they self-selecting?
Yes there is frequently a feedback process. The development of symbiosis is a prime example.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Only because you are stuck on a wrong understanding of the word.

[b]The sand grains on the beach have not been selected at all, they have merely washed up there more or less randomly.
When did you last go to a beach? You surely don't think that the size of grains is random.Whether you like the word 'selected' or not, you must surely accept that th ...[text shortened]... criteria' is more of the 'what' and 'selector' is more of the 'how'.[/b]

Now I see what you mean: obviously you describe the cause-effect process known as "natural selection" and you name it merely "selection" -but "natural selection" is not "selection" just as the number "13" is not the numbers "1” and “3". So I will cross-check our different views.

“Natural selection” / "Natural process" is a Karma/ Quantum Darwinism mechanism, and it is not “selection” but merely action (cause-effect), action that emerges out of the realm of the potentialities during specific interactions and causes miscellaneous results (including the reality of the physical world as we perceive it by means of our 6 senses). The grains of sand, and the rocks by the seaside, and the ocean, and the clouds, and the environment itself, and all the sentient beings and all the non-sentient beings and the physical universe as we perceive it, they are all the result of a huge process (that includes the creation of the potentialities that they trigger the existence of all these observers as we perceive them) and of the holistic interaction of all the involved observers. All in all, we are in front of causes that trigger effects that they become causes that they trigger effects and so on ad infinitum, and this is the "stuff" from which the final product (the experiential field of reality) arises.

So there is no "selection" at all because it is impossible to select something that is not real although its reality was/ is probable. In fact, from the dynamic field of the miscellaneous potentialities arises solely one given possibility amongst countless other possibilities regarding each observer that became indeed real. All the other possibilities did not made it into reality and thus they remained abstract and therefore they were never real although it was possible that they could become real -and this is not the same as a lottery with, say, 10.000 tickets from which solely one is selected and wins, due to the fact that within the observer universe the reality consists solely of given real observers and of their mutual interaction. Therefore in our physical world we are in front of real observers that are created out of a given cause-effect field, and these products are not "selected" as you pose it but they are a result of interactions ad infinitum as I just explained
😵

Originally posted by black beetle
So there is no "selection" at all because it is impossible to select something that is not real although its reality was/ is probable.

As far as I can tell you are saying that nothing is real therefore language is meaningless. Other than that you seem to understand 'selection' to mean something other than what I think it means. Do you have a definition for it? I have given mine and tried to explain it.

Originally posted by twhitehead
As far as I can tell you are saying that nothing is real therefore language is meaningless. Other than that you seem to understand 'selection' to mean something other than what I think it means. Do you have a definition for it? I have given mine and tried to explain it.

I explained that at the level of the potentialities there is nothing that is objectified/ real because there is not yet any manifestation of an observer or a result of an interaction that we can spot in the physical world. The dynamic field of potentialities is mind-only.

Language is not meaningless because it is the common way we have to map the reality as we perceive it -but language is merely a mapping and not the territory, therefore it is not the reality itself but a convention dependent on the evaluation of our mind.

Whatever you defined at your posts as "selection" is merely a product of Karma/ Quantum Darwinism and not a factual selection. The use of the word "selection" as equivalent to the notion "natural selection" is false because of the reasons I explained earlier; methinks we are in front of miscellaneous products of a huge chain reaction due to the interaction of the observers involved at each level of the existence of the observer universe -Karma. So instead of referring to this multileveled process as "selection", I propose the use of the notions Karma/ Quantum Darwinism
😵

Originally posted by black beetle
Whatever you defined at your posts as "selection" is merely a product of Karma/ Quantum Darwinism and not a factual selection.

I still don't get what you are saying. What do you mean by 'factual selection' and how does it differ from what I understand 'selection' to mean?

Originally posted by twhitehead
I still don't get what you are saying. What do you mean by 'factual selection' and how does it differ from what I understand 'selection' to mean?

As factual (real, manifested) selection I define the process of selection, which is conducted solely by sentient beings. Therefore I define selection as a procedure always conducted by sentient beings, so obviously I join hands with Bosse de Nage regarding this matter.

What actually takes place is not selection but a specific reaction within the frame of the interaction of the involved observers at a given SpaceTime leading to a specific reality; therefore at the level of the physical non sentient objects like the observers cloud, rock, grain of sands, ocean, planets, galaxies, universe etc, and also at the level of the non-objectified dynamic interaction of the physical observers (ie gravity, laws of nature etc) we are monitoring merely reaction (a product of cause-effect/ Karma/ Quantum Darwinism) that is not triggered by sentient beings. That reaction is indeed a mindless process that takes place without the requirement and/ or the involvement of any kind of natural, supernatural or artificial intelligence, therefore it is neither a process of selection nor a product of selection
😵

Originally posted by black beetle
As factual (real, manifested) selection I define the process of selection, which is conducted solely by sentient beings. Therefore I define selection as a procedure always conducted by sentient beings, so obviously I join hands with Bosse de Nage regarding this matter.

Thank you for the definition. I must point out though that I don't think that matches either the dictionary definition nor general usage, so you would be wise to mention your definition when you use it that way. Obviously in this discussion, I now know what you mean.

Originally posted by black beetle
What actually takes place is not selection but a specific reaction within the frame of the interaction of the involved observers at a given SpaceTime leading to a specific reality; therefore at the level of the physical non sentient objects like the observers cloud, rock, grain of sands, ocean, planets, galaxies, universe etc, and also at the level of t ...[text shortened]... cial intelligence, therefore it is neither a process of selection nor a product of selection
😵

And I for one am not convinced that the involvement of a sentient being would change the process into some new magical process that worked differently. You picking out your favorite color of smarties from a box is no different from a computer doing the same or some natural process that does the same. Even your decision making (choice) is a natural process entirely governed by the same laws of nature as the sand on the beach.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Thank you for the definition. I must point out though that I don't think that matches either the dictionary definition nor general usage, so you would be wise to mention your definition when you use it that way. Obviously in this discussion, I now know what you mean.

We could agree that selection is defined and understood mainly as:

The act or an instance of selecting or the fact of having been selected/ One that is selected/ A carefully chosen or representative collection of people or things/ A literary or musical text chosen for reading or performance etc/ Biology. A natural or artificial process that favors or induces survival and perpetuation of one kind of organism over others that die or fail to produce offspring.

So methinks I can deduce that the act of selection is indeed related with the act of the evaluation conducted by a sentient being.

The issue that remains now is how the “selection” is understood in Biology.

Originally posted by twhitehead
And I for one am not convinced that the involvement of a sentient being would change the process into some new magical process that worked differently. You picking out your favorite color of smarties from a box is no different from a computer doing the same or some natural process that does the same. Even your decision making (choice) is a natural process entirely governed by the same laws of nature as the sand on the beach.

According to Britannica: “In biology, selection is the preferential survival and reproduction or preferential elimination of individuals with certain genotypes, by means of natural or artificial controlling factors. The theory of evolution by natural selection was proposed by Charles Darwin and Alfred Russel Wallace in 1858. Artificial selection differs from natural selection in that inherited variations in a species are manipulated by humans through controlled breeding in order to create qualities economically or aesthetically desirable to humans, rather than useful to the organism in its natural environment.”

And Genetics Encyclopaedia quotes that “Selection is a process in which members of a population reproduce at different rates, due to either natural or human-influenced factors. The result of selection is that some characteristic is found in increasing numbers of organisms within the population as time goes on.”.

It seems to me that we cannot talk about “reproduction” when we are discussing about the formation of the galaxies, of the planets, of rocks, of metals, of grains of sand, of clouds etc, and neither can we discuss about “selection related with the act of the evaluation by a sentient being”. Therefore I conclude that there is no selection without evaluation, and evaluation per se is never a mindless process.

In addition, the involvement of a sentient being would indeed change the process: my favorite colour of smarties and your favorite one are not universal but personal, although I do not discard the probability that we could agree that we like the same colour. So I could pick the red ones and you could pick the green, and therefore our selection would be smarties of different colours -because of our different evaluation regarding the notion "favorite colour"
😵

Originally posted by black beetle
We could agree that selection is defined and understood mainly as:

The act or an instance of selecting or the fact of having been selected/ One that is selected/ A carefully chosen or representative collection of people or things/ A literary or musical text chosen for reading or performance etc/ Biology. A natural or artificial process that favors o ...[text shortened]... act of selection is indeed related with the act of the evaluation conducted by a sentient being.

I fully realize that a set of criteria is often implied when using the word 'selection' but it is not required that the criteria be special or motivated by a sentient being.
When I say "only a select few will make it", I am implying high standards as my criteria. But I could equally say "the machine selects a lottery ball at random" implying no criteria whatsoever and certainly zero input (in terms of choice) from a sentient being.
But note that even in the first example, where strict criteria are implied, there is no indication whatsoever that the criteria are chosen by sentient beings. For example "only a select few can survive the desert". Note that this phrase works equally well for humans, animals and even inanimate objects such as cars.

Originally posted by twhitehead
I fully realize that a set of criteria is often implied when using the word 'selection' but it is not required that the criteria be special or motivated by a sentient being.
When I say "only a select few will make it", I am implying high standards as my criteria. But I could equally say "the machine selects a lottery ball at random" implying no criteria ...[text shortened]... s phrase works equally well for humans, animals and even inanimate objects such as cars.

Edit: “I fully realize that a set of criteria is often implied when using the word 'selection' but it is not required that the criteria be special or motivated by a sentient being.”

We disagree; no evaluation, no selection.




Edit: “When I say "only a select few will make it", I am implying high standards as my criteria. But I could equally say "the machine selects a lottery ball at random" implying no criteria whatsoever and certainly zero input (in terms of choice) from a sentient being.”

No. The machine selects a Real lottery ball at random because, thanks to its software/ hardware (artificial intelligence, thus a substitute of the intelligence of its programmer and manufacturer), it evaluates that “it has to pick one ball amongst many” (specific given criteria) and proceeds accordingly. So there is indeed a set of criteria which are special and motivated by us.



Edit: “But note that even in the first example, where strict criteria are implied, there is no indication whatsoever that the criteria are chosen by sentient beings. For example "only a select few can survive the desert". Note that this phrase works equally well for humans, animals and even inanimate objects such as cars.”

And how are you able to declare that “only some selected sentient beings/ drivers with special cars can survive the desert”? This declaration is obviously a product of the evaluation of your mind regarding a probable outcome.
Also, the outcome itself is related solely to the reactions of each observer in the realm of reality: the given sentient beings and/ or the given drivers and their specially prepared for the desert cars that they will struggle at the given environment, they do not actually “select” to “make it” or “to fail”. All these observers are struggling to survive the desert either on their own (ie animals) or by means of their intelligence and of their cars (car drivers), and their decision making (that triggers specific reactions) is not a mindless procedure but a string of intelligent selections (by means of evaluation) of the seemingly best reactions amongst the probable many that are available
😵