I was under the impression that mathematical equations themselves aren’t tested for correctness through experimentation, but rather, it’s the mathematical models describing the natural world that are tested and verified through experiments.
I am very confortable accepting the apparent versus actual distinction. Teleonomy shows “apparent” goal-directed behaviour. In teleonomy, it is about evolution. in teleology where things become purposefull, it about design.
These are excellent examples of how evolution is becoming a more complex process, with implications that are within and extend beyond just random mutation and natural selection.
In agreeement.
Yes we are, but only “apparent”.
The model was simpler before, and getting much more complex with or without claims of the Third Way. Yes, the Third Way must be substantiated with evidence if it wishes to be incorporated into evolution theory
I’m well aware of that, which is why I suggested diving deeper. You appear to be rejecting that advice. Why?
What you’ve written suggests that you’ve read far more pseudoscience than science.
That will always be the case! That’s why it’s so much fun!
If you are cryptically referring to our disdain for vitalism, it has been steadily retreating.
If you’re not a creationist, please stop offering up silly creationist canards, such as portraying science as mere retrospective interpretation.
You haven’t proposed any alternative ways other than rejecting the scientific method. Nor have you challenged any assumptions, other than straw men.
The scientific method is much more robust than debate. If you really believe that is the case in science, can you point to a single bit of scientific progress that can be attributed to arguing instead of testing hypotheses?
The scientific method, which you don’t appear to understand, does that far more efficiently.
There’s another straw man, as no one is claiming that it does. It does, however, contrary to your perspective, chug along and provide new and exciting answers every day.
Science alone is explaining more of those aspects every day, which is why I suggest going deeper into it. Debate is not.
Book suggestion: The Vital Question by Nick Lane. If you can stick with it, it will help you to see the enormous scientific progress in understanding the basis of life itself that you’ve been missing.
Then you should offer one.
2 Likes
I don’t have time this morning, but Wiki has a decent summary and lots of links.
There is controversy about the use of computer assisted proof by exhaustion, because it can verify a conjecture but adds no insight as to why it is true.
1 Like
Unless you actually demonstrate circularity, your thoughts on the matter are meaningless.
I’m not inclined at the moment to get into a debate over the precise meaning of the term “subsumed.” But I will say I am not convinced that math and logic are, by themselves, means of gaining knowledge, as opposed to being tools that can be applied to empirical evidence to gain knowledge.
What are “moral truths”, and how do we determine them to be true?
I doubt it. If what you called “pain” was something only you experienced, and there was no evidence that anyone or anything in the universe also experienced it, how would you know it was real and not a hallucination?
So, now, let’s see if you can suggest something other than science that we both agree is used to gain knowledge of the world
1 Like
Have you read it?
Nobody doubts the apparent purpose in evolution, since natural selection would provide such appearance. You seem to be going for something else, and it would be nice if you could state it clearly.
1 Like
You understand that rhetorical questions are not intended for those addressed to answer, right? They’re intended to set up your answer, which you do not provide. So it appears you have nothing. If science can’t study it, then we just can’t study it, apparently.
Much is confusing there. What doe “purpose” with scare quote mean? You could mean “what appears to be purpose but has no agent”, i.e. teleonomy. So what’s the need for any additional factor? And what’s the need for teleology?
1 Like
This isn’t in any way new. The four-colour theorem was proven by computer in 1976 - nearly 50 years ago.
1 Like
I am trying to dive deeper as we speak.
I disagree. While my interpretation of the science may be unorthodox, it is still grounded in the science itself.
This is not a creationist canard. I think it’s important to clarify that science does involve involve interpretation of current data and pas evidence.
I have not rejected the scientific method in any way. What I’ve suggested is that, in addition to it, we may need other tools or approaches to fully grasp both the objective and subjective aspects of reality. As for what those tools might be, I agree that I don’t have the answer. But is there really a problem with identifying a problem, even without having a definitive solution?
The scientific method is more robust than debate, but when it comes to exploring new ideas or challenging assumptions, debate plays a key role, which is what we are doing here. Testing and debate aren’t mutually exclusive—they work together, with debate helping to refine ideas and spark new questions for testing. Even in quantum mechanics, the theory is well-established, but there are still debates about interpretation.
No straw man was intended. I was simply referring to the issues I raised—such as the origin of life and consciousness—as areas that remain unanswered and may require new avenues of investigation.
Once again, why is it a problem for me to identify the issue, even if I don’t have the answer yet?
Again, we need both objective and subjective elements to fully understand reality. Science is well-equipped to address the objective, but it struggles with the subjective. What would be the best avenue to incorporate the subjective side of reality into the picture, I have no ideas, but it remains needed.
-
Science does not “struggle” with this. By grounding itself in empiricism, it explicitly disavows the ability to “explore” that which is only knowable subjectively.
-
Given that everybody’s subjective experience is different, it would not seem possible to explore this in a consistent and reliable way. You have certainly not suggested any such way.
-
By linking “personal experiences” with "deeper aspects of reality, I think you are demonstrating your own preconceptions. If something cannot be demonstrated empirically, how can we be sure that it is an “aspect of reality” (deeper or otherwise)?
Except that these mechanisms have been known for several decades – they are not “examples of how evolution is becoming a more complex process” – they are examples of how evolution has long since become a more complex process.
Likewise, it is unclear that the ‘Third Way’ is introducing anything genuine and new – as opposed to rehashing already-known mechanisms, and adding a confection of unsubstantiated speculation on top of them.
The ‘Third Way’ has existed for over a decade – so I would suggest that it is well past time that they moved beyond speculation, debate, and calls for a ‘Extended Synthesis’, into providing empirical support for their claims.
As I stated above, I would see math and logic as a reliable means of gaining knowledge about abstractions. But in order to gain knowledge about the real universe, you need a bridge between this abstraction and empirical reality. It is science that provides that bridge. (Addendum: this is meant to be agreeing with Faizal, not disagreeing.)
2 Likes
Is there really a problem though?
Going back to your original OP, most of the issues seem to be personal in nature, especially regarding existential fears about death and searching for meaning in life.
It’s not clear how this is a problem for the scientific method or something that would be solved by a different means of epistemology.
4 Likes
There’s no need for this dismissiveness.
A game of cat and mouse is unfolding, with me cast as the mouse. But it doesn’t have to be this way—unless, of course, ego is at play. In that case, there’s little to be gained, for either of us.
Observing, experiencing, thinking!
I’ve attempted to complete the reading several times, but I get lost in the details and complexity. What I can say for certain is that it’s incredibly extensive, and I can’t help but marvel at the sheer amount of work that has gone into creating it.
Please read this and let me know if you still stand by your statement. If so, then we’re on the same page.
Purpose,’ as in an ‘apparent’ version of it. I agree with the second statement “what appears to be purpose but has no agent”. No need for teleology, but perhaps cognition without design. Cognition as the additional factor.
Note: Keep in mind that I am an “amateur” scientist!
Cognition—defined as the set of mental processes involved in acquiring knowledge and responding to environmental stimuli—has emerged as a powerful evolutionary force (Rochais et al. 2023, Thornton 2019, Lehtonen et al. 2023; Webber 2003; Richerson 2005). Cognitive processes include for example perception, memory, decision-making, problem-solving, and learning. These processes allow organisms to engage in goal-directed behaviors that can influence fitness and survival (Boogert 2024).
Key empirical findings include:
-
Cost-Benefit Calculations: Animals weigh competing outcomes, optimizing behaviors based on past experience (Tang et al., 2016).
-
Observational Learning: Ground squirrels, for example, can rapidly replicate complex foraging behaviors after observation (Byrne, 1995; Mackintosh).
-
Social Learning: Rats, bats, and fish engage in social transmission of behaviors, enhancing adaptability (Galef, 2016; Thornton 2006).
-
Plant Decision-Making: Even plants demonstrate resource allocation strategies that resemble decision-making (Trewavas, 2014).
-
Tool Use: Some birds use cars at traffic lights to crack nuts, demonstrating planning and causal reasoning (Schilthuizen, 2018).
Refereences:
Boogert N.J. (2024) How does cognition determine an individual’s fitness? A systematic review of the links between cognition, behaviour and fitness in non-human animals https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rstb.2024.0118
Byrne, R. W. (1995). The thinking ape: Evolutionary origins of intelligence. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Galef B. G. (2012) Social learning and traditions in animals: evidence, definitions, and relationship to human culture https://doi.org/10.1002/wcs.1196
Rochais C., Schradin C., Pillay N., (2023) Cognitive performance is linked to survival in free-living African striped mice : 36883277
Thornton A., Boogert N., (2019) Animal Cognition: The Benefits of remembering, Current Biology https://www.cell.com/current-biology/fulltext/S0960-9822%2819%2930383-5?utm
Lehtonen T. K., Helantera H, Solvi C, Wong, Loukola O, (2023) The role of cognition in nesting, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2022.0142
Mackintosh N.H., Animal Learning, Britanica https://www.britannica.com/science/animal-learning
Tang H., Luo F., Li S.H., Ming Li B., (2016) Behavioral representation of cost and benefit balance in rats, PubMed 10.1016/j.neulet.2016.08.054
Weber B. H., Depew David J., (2003) Evolution and Learning: The Baldwin Effect Reconsidered https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/2871.001.0001
Richerson P. J., Boyd R., Henrich J. Gene-Culture Coevolution in the Age of Genomics, National Library of Medecine https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK210012/
Schilthuizen M. (2018) Evolving street-smarts Aeoll https://aeon.co/essays/how-city-birds-evolved-to-be-smarter-than-rural-birds
Thornton A., Boogert N., (2019) Animal Cognition: The Benefits of remembering, Current Biology https://www.cell.com/current-biology/fulltext/S0960-9822%2819%2930383-5?utm_source=chatgpt.com
Thornton A., McAuliffe K (2006) Teaching in wild meerkats, Pubmed https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16840701/
Trewavas, A. (2014). Plant behaviour and intelligence. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. https://global.oup.com/academic/product/plant-behaviour-and-intelligence-9780199539543?cc=ca&lang=en&
- “It doesn’t ‘struggle’ with subjectivity, but rather with presenting a complete picture of reality.”
- “There must be a way to objectify subjectivity as much as possible, even if full objective comprehension remains out of reach.”
- “If the same experience is shared by many and profoundly explains or alters our understanding of reality, then it can be considered a ‘deeper aspect of reality.’”
Epigenetics, horizontal gene transfer, sybiosis, dynamic genome: read-write systems, natural genetic engineering, evo-devo and niche construction are, in combination, making evolution even more complex than since it has become complex. They also challenge the traditional, Darwinian view of evolution, which focused primarily on mutation, natural selection, and genetic inheritance.
Again, read this and let me know if you still agree with your statement above:
No problem, that’s how I understood you.
To elaborate, it seems to me that mathematical and logical truths are true in a similar sense to how the claim “Gandalf the Grey survived the battle with the Balrog at the bridge of Khazad-dûm” is true. That these are true can be objectively determined within closed systems that have been created by humans, and no other external means are necessary. At the same time, they don’t necessarily hold any truth outside of those systems.
It is also the case that math and logic, when applied to empirical evidence, are able to produce knowledge of what exists and what will occur in the world. I believe there are a number of explanations for this state of affairs that have been considered, but none that are conclusive.
1 Like
I am nothing more than an amateur regarding evolutionary theory. Yet even I am aware of all the above subjects just from my passing familarity with the mainstream literature on evolution. So it remains an open question as to exactly what these Third Way folks are bringing that is new to the table.
It seems the problem is that you, and they, are still arguing against “the traditional, Darwinian view of evolution”, which is by now almost 50 years out of date.
4 Likes
If, by “a complete picture of reality” you mean one that includes “that which is only knowable subjectively” then, again, I would state it does not struggle, as struggling implies making an attempt. Science does not even attempt to present a picture of that which is only knowable subjectively.
Why “must” there be? And to the extent that such objectification is possible, science attempts it. E.g. science would not attempt to study the beauty of a sunset – but might well attempt to study the effect that the beauty of a sunset had on a human brain.
That statement raises more questions than it answers:
-
How can we determine if “many” share “the same experience”, or merely some roughly equivalent experience?
-
How do we tell if an “understanding of reality” is real, or illusionary – the result of preconceptions, biases, etc, etc? And how do we distinguish, in an objective manner, between “profound” understandings, and merely superficial ones?
My point was that by repeating the Creationist canard that “the standard model relies on random mutation and natural selection”, you were ignoring a large amount of complexity that already had existed in the model for several decades. Unlike the claims of the Third Way, these mechanism have actual empirical evidence, published in actual primary research.
No they do not. To “challenge” the existing model, they would first have to present empirical evidence, demonstrating their case. Until that evidence materialises, they are mere speculation.
I would also note that you omitted one of the mechanisms I listed: genetic drift – a distinctly non-Darwinian mechanism.
This serves to disprove your gross misrepresentation of the current evolutionary view as “the traditional, Darwinian view of evolution”. It is neither “traditional” nor exclusively Darwinian.
This link yields the profound and succinct statement:
Your session has timed out. Please go back to the article page and click the PDF link again.
@Tim contemplates the deep meanings and subtleties contained in this statement, smiles beatifically, and says “Ah yes, I understand it all now.” 
Addendum:
It seems likely that this was intended to link to: Evolution “On Purpose”: Teleonomy in Living Systems.
In which case I will refer to earlier comments of my own, and of @Mercer’s:
No @LRT. I will not “read this” 390-page apparent rehash of the Third Way’s decade-old unsubstantiated claims, unless and until you demonstrate that their claims have been substantiated by empirical evidence in the primary literature.
Life is far too short to waste on unsubstantiated heterodox claims – they are a dime a dozen.
Further addendum:
I came across this review of the book:
[Source]
It does not encourage me to “read this” book.
2 Likes
Just butting in here to say that this claim is actually not true. Gandalf survived, but Gandalf the Grey did not - he died. He (was) then returned as Gandalf the White.
Now back to your regular programming 
4 Likes
Obviously fakes news propagated by Left-wing Elvish media.
Make Mordor Great Again?
3 Likes