Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [evol-psych] Re: Gene-damaged Dawkins? Alzheimer's?

Expand Messages
  • Peter
    ... Vernor Vinge is worth checking out Phil. http://mindstalk.net/vinge/vinge-sing.html Then of course there is my humble effort, that is roughly in the same
    Message 1 of 39 , Nov 1, 2012
    • 0 Attachment
      On 31/10/12 13:21, Phil Roberts, Jr. wrote:

      >
      > I think Teilhard de Chardin had an interesting take on this god business,
      > with his postulation of an omega point at which evolution reaches a
      > point that for all practical purposes the beings which result could
      > be viewed as god-like from our perspective. And assuming that enough
      > time has elapsed for this to have already happened, Voila!, there
      > you have it. There are also interesting speculations on how such
      > beings would have merged into a single entity as well as interesting
      > speculations as to why this being has not made its presence known,
      > but I digress. :)
      >
      > PR

      Vernor Vinge is worth checking out Phil.

      http://mindstalk.net/vinge/vinge-sing.html

      Then of course there is my humble effort, that is roughly in the same
      ballpark as well.

      http://dollyknot.com/nonlinear/Abstract.html

      Regards,

      Peter.
    • Don Zimmerman
      ... DWZ: It could well be that there are cosmological questions to which science will never find the answer. I am agnostic about that too! But we have to be
      Message 39 of 39 , Nov 1, 2012
      • 0 Attachment
        --- In evolutionary-psychology@yahoogroups.com, Joao Sousa <j.d.sousa@...> wrote:

        > These positions are very sensible, I share them. I only note that
        > probably it will never be possible to truly scrutinize or test many
        > of the hypotheses you refer. Or perhaps the "tests" will be limited
        > to put a supercomputer working with such models and attribute scores
        > of Simplicity or Parsimony (or whatever other evaluative measurement)
        > and then, let us proclaim we accept the simplest and most
        > parsimonious cosmological model. It's more or less like the GUTs of
        > modern physics: there will be probably several viable GUTs and we
        > will run short of ammunition to really test between them.


        DWZ:
        It could well be that there are cosmological questions to which science will never find the answer. I am agnostic about that too! But we have to be cautious about assuming that anything is unanswerable or can't be done, given the historical record of scientific successes in spite of recurrent skepticism that the next big problem is just too difficult!

        Best regards,

        Donald W. Zimmerman
        Vancouver, BC, Canada
        dwzimm@...
        http://www3.telus.net/public/a7a82899
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.