Evolution

Originally posted by twhitehead
Yet 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 t ...[text shortened]... yourself?

Ultimately of course choice is an illusion - destroying your whole argument.

Never mind😵

Originally posted by twhitehead
Yet 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 t ...[text shortened]... yourself?

Ultimately of course choice is an illusion - destroying your whole argument.

Edit: “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.”


There is no selection without a choice before the actual selection, therefore the actual selection takes actually place solely because there is a given choice amongst many and because this given choice must be manifested in the physical world. Since the choice is definitely implied in the phrase “making a selection”, you end up with the false conclusion that, for one, a choice is conducted from an entity that has no consciousness at all (nature) and, for two, that this lifeless entity makes mechanically the actual selection. Do you think also that a diamond ring and a rock and a chunk of wood make selections? Or do you think that the life formations choose to transmit their genetic characteristics in increasing numbers to succeeding generations, whilst those less adapted choose to be eliminated?

Whatever you call over here “selection” is “natural selection”, ie it is solely the result of the interaction of the countless formations of life with each other and with the environment. The fittest formations of life survive and the less fit die -no selection. Ultimately of course “choice” is alien to this procedure and therefore there is no actual selection that takes place after a choice. The nature does not say “this formation of life will die, that formation of life will live”, therefore it does not make selections. The nature is plainly indifferent. The term in Biology “natural selection” is used as a metaphor by Darwin for his convenience (and for the testing of the patience of Bosse de Nage and of this miserable atheist black beetle)
😵

Originally posted by twhitehead
Your whole argument here relies on your own definition of 'selection' which I have already shown is not the standard dictionary definition.

You have done nothing of the sort.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Call 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 qui ...[text shortened]... nature makes a selection - if it was solely an analogy he would have used another word there.

We've already been over this.

Maybe you could humour me and answer one question: what's at stake? If Darwin used 'natural selection' as an analogy and later said his choice of words was poor -- so what?

Originally posted by twhitehead

It does seem that communication is impossible. Your argument is Greek to me.

It's the same as mine, and English is my mother tongue 😲

Originally posted by twhitehead

Ultimately of course choice is an illusion - destroying your whole argument.

This afternoon I was in two minds as to whether I should drink a beer that could have been colder; in the end I chose to drink it. Where's the illusion?

Originally posted by twhitehead

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.

If that's the case then Darwin's Victorian usage is beside the point 😛

Originally posted by twhitehead
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!

Only in to your idiosyncratic view, which conveniently ignores figurative language. Just because people aren't aware that they are using figurative language doesn't magically remove the figurative aspects from it, you know.

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
Maybe you could humour me and answer one question: what's at stake? If Darwin used 'natural selection' as an analogy and later said his choice of words was poor -- so what?

Nothing is at stake. I don't really care one way or the other. I am sure Darwin did use it as an analogy as he said so himself. But that is not equivalent to saying 'selection' is purely an analogy in this case. Darwin also made it clear that nature does select.
I am convinced that the word selection as used in that context does not veer from standard usage and that under standard usage the word does not always imply choice and does not always imply an intelligent agency. I am further convinced that Black beetle has missed the subtleties in the meaning of the word and thinks it means something quite different from what it actually means.
I understand selection to be a process whereby items from a set are matched against a criteria and then put in a subset. This often does imply a choice of criteria, it often does imply a conscious entity making the choice, and it does often imply an evaluation of the set members to see if they match the criteria, but in every single instance of the word, it does not directly refer to either the choice or the conscious entity but rather the mindless process of matching. I have further given a number of instances where only the process is being referred to. Black beetle seems to incorrectly believe that the word refers to conscious choice.

But as I said, I don't really care so we can all continue believing what we like and using it how we like.

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
This afternoon I was in two minds as to whether I should drink a beer that could have been colder; in the end I chose to drink it. Where's the illusion?

What was different between the process that lead to you drinking beer and what black beetle calls "Karma/ cause-effect"?
There is no real difference between your brain and a computer.
I realize you are conscious and computers are not, but I am willing to bet that your consciousness really had little or no effect on your decision to drink a beer.

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
Only in to your idiosyncratic view, which conveniently ignores figurative language. Just because people aren't aware that they are using figurative language doesn't magically remove the figurative aspects from it, you know.

But who is to say what is 'figurative' usage and what is 'core meaning' or 'ordinary sense'? If people are unaware that they are using figurative language then it ceases to be figurative language and becomes 'core meaning'. So to answer your question, yes, it does magically remove the figurative aspects from it. That is how language works. There are no 'true meanings' to words.

Originally posted by twhitehead
What was different between the process that lead to you drinking beer and what black beetle calls "Karma/ cause-effect"?
There is no real difference between your brain and a computer.
I realize you are conscious and computers are not, but I am willing to bet that your consciousness really had little or no effect on your decision to drink a beer.

That doesn't answer the question at all.

The decision was whether to drink a beer that was not cold enough, or not. I could have chosen not to, but in the end I did.

Earlier I stopped at a place off Thibault Square that looked quite inviting. Unfortunately, they only served Peroni. I chose not to drink -- I made a negative selection of -- Peroni -- or did I?

Originally posted by twhitehead
But who is to say what is 'figurative' usage and what is 'core meaning' or 'ordinary sense'? If people are unaware that they are using figurative language then it ceases to be figurative language and becomes 'core meaning'. So to answer your question, yes, it does magically remove the figurative aspects from it. That is how language works. There are no 'true meanings' to words.

You're in linguistic la-la land, pal. Have fun!

Originally posted by twhitehead
Nothing is at stake. I don't really care one way or the other. I am sure Darwin did use it as an analogy as he said so himself. But that is not equivalent to saying 'selection' is purely an analogy in this case. Darwin also made it clear that nature does select.
I am convinced that the word selection as used in that context does not veer from standard us ...[text shortened]... I don't really care so we can all continue believing what we like and using it how we like.

Fine.

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
That doesn't answer the question at all.

I didn't think it would. Black beetle is suggesting that there is something magical and special about anything that is living. There isn't. He initially limited it to conscious beings then expanded it to include plants. Can a plant choose what beer to drink?