HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: windsphire@wizard.colorado.edu
Subject: Re: Evolutionary Epistemology
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: 3 Sep 92 16:07:08 MST

In article <Bu01JK.C4y@unx.sas.com>, sasghm@theseus.unx.sas.com (Gary Merrill) writes:

> long in summary form).  If you are tempted to defend a theory of
> evolutionary epistemology, keep in mind that you must specify the
> *mechanism of inheritance* and draw a detailed analogy to the role
> of the gene.  Remember:  genes split and do other odd things.
> Genes have *parts* that then become *parts* of the newly formed
> gene after reproduction.  Randomness plays quite a role in mutation.

I think you can defend evolutionary epistemology without using
genetic models as the sole criteria for what phenomenon is can be 
usefully thought of as 'evolutionary'. Genetics can be seen as a specific
instance of evolutionary theory, not the de facto criteria for using
the term. I wouldn't say the nature of a system had to 
conform to the rules of blackjack in order to be probabilistic!

Evolution theory implies an 'arrow of time'. This I think this is its 
essential point. Note that most other deterministic models do not
make such distinctions. There is no *necessary* direction of time in
Newtonian, Einsteinian or Quantum physics. There does appear to be
directional time in entropy, evolution, etc. Both the evolution,
in a genetic sense, and the development of ideas, in an epistemological
sense, participate in some underlying pinions of phenomenon which 
changes within constraints, seemingly linearly in time.
   
The problem with the analogy to genetics, are merely artifacts of
instantiating too closely with a single representation of an underlying
mechanism. Besides, I've seen memetic arguments that easily draw
correspondences to mechanisms of inheritence, mutation, randomness and
parts of parts. Look at this thread for example.

	-Windsphire

Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.meta
From: daniel@vtserf.cc.vt.edu (Daniel Kranowski)
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.meta
Subject: Re: Evolutionary evolutionary
Date: 4 Sep 92 15:58:44 GMT
Organization: Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, VA


The topic of evolutionary epistemology is just dripping with the juice
of interesting ideas, but since I haven't read anything about it before
this thread, I have a request and a question: could the knowledgeable 
parties post some specific examples of how scientific disciplines have 
evolved?  (Or is the topic purely theoretical at this era?)  Also, does 
evolutionary epistemology concern how an idea changes, or how thinking 
changes, or both?

thanks,
Daniel Kranowski
email: daniel@vtserf.cc.vt.edu (soon to be defunct)

Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.meta
From: windsphire@wizard.colorado.edu
Subject: Re: Evolutionary Epistemology
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: 1 Sep 92 16:57:20 MST

Gary, 

> The term "evolutionary epistemology" has quite a technical sense in
> contemporary philosophy.  I do not think Teillhard DeChardin would
> be particularly relevant to this, but he might be worth looking at for
> another perspective on the concept of evolution.  Some of the primary
> criticisms of evolutionary episteomolgy (as I recall) center around
> the looseness of the analogy to current evolutionary theory and
> (in particular) to the role genetics plays in that.  What is the unit
> of selection?  What is the mechanism of transmission?  Etc.  Critics

I'm not current on the technical contexts of this term, but, why not
memes as the unit of selection? Granted, you may have to do some 
refinement on what constitutes an atomic meme, but it seems proponents
of memetics have mapped out some interesting corrollaries. For this
perspective, Gregory Bateson is a good introductory tangent. I found
his work useful on an individual level, scaling it to the macrocosm
of societal and cultural agendas would be an interesting exercise. 
Some of his concepts of in _Ecology of Mind_ are implicit in psychological
theories like cognitive dissonance, and the role of attention in theories
of modern cognitive psych. (if you allow attention to be a scarce resource
-some days more than others- that memes compete for within the constraints
of their environments). Symbiotic memes, parasitical memes? You bet! 

Mechanism of transmission...a trivial answer would be communication. More
interesting are the way some memes move through the population as if they
were 'extra' dimensional structures passing through an informational plane.
(Visualize a cone passing through a plane... starting as a point, in a 
few individual minds -mixing metaphors shamelessly- and radiating out into
a circumverence, or vortex ... esp. interesting it is a more complex shape,
which could modulate across this surface for a few decades (centuries?)). 

In any case, it seems these constructs could provide ample heuristics for
exploring analogic resonances with evolution theory. 

> nowadays is that you can't simply gesture in the direction of
> Darwin and mutter things about "selection", "survival", and
> "fitness".  The roots of genetics and molecular biology run deep
> under the current theory

Perhaps this too was just a 'gesture in the direction' of evolution
(I like your wording), but I think they're are some facets that could
spark various pragmatic research programmes. Indeed, it is interesting
to look at the implicit metaphors that underly epistemology (Shades of
Zeno)... one of which seems to be: all epistemology stands in some
relation to 'the myth of things as they actually are'.

		-Windsphire
From: kbrooks@ut-emx.uucp (kevin brooks)
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.meta
Subject: Re: Objectivism/Existence
Summary: small point
Date: 1 Sep 92 00:52:47 GMT
Organization: The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas

In article <l9q63nINNriv@appserv.Eng.Sun.COM>, danoc@earlybird.Eng.Sun.COM (Dan O'Connell [CONTRACTOR]) writes:
> (Daniel Kranowski) writes:
>  
[deleted a bunch of stuff, some of it tried to locate _a priori_ knowledge
 in genetic material -- ahh, the search for origins continues!]
> 
> Another example would be the paintings of Matisse, where in 
> one instances he makes the point that a representation of
> a thing is not the thing itself; i.e, a picture of a 
> pipe with the words "This is not a pipe."

Matisse in fact operates "against" representation to the extent that in his
paintings the surface of the work is given a ceratin amount of priority over
the "subject" of the "representation."  This "anti-classically-mimetic" gesture 
is never more clear than in his cut-outs made during the 1950's.  There, figure
and "thing" are united in a rather startling way.  The figures within the picture are no longer made by drawing them -- representing them, but rather by 
cutting them directly -- thus, actually _making_ them.

Magritte on the other hand is the artist responsible for _This Is Not a Pipe_.
Foucault is the philosopher who wrote an essay about problems posed by the
painter's work. 

The problem of the difference between world and representation is an old one.
See, for example, Plato's Republic and its treatment of mimesis.  

Kevin Brooks


[deleted more stuff, including a quote from Ayn Rand -- an important thinker] >  
> Dano
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.meta,sci.philosophy.tech
From: sasghm@theseus.unx.sas.com (Gary Merrill)
Subject: Re: Evolutionary Epistemology
Originator: sasghm@theseus.unx.sas.com
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 12:40:17 GMT
Organization: SAS Institute Inc.


In article <dyfl.715236462@munagin>, dyfl@mullian.ee.mu.OZ.AU (Daniel Y Lam) writes:
|> Can the philosophers out there enlighten me regarding the current
|> status and state of research in evolutionary epistemology, as
|> advocated by Popper, Bartley, Campbell, et al?
|> 
|> The theory appears very attractive to me, especially when applied to
|> the philosophy of science; it allows us to give up justificationism
|> without going all the way to relativism.
|> 
|> --
|> 	Daniel Lam
|> 	Melbourne, Australia
|> 
|> In my opinion, the opinions expressed here are my personal opinions.

My wife's dissertation was on this subject (under David Hull, Arthur
Fine, and Paul Teller).  I can probably provide something of a partial
bibliography.  She beat up on the whole idea pretty violently, though
it does not seem to have affected Hull's view much.
-- 
Gary H. Merrill  [Principal Systems Developer, C Compiler Development]
SAS Institute Inc. / SAS Campus Dr. / Cary, NC  27513 / (919) 677-8000
sasghm@theseus.unx.sas.com ... !mcnc!sas!sasghm
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.meta
From: vincent@reg.triumf.ca (pete)
Subject: Objectivists
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: dept. of theophysics and cosmogyny
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 22:44:00 GMT

Ah, autumn. The days grow shorter, the leaves turn colour,
and the young objectivists return to their keyboards...



===========================================================================
                                                      Pete Vincent
From: burt@aupair.cs.athabascau.ca (Burt Voorhees)
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.meta
Subject: Re: WHAT IS LOVE?
Date: 27 Aug 92 17:13:57 GMT
Article-I.D.: aupair.burt.714935637
Distribution: inet


  Fun topic.  I've always gone with a definition given by Oscar Ichazo:
"Love is that which recognizes its equal in another" or, "Love is the
recognition of the same consciousness in another as in oneself."  It seems
to me that all other forms which we call love are just our own particular
reactions to an underlying experience of recognition.  Or, on the dark
side, our own particular attempts to deny a recognition.
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.meta
From: kalter@unh.edu
Subject: Re: proper use of terms misused by newagers
Organization: University of New Hampshire  -  Durham, NH
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 08:28:32 GMT

Every time you turn around, holistic this, holistic that, holistic donuts
even.  Sheesh.  This is a _philosophy_ group, yes,?  Drop the buzzwords
for a minute and turn to your Encyclopedia of Philosophy for information
on the school of PHILOSOPHICAL HOLISM.  You heard right; that's 'holism'
without the 'ick'.  It is a specific school of thought as distinct as
Objectivism, Pragmatism, etc, and having nothing to do with 'quantum'
anything or the Cosmic All or respect for nature or loving kindness.

You don't hear much about it these days because it got rather thoroughly
discredited within a decade or two of its introduction.  Had to do with
the founder's inability to state whether any particular class of things
formed a 'whole' or not.  It soon became clear that the doctrine
contained no testable propositions and had no consequences.  Some of
its jargon has been revived by the New Age, e.g. 'holistic' is now
a variation on 'gestalt', in the general area of trans- & a- rationality.

Would like to hear more from the hist-of-phil folks out there on the
history of the adoption of interconnectedness themes into modern pop
mysticism, especially holistics and 'intuitive' ideolojies. :-)
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.meta,sci.philosophy.tech
From: onstott@a.cs.okstate.edu (ONSTOTT CHARLES OR)
Subject: Re: Evolutionary Epistemology
Organization: Oklahoma State University
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 92 21:24:33 GMT

From article <BtwH2p.3xs@unx.sas.com>, by sasghm@theseus.unx.sas.com (Gary Merrill):
> 
> In article <1992Sep1.034101.2490@a.cs.okstate.edu>, onstott@a.cs.okstate.edu (ONSTOTT CHARLES OR) writes:
> |> From article <dyfl.715236462@munagin>, by dyfl@mullian.ee.mu.OZ.AU (Daniel Y Lam):
> |> > Can the philosophers out there enlighten me regarding the current
> |> > status and state of research in evolutionary epistemology, as
> |> > advocated by Popper, Bartley, Campbell, et al?
> |> 
> |> 
> |>   I would recommend the writings of Pierre Teillhard DeChardin if
> |> you are interested in "spiritual" evolution, which would, under
> |> DeChardin's system, include epistemology.  In particular, see
> |> _The Divine Millieu_.  Although he is not current, it may add another
> |> aspect to your researches.
> 
> The term "evolutionary epistemology" has quite a technical sense in
> contemporary philosophy.  I do not think Teillhard DeChardin would
> be particularly relevant to this, but he might be worth looking at for
> another perspective on the concept of evolution.  Some of the primary
> criticisms of evolutionary episteomolgy (as I recall) center around
> the looseness of the analogy to current evolutionary theory and
> (in particular) to the role genetics plays in that.  What is the unit
> of selection?  What is the mechanism of transmission?  Etc.  Critics
> feel that "evolutionary epistemology" simply turns out to be vague
> metaphor offering little, if any, explanatory value or enlightenment.
> The problem with appealing via analogy to evolutionary theory
> nowadays is that you can't simply gesture in the direction of
> Darwin and mutter things about "selection", "survival", and
> "fitness".  The roots of genetics and molecular biology run deep
> under the current theory

  I suggested DeChardin with the same looseness as one might recommend
Popper as an "evolutionary epistemologist."  On the other, I would
be interested to hear what the technical definition of "evolutionary
epistemology" is.

> -- 
> Gary H. Merrill  [Principal Systems Developer, C Compiler Development]
> SAS Institute Inc. / SAS Campus Dr. / Cary, NC  27513 / (919) 677-8000
> sasghm@theseus.unx.sas.com ... !mcnc!sas!sasghm

BCnya,
  Charles O. Onstott, III

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Charles O. Onstott, III  Account at Oklahoma State University for summer.
Graduate Student in Religious Studies           onstott@a.cs.okstate.edu
University of Chicago
------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: jgn@vixen.uucp (22122-niederberger)
Subject: Re: WHAT IS LOVE?
Organization: Bellcore, Livingston, NJ
Distribution: inet
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 92 17:47:37 GMT

Don't ask what love is; be what love is.

Love conquers all things: let us too give in to love.
Virgil

Peace,

Joe N.
From: danoc@earlybird.Eng.Sun.COM (Dan O'Connell [CONTRACTOR])
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.meta
Subject: Re: WHAT IS LOVE?
Date: 4 Sep 1992 19:04:41 GMT
Organization: Subvert the Dominant Paradigm, Inc.
NNTP-Posting-Host: earlybird

CBURMAN@finabo.abo.fi () writes:

 Yes, but here's the tricky one: _why_ are we tempted - almost compelled - 
 to think there must be some entity 'love'? Why does our familiarity with the 
 use of the word lead us into temptation?

I think because we have all experienced the complex of 
feelings/emotions of "love". The term "love" is useful
because it is a sign of reference to what we refer to.

"Love" exists, even though commonly used words for its
expression may be vague enough to be more confusing
than helpful.

 Another tricky one: If there is some mystery about love, and
 if it isn't of the kind that can be cleared up by answering
 the question, What is love?, then - of what kind is it?
 
One would have to ask: What mystery are you referring to?
 
Dano
From: epfaith@sunkist.berkeley.edu (Edward Paul Faith)
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.meta
Subject: Re: WHAT IS LOVE?
Date: 28 Aug 1992 04:03:27 GMT
Organization: U.C. Berkeley Math. Department.
Distribution: inet
NNTP-Posting-Host: sunkist.berkeley.edu

What is a feeling?  It seems to me that a feeling is something that
happens in a moment of awareness.  But love persists even when
a person has his mind distracted by other matters.  I still love
whomever I love even when I am shopping, and thinking about
how many space-potatos to buy.
From: exukjb@exu.ericsson.se (ken bell)
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.meta
Subject: Re: WHAT IS LOVE?
Date: 27 Aug 92 18:33:10 GMT
Organization: Ericsson Network Systems, Inc.

In article <l9q57hINNrga@appserv.Eng.Sun.COM> danoc@earlybird.Eng.Sun.COM (Dan O'Connell [CONTRACTOR]) writes:
>From: danoc@earlybird.Eng.Sun.COM (Dan O'Connell [CONTRACTOR])
>Subject: Re: WHAT IS LOVE?
>Date: 27 Aug 1992 17:46:25 GMT

>(ken bell) writes:

> I think it is very dangerous to equate love with feelings, of however a 
> a noble kind. For feelings are evanescent, while love (I'm in one of those 
> moods) is usually thought to be something stable and a stablizing influence 
> on humankind.

>That's interesting. If Love isn't a feeling which informs 
>one's existence, actions and response, what is it? How
>could Love not be a feeling?

>Dano

Well, love certainly gives rise to feelings and is often accompanied by 
them, but I don't think they are the essence of it; nor need love diminish 
when feelings wane.  Feelings may bring you to the point where you can 
begin to love and experience its joys; but mature and authentic love, I want 
to say, isn't dependent upon the feelings.  Consider the feelings associated 
with 'falling in love'. It is the feelings that lead us to do whatever must 
be done to win the beloved's affections; but once won, the mere feelings 
alone cannot perpetuate the love relationship. 

Granted, then, they are (or may be) necessary; they are not sufficient.  
 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kenny Bell                          *        Welcome to Mind Wars
Ericsson Network Systems, Inc       *        Abstract Arts BBS 386-7907
P.O. Box 833875                     *        Severity with oneself is heroism.
Richardson, TX 75083-3875           *        --A.G.Sertillanges (France, 1943)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.meta
From: denmckinnon@halls1.cc.monash.edu.au (NEIL MCKINNON)
Subject: Re: Paper topic help.
Organization: Halls of Residence, Monash University 
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 14:35:53 GMT

In article <BtK288.H9I@unx.sas.com> sasghm@theseus.unx.sas.com (Gary Merrill) writes:
>From: sasghm@theseus.unx.sas.com (Gary Merrill)
>Subject: Re: Paper topic help.
>Date: Tue, 25 Aug 1992 20:00:08 GMT


>In article <Brennan.J.Murphy.53-250892124728@hesmac20.hesburgh.lab.nd.edu>, Brennan.J.Murphy.53@nd.edu (Brennan J. Murphy) writes:
>|> I am a Junior Philosophy major at the University of Notre Dame.  In my
>|> Metaphysics 424 classs, I am required to to write 2 8-10 page papers
>|> dealing with any aspect of metaphysics. There are 3 restrictions: 1)the
>|> papers have t be about Metaphysics, 2) they have to be original papers and
>|> 3) they have to be not merely descriptive but critical.
>|> Can anyone offer suggestions as to what would be an interesting topic and
>|> where I can find background information on the topic?  I am interested in
>|> Alvin Plantinga's work and as of now I would like to focus on some of the
>|> questions he deals with.
>|> Thanks for your help,
>|> Brennan

Hi Brennan,

Tried to mail you, but I don't think the message got through.  I am doing a 
paper on backward causation at the moment.  This is by no means a big issue 
in metaphysics, but I find it interesting.  Basically, the question is 
whether it is logically possible for an effect precede its cause in time.  
If this sounds vaguely interesting to you, I would be happy to send you a 
reading list.

Good luck, anyway.

Neil.
From: danoc@earlybird.Eng.Sun.COM (Dan O'Connell [CONTRACTOR])
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.meta
Subject: Re: WHAT IS LOVE?
Date: 4 Sep 1992 19:33:26 GMT
Organization: Subvert the Dominant Paradigm, Inc.
NNTP-Posting-Host: earlybird

(Randall Holmes) writes:

 	Love (in the narrow sense in which we say that one person
 	loves another -- not "I love ice cream") is not an emotion.
 	Tender feelings are not evidence of love; they may be evidence
 	of sentimentality. 

And they may also be circumstantial evidence of love; and love can be 
*expressed* emotionally.

[...]
	But the disposition of the will toward the beloved is
	still the essential thing, not the emotion.  If
 	we have a policy to promote something which happens
 	automatically, the only evidence for our policy may be our
 	satisfaction; that does not make the policy itself an emotion!

It may be that the "will toward the beloved is more essential"
than expression of emotion to show that love exists between
two people, but without the emotion first existing, there is
no subsequent "policy".

Without the emotional recognition that this person does indeed
fit the description of "beloved", there is no person to
discover/formulate that attitude towards.

I guess I have difficulty with the word "policy" because
it seems to imply a pre-thought out set of actions to
take: i.e., "Our policy for dealing with illegal immigrants
is...", with the regard for who the immigrant is (in this 
scenario) being secondary to the policy.

I think the reality is that person A does not formulate
a policy in advance towards person B, although person A
may discover there is/has been a policy, once the relationship
is underway.

 [...]
 >    Love is giving up your free time to do something special for your
 >loved one.  Love is giving a meal to someone in the street who looks
 >hungry.  Love is staying alert to anything that might endanger your 
 >loved one.  Love is paying attention to what the other person says and 
 >really thinking about it.
 
 	This sounds like a policy, not a feeling!  Have I made a
 	convert? :-^)

I say those things are not love at all, although each may be
an expression of love: this distinction is important, because
love-for-another is more than a series of platitudes. I agree
also, that it is "more than a feeling" (let that Boston song
enter your head for the next hour :)

Dano
From: exukjb@exu.ericsson.se (ken bell)
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.meta
Subject: Re: WHAT IS LOVE?
Date: 27 Aug 92 14:06:45 GMT
Organization: Ericsson Network Systems, Inc.

In article <memo.595459@cix.compulink.co.uk> shaman@cix.compulink.co.uk (Leo Smith) writes:
>From: shaman@cix.compulink.co.uk (Leo Smith)
>Subject: Re: WHAT IS LOVE?
>Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 21:36:00 +0000

>"The important thing is to choose a path with heart"

>"And how would a man know if he has chosen a path with heart Don
>Juan?"

>"Don't be silly: Any fool knows that. The problem is that no one
>stops to ask the question"

>(from memory of something Castanedaish)

>Love is what you think it is. It is the maximisation of your
>personal value judgement. It's feeling good. If you can't tell the
>difference between feeling good and bad then the question and answer
>are both unnecessary and meaningless for you.

I think it is very dangerous to equate love with feelings, of however a 
a noble kind. For feelings are evanescent, while love (I'm in one of those 
moods) is usually thought to be something stable and a stablizing influence 
on humankind.

           	Let me not to the marriage of true minds admit impediments;
		Love is not love which alters when it alteration finds,
		Or bends with the remover to remove; 
		Oh no, it is an ever fix'd mark, 
		Which looks on tempests and is never shaken,
		It is the star to every wandering bark.
		Love's not Time's fool, though rosey lips and cheeks,
		Within his bending sickle's compass come.  -- Whose worth's
		unknown, although his heigth be taken, 
		Love alters not with his brief hours or weeks, 
		But bears it out even to the edge of Doom.

		If this be error, and upon me prov'd,
		I never writ, nor no man ever loved. 

					-Shakespeare  
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kenny Bell                          *        Welcome to Mind Wars
Ericsson Network Systems, Inc       *        Abstract Arts BBS 386-7907
P.O. Box 833875                     *        Severity with oneself is heroism.
Richardson, TX 75083-3875           *        --A.G.Sertillanges (France, 1943)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------