18 Nov 09
Originally posted by Bosse de NageWell your carefully selected choice doesn't "yield the full sense of 'test'" either which is why the dictionary doesn't stop there. So why did you overlook the bits that were relevant to my claim? Why could you not see them even when I highlighted them in bold?
I 'carefully' took the first one as the most general, which it is. Unless you're implying that 'a test of an athlete's endurance' yields the full sense of 'test'. You can look up the definition of 'trial' yourself, it's just a synonym for 'test'.
But you still seem to assume, incorrectly, that the metaphorical and standard meanings of a word necessarily disagree, or that figurative speech is somehow banned from the dictionary. Whatever gave you that impression?
You are correct for once, I may be overlooking that aspect. However I still maintain that in the phrase 'test of endurance' there is an actual test and that it is not figurative speech.
18 Nov 09
Originally posted by twhiteheadThis false interpretation of yours about “selection”, “test”, “natural selection” etc is somehow similar to your false “just is” and “Math-Living Cell link (thus …computer)” approaches at the thread “Logic and Reason”!
That there is an analogy does not make one an analogy and the other not. Darwins wording makes it quite clear that nature does select, not that natures action is merely an analogy of selection.
Next you will be telling me that "nature preserves traits" is also analogy and that 'preserves' also requires intelligent input.
Do you see that 'nature preserve ...[text shortened]... neither is superior and nature most definitely does preserve trait. Same with selection.
Anyway, when Darwin states that “The term "natural selection" is in some respects a bad one, as it seems to imply conscious choice”, he obviously accepts that every kind/ act of selection implies conscious choice -otherwise he would not state that the term is “a bad one” and that the troublesome anthropomorphism of “selecting” should be avoided. In fact, this troublesome anthropomorphism of “selecting” is the reason why he said that the term “natural selection” is “in some respects a bad one”.
On the other hand, no linguist will ever tell you that the verb “preserve” requires in any case intelligent input (for example: Mercury has virtually no atmosphere and therefore its surface has preserved the craters produced by the impacts of the last planetesimals).
Finally, the phrase “nature preserves traits” is solely an analogy to “breeders preserve traits”. Nature does preserve traits but not the same way as the breeders (not consciously, therefore nature does not preserve traits by means of selecting but by means of “natural selecting” ). It ‘s quite clear: we people are preserving traits by means of selection (not a mindless process thanks to our evaluation), whilst “nature preserves traits” by means of “natural selection”, ie by means of Karma/ cause-effect alone (a mindless process). We select whilst the nature selects not
😵
18 Nov 09
Originally posted by twhiteheadWhen you obstinately refuse to acknowledge that not only Darwin but the good folk at Cambridge acknowledge that the phrase 'natural selection' is an analogy to 'selective breeding', and a poor one at that, you're doing what we here in the Spiritual Forum call "pulling a FreakyKBH".
That there is an analogy does not make one an analogy and the other not. Darwins wording makes it quite clear that nature does select, not that natures action is merely an analogy of selection.
Of course it is the phrase 'natural selection' that is analogous and anthropomorphic, not the facts of evolution, insofar as we understand them. Hence the validity of Darwin's theory is not affected by his choice of analogy. Does that comfort you?
18 Nov 09
3 edits
Originally posted by twhiteheadIt does, because it conveys the core meaning of the word, with the examples you selected being metaphorical extensions of the core meaning. That's why I ignored your examples: because they don't say anything different. Or do you think that the examples you cite somehow differ from the core meaning of the word, that they have a special, separate meaning?
Well your carefully selected choice doesn't "yield the full sense of 'test'" either which is why the dictionary doesn't stop there. So why did you overlook the bits that were relevant to my claim? Why could you not see them even when I highlighted them in bold?
But you still seem to assume, incorrectly, that the metaphorical and standard meanings of phrase 'test of endurance' there is an actual test and that it is not figurative speech.
The Princeton definition, if you trouble to read through it, does a better job of defining the shades of meaning conveyed by 'test' than the original definition I supplied, going from the core meaning down to the figurative meaning.
'Test of endurance'. Here's where you're going wrong. A test, being 'the act of testing' (Princeton), implies a tester. What is testing the athlete? The race. Is it really a test devised by a tester? It could be, in which case 'test' is used literally. Alternatively, and figuratively, the race tests the athlete's endurance in the same way that you are testing my patience, by placing extraordinary demands on it. (Of course, I have no way of knowing that you are not actually testing my patience, for some reason I cannot conceive.)
Preservation, on the other hand, does not imply a preserver but a preservative. Animals wandered into tarpits by accident and their remains are preserved to this day. I have no quibble with that.
Have we done?
19 Nov 09
Originally posted by black beetleCall it false all you like, neither you nor bosse have been able to back up your claims, and your failed attempts to do so get more an more embarrassing. Bosse even presented a dictionary definition that disgreed with him!
This false interpretation of yours about “selection”, “test”, “natural selection” etc is somehow similar to your false “just is” and “Math-Living Cell link (thus …computer)” approaches at the thread “Logic and Reason”!
Anyway, when Darwin states that “The term "natural selection" is in some respects a bad one, as it seems to imply conscious choice”, he obviously accepts that every kind/ act of selection implies conscious choice -otherwise he would not state that the term is “a bad one” and that the troublesome anthropomorphism of “selecting” should be avoided.
You see what I mean by 'failed attempts'? First you say Darwin says 'it seems to imply' then you interpret that as 'obviously accepts that every kind/ act'. You don't understand the most basic English. What does the word 'seems' mean?
19 Nov 09
Originally posted by black beetleYour whole argument here relies on your own definition of 'selection' which I have already shown is not the standard dictionary definition.
On the other hand, no linguist will ever tell you that the verb “preserve” requires in any case intelligent input (for example: Mercury has virtually no atmosphere and therefore its surface has preserved the craters produced by the impacts of the last planetesimals).
Finally, the phrase “nature preserves traits” is solely an analogy to “breeders pres ...[text shortened]... s of Karma/ cause-effect alone (a mindless process). We select whilst the nature selects not
😵
19 Nov 09
Originally posted by Bosse de NageCall it what you like, that proves nothing. I realize that we are not understanding each other on some points, but I am genuinely serious. I do see and acknowledge the analogy, what I disagree about is whether it is solely an analogy ie whether the word 'selection' is used solely to draw an analogy, and I think Darwin makes it clear that it is not. He quite clearly states that nature makes a selection - if it was solely an analogy he would have used another word there.
When you obstinately refuse to acknowledge that not only Darwin but the good folk at Cambridge acknowledge that the phrase 'natural selection' is an analogy to 'selective breeding', and a poor one at that, you're doing what we here in the Spiritual Forum call "pulling a FreakyKBH".
19 Nov 09
Originally posted by twhitehead"It seems" means "to appear to the observation or understanding/ to give the impression of being". So the term "natural selection" gives the impression that "the nature actually selects" (and we select solely after evaluation, because selection is not a mindless process), but this is not the case over here because it is not "selection" the action that takes place. This is the reason why Darwin said that the term "natural selection" is in some respects a bad one As it Gives The Impression That Implies Conscious Choice Whilst In Fact Nothing Implies Concious Choice -and since a concious choice is not implied it is false to use the noun "selection" due to the fact that the anthropomorphism of “selecting” is troublesome, thus causes vexation and therefore is problematic, thus false
Call it false all you like, neither you nor bosse have been able to back up your claims, and your failed attempts to do so get more an more embarrassing. Bosse even presented a dictionary definition that disgreed with him!
[b]Anyway, when Darwin states that “The term "natural selection" is in some respects a bad one, as it seems to imply conscious choi ...[text shortened]... / act'. You don't understand the most basic English. What does the word 'seems' mean?
😵
19 Nov 09
Originally posted by black beetleThere is no point continuing the discussion. What seems to be plain and obvious English to me, you interpret totally differently. I don't know if you are just trying to be right or whether you actually believe what you say. All I can say is that the English as I understand it (and it is my mother tongue) leaves no doubt that Darwin believed there was selection taking place.
"It seems" means "to appear to the observation or understanding/ to give the impression of being". So the term "natural selection" gives the impression that "the nature actually selects" (and we select solely after evaluation, because selection is not a mindless process), but this is not the case over here because it is not "selection" the action that t ...[text shortened]... is troublesome, thus causes vexation and therefore is problematic, thus false
😵
19 Nov 09
Originally posted by twhiteheadEnglish is not my native language, however Greek is, and the same explanation I offered along with Bosse de Nage about the meaning of "select/ selection/ natural selection" is accurate, identical to the meaning of the Greek verb "epilego" (select), the Greek noun "epilogi" (selection) and the term "phisiki epilogi" (natural selection) and accepted in full by the Greek linguists and philologists. The notion "natural selection" is merely a metaphor.
There is no point continuing the discussion. What seems to be plain and obvious English to me, you interpret totally differently. I don't know if you are just trying to be right or whether you actually believe what you say. All I can say is that the English as I understand it (and it is my mother tongue) leaves no doubt that Darwin believed there was selection taking place.
I 'm absolutely sure that your interpretation is false; since you are not convinced that you are commiting an error, kindly please apply in person to a native English speaking philologist/ linguist for further comments regarding this matter
😵
19 Nov 09
1 edit
Originally posted by black beetleBut what do you mean when you say 'merely a metaphor'? Surely, since it has been in use for so long it is now standard English? It is even in the dictionary. It may have started as a metaphor for something else (though we disagree about exactly how) but today it is one of the standard meanings of the word.
The notion "natural selection" is merely a metaphor.
For example when bosse said:
'Testing' and 'found wanting' here are dead metaphors. There is no actual testing or evaluation.
What does he mean by 'actual testing' when the dictionary lists the word 'test' as meaning among others exactly what I said?
Is the 'actual' meaning of words what it was 200 years ago, 2000 years ago, what it meant in the language it was taken from? Should we be going into the etymology of words? Clearly your understanding of the words is not based on the English meaning but what you believe is the Greek equivalent. But why does your understanding of the Greek trump my understanding of the English? Where did the Greek get the word from? Can I trump you with my Ancient Egyptian?
We are not discussing the etymology of words we are discussing current English meaning and my claim from the start has been that 'selection' as currently used in the English language does not imply intelligence and I have given a number of examples to demonstrate it.
19 Nov 09
Originally posted by twhiteheadI select! I make a selection/ I choose/ I decide/ I elect/ I exercise choice/ I go for/ I mark/ I pick/ I prefer/ I take/ I single out/ I pick out/ I prefer from among choices/ I cull/ I mark/ I name/ I opt/ I opt for/ I optate/ I peg/ I pin down/ I slot/ I sort out -you can spot these synonyms in any dictionary.
But what do you mean when you say 'merely a metaphor'? Surely, since it has been in use for so long it is now standard English? It is even in the dictionary. It may have started as a metaphor for something else (though we disagree about exactly how) but today it is one of the standard meanings of the word.
For example when bosse said:
[b]'Testing' and ...[text shortened]... es not imply intelligence and I have given a number of examples to demonstrate it.
Definately I make a selection solely by means of evaluation -I cannot select without evaluation. The desert, the nature, the wild, a diamond ring, a mountain and a chunk of wood cannot select and test and evaluate etc due to the fact that they have no consciousness.
So, when I say that the term "natural selection" in Biology is merely a metaphor, I mean there is no selection at all that takes place. We are in front of a process in nature by which, according to Darwin's theory of evolution, only the organisms best adapted to their environment tend to survive and transmit their genetic characteristics in increasing numbers to succeeding generations while those less adapted tend to be eliminated. Darwin said that from the living organisms Only A Selected Few Tend To Survive -but the "selected" over here is not indeed a product of a selection but a Metaphor (he should have offer the word "fittest", that is, in order to be accurate). Indeed, from the living organisms Only The Fittest Tend To Survive, and this is achieved by means of Karma/ cause-effect alone and not by means of selection, which has nothing to do with the term in Biology "natural selection", which according to Darwin is in some respects a bad one As it Gives The Impression That Implies Conscious Choice Whilst In Fact Nothing Implies Concious Choice etc etc.
So my understanding of the words is based strictly on the English meaning of select/ selection/ natural selection, which in this case is identical to the Greek
verb “epilego” (verb select)/ n. “epilogi” (n. selection)/ term in Biology “phisiki epilogi” (natural selection).
Furthermore, my understanding of the Greek must be identical to your understanding of English -otherwise a communication is impossible. And we have plenty of accurate techniques that enable our communication: every decent translator/ linguist/ philologist whose mother language is English and/ or Greek will assure you that your interpretation is false. Check it out!
Finally, the Greek term “phisiki epilogi” is used solely in Biology and is the translation of the term “natural selection”, therefore this definition is acknowledged as different than the common meaning of the n. “epilogi” (n. selection), therefore we are aware of the fact that “phisiki epilogi” is merely “the survival of the fittest” and thus a result of cause-effect alone instead of believing that it is a result of a selection per se conducted by the nature/ by the wild.
May all beings be happy😵
19 Nov 09
Originally posted by black beetleYet I provided plenty of counter phrases that you were unable to address. Even here you take care to add 'I' to your phrase to try and make a connection to your consciousness. If anything you have taken one particular use of the word 'select' and tried to make it look universal. Besides, even in this case I disagree that making a selection is equivalent to making a choice - hence the different word. In the phrase 'making a selection' the choice is implied, but the action of selecting comes after the choice. The actual selection involves no choice.
I select! I make a selection/ I choose/ I decide/ I elect/ I exercise choice/ I go for/ I mark/ I pick/ I prefer/ I take/ I single out/ I pick out/ I prefer from among choices/ I cull/ I mark/ I name/ I opt/ I opt for/ I optate/ I peg/ I pin down/ I slot/ I sort out -you can spot these synonyms in any dictionary.
Definately I make a selection solely by ...[text shortened]... of wood cannot select and test and evaluate etc due to the fact that they have no consciousness.
So my understanding of the words is based strictly on the English meaning of select/ selection/ natural selection, which in this case is identical to the Greek
verb “epilego” (verb select)/ n. “epilogi” (n. selection)/ term in Biology “phisiki epilogi” (natural selection).
And I disagree, they are apparently not equivalent (though I don't know Greek).
Furthermore, my understanding of the Greek must be identical to your understanding of English -otherwise a communication is impossible.
It does seem that communication is impossible. Your argument is Greek to me.
And we have plenty of accurate techniques that enable our communication: every decent translator/ linguist/ philologist whose mother language is English and/ or Greek will assure you that your interpretation is false. Check it out!
Can you present one other than yourself?
Ultimately of course choice is an illusion - destroying your whole argument.