| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"david ford" |
| Date: |
25 Mar 2005 09:19:13 PM |
| Object: |
Facts vs. media fictions about Terri's actual condition |
The affidavit extracts below demonstrate the falsity of the old media's
erroneous allegation that 'no one is home' in Terri Schindler Schiavo.
Also, Terri can anticipate and feel pain.
A U.S. judiciary run amok and a shameless American Criminal Liberties
Union are intent on murdering via starvation an innocent/ guiltless and
defenseless woman.
Decency demands that this unjustified, court-imposed death sentence on
Terri Schindler Schiavo be stopped.
What, if anything, will you do to help Terri and stop a judiciary and
ACLU run amok?
action items to help Terri
http://www.terrisfight.org/actionitems.html
From
http://www.hospicepatients.org/terri-schindler-schiavo-docs-links-page.html
from the PDF "Affidavit of William Cheshire, Jr., MD 03-23-05":
AFFIDAVIT
STATE OF FLORIDA
COUNTY OF DUVALL
Before me this day personally appeared William Polk Cheshire, Jr., M.D.,
who, being duly sworn, deposes and says:
I, William Polk Cheshire, Jr., M.D., have personal knowledge of the
facts stated in this declaration and, if called as a witness, I could
and would testify competently thereto under oath. I declare as follows:
I am a neurologist practicing in the State of Florida and am certified
by the American Board of Psychiatry and Neurology. In regard to my
educational background, I received an A.B. in biochemical sciences from
Princeton University, an M.A. in bioethics from Trinity International
University, and an M.D. from West Virginia University. I completed an
internship in internal medicine at West Virginia University, a residency
in neurology and a pain fellowship at the University of North Carolina.
I am also an appointed volunteer with the Florida Statewide Adult
Protective Services team, in which capacity I was called on March 1,
2005, to provide an independent and objective medical review of
allegations of possible abuse, neglect, or exploitation of Ms. Theresa
Marie Schiavo.
Although no one from the Department of Children and Families has
inquired about my personal views about treatment decisions in cases of
persistent vegetative state (PVS), I would like to disclose that I came
into this case with the belief that it can be ethically permissible to
discontinue artificially provided nutrition and hydration for patients
in a persistent vegetative state. Having now reviewed the relevant
facts, having met and observed Ms. Schiavo in person, and having
reflected deeply on the moral and ethical issues, I would like to
explain why I change my mind in regard to this particular case.
.....
Based on my review of extensive medical records documenting Terri's care
over the years, on my personal observation of Terri, and on my
observations of Terri's responses in the many hours of videotapes taken
in 2002, she demonstrates a number of behaviors I believe cast a
reasonable doubt on the prior diagnosis of PVS. These include:
1. Her behavior is frequently context-specific. For example, her
facial expression brightens and she smiles in response to the voice of
familiar persons such as her parents or her nurse. Her agitation
subsides and her facial demeanor softens when quiet music is played.
When jubilant piano music is played, her face brightens, she lifts her
eyebrows, smiles, and even laughs. Her lateral gaze toward the tape
player is sustained for many minutes. Several times I witnessed Terri
briefly, albeit inconsistently, laugh in response to a humorous comment
someone in the room had made. I did not see her laugh in the absence of
someone else's laughter.
2. Although she does not seem to track or follow visual objects
consistently or for long periods of time, she does fixate her gaze on
colorful objects or human faces for some 15 seconds at a time and
occasionally follows with her eyes at least briefly as these objects
move from side to side. When I first walked into her room, she
immediately turned her head toward me and looked directly at my face.
There was a lot of curiosity or expectation in her expression, and she
maintained eye contact for about half a minute. Later, when she again
looked at me, she brought her lips together as if to pronounce the
letter "O," and although for a moment it appeared that she might be
making an intentional effort to speak, her face then fell blank, and no
words came out.
3. Although I did not hear Terri utter distinct words, she demonstrates
emotional expressivity by her use of a single syllable of vocalizations
such as "ah," making cooing sounds, or by expressing guttural sounds of
annoyance or moaning appropriate to the context of the situation. The
context-specific range and the variability of her vocalizations suggests
at least a reasonable probability of the processing of emotional thought
within her brain. There have been reports of Terri rarely using actual
words specific to her situational context. The July 25, 2003 affidavit
of the speech pathologist Sarah Green Mole, MS, on page 6, reads, "The
records of Mediplex reflect the fact that she has said 'stop' in
apparent response to a medical procedure being done to her." The Adult
Protective Services team has been unable to retrieve those original
medical records in this instance.
4. Although Terri has not consistently followed commands, there
appeared to be some notable exceptions. In the taped examination by Dr.
Hammesfahr from 2002, when asked to close her eyes she began to blink
repeatedly. Although it was unclear whether she squeezed her grip when
asked, she did appear to raise her right leg four times in succession
each time she was asked to do so. Rehabilitation notes from 1991
indicated that she tracked inconsistently, and although she did not
develop a yes/no communication system, did follow some commands
inconsistently and demonstrated good eye contact to family members.
5. There is a remarkable moment in the videotape of the September 3,
2002 examination by Dr. Hammesfahr that seemed to go unnoticed at the
time. At 2:44 p.m., Dr. Hammesfahr had just turned Terri onto her right
side to examine her back with a painful sharp stimulus (a sharp piece of
wood), to which Terri had responded with signs of discomfort. Well
after he ceased applying the stimulus and had returned Terri to a
comfortable position, he says to her parents, "So, we're going to have
to roll her over...." Immediately Terri cries. She vocalizes a crying
sound, "Ugh, ha, ha, ha," presses her eyebrows together, and sadly
grimaces. It is important to note that, at that moment, no one is
touching Terri or causing actual pain. Rather, she appears to
comprehend the meaning of Dr. Hammesfahr's comment and she signals her
_anticipation_ of pain. This response suggests some degree of language
processing and interpretation at the level of the cerebral cortex. It
also suggests that she may be aware of pain beyond what could be
explained by simple reflex withdrawal.
6. According to the definition of PVS published by the American Academy
of Neurology, "persistent vegetative state patients do not have the
capacity to experience pain or suffering. Pain and suffering are
attributes of consciousness requiring cerebral cortical functioning, and
patients who are permanently and completely unconscious cannot
experience these symptoms."^6 And yet, in my review of Terri's medical
records, pain issues keep surfacing. The nurses at Woodside Hospice
told us that she often has pain with menstrual cramps. Menstrual flow
is associated with agitation, repeated or sustained moaning, facial
grimacing, limb posturing, and facial flushing, all of which subside
once she is given ibuprofen. Some of the records document moaning,
crying, and other painful behavior in the setting of urinary tract
infections.
.....
7. To enter the room of Terri Schiavo is nothing like entering the room
of a patient who is comatose or brain-dead or in some neurological sense
no longer there. Although Terri did not demonstrate during our 90
minute visit compelling evidence of verbalization, conscious awareness,
or volitional behavior, yet the visitor has the distinct sense of the
presence of a living human being who seems at some level to be aware of
some things around her.
As I looked at Terri, and she gazed directly back at me, I asked myself
whether, if I were her attending physician, I could in good conscience
withdraw nutrition and hydration. No, I could not. I could not
withdraw life support if I were asked. I could not withhold
life-sustaining nutrition and hydration from this beautiful lady whose
face brightens in the presence of others.
The neurologic signs are in many ways ambiguous. There is no guarantee
that more sophisticated testing would definitively resolve that
ambiguity to everyone's satisfaction. There would be value, I think, in
obtaining a functional MRI scan if that is possible.
This situation differs fundamentally from end-of-life scenarios where it
is appropriate to withdraw life-sustaining medical interventions that no
longer benefit or are burdensome to patients in the terminal stages of
illness. Terri's feeding tube is not a burden to her. It is not
painful, is not infected, is not eroding her stomach lining or causing
any medical complications. But for the decision to withdraw her feeding
tube, Terri cannot be considered medically terminal. But for the
withdrawal of food and water, she would not die [well, she would not die
now-- everybody dies eventually, sometimes sooner rather than later. We
never know when we will go to meet our Maker. -df].
In summary, Terri [Schindler] Schiavo demonstrates behaviors in a
variety of cognitive domains that call into question the previous
neurologic diagnosis of persistent vegetative state. Specifically, she
has demonstrated behaviors that are context-specific, sustained, and
indicative of a cerebral cortical processing that, upon careful
neurologic consideration, would not be expected in a persistent
vegetative state.
Based on this evidence, I believe that, within a reasonable degree of
medical certainty, there is a greater likelihood that Terri is in a
minimally conscious state than a persistent vegetative state. This
distinction makes an enormous difference in making ethical decisions on
Terri's behalf. If Terri is sufficiently aware of her surroundings that
she can feel pleasure and suffer, if she is capable of understanding to
some degree how she is being treated, then in my judgment it would be
wrong to bring about her death by withdrawing food and water.
At the time of this writing, Terri Schiavo, as the result of the
decisions based on what I have argued to be a faulty diagnosis of
persistent vegetative state, has been without food or water for 5 days.
She is thus at risk of death or serious injury unless the provision of
food and water can be restored. Terri Schiavo lacks the capacity to
consent to emergency protective services and must trust others to act on
her behalf. If she were to be transferred to another facility, it would
be medically necessary first to initiate hydration and ensure that her
serum electrolytes are within normal values.
How medicine and society choose to think about Terri [Schindler] Schiavo
will influence what kind of people we will be as we evaluate and respond
to the needs of the most vulnerable people among us. When serious
doubts exist as to whether a cognitively impaired person is or is not
consciously aware, even if these doubts cannot be conclusively resolved,
it is better to err on the side of protecting vulnerable life.
Respectfully submitted,
William Polk Cheshire, Jr., M.D., M.A., F.A.A.N.
[signature]
Sworn to (or affirmed) and subscribed before me this 23[rd] day of
March, 2005, by William Polk Cheshire, Jr., M.D.
[notary stamp and signature]
======================================================================
articles: livelier ones are by Thomas Sowell and William Kristol. Eric
Cohen's is very thoughtful.
http://www.townhall.com
Cal Thomas: Schiavo case matters in symbol and substance
http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=dford3-3adfseF68nkocU1%40individual.net
Justifications for taking of human life?
http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=dford3-3aj33dF67kgcuU2%40individual.net
any atheists against Terri Schindler Schiavo's being starved to death?
http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=dford3-3adrlvF69l60hU1%40individual.net
1997 Wesley Smith on Germany's slippery slope slide from devaluing some
human life to a little euthanasia/ killing to mass killings
http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=dford3-3abe1cF6ac7t2U1%40individual.net
ACLU: Legal Terrorists
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2004/11/27/195402.shtml
Terri Schindler Schiavo Case
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/10/16/223430.shtml
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=43463
What, if anything, will you do to help Terri and stop a judiciary and
ACLU run amok?
action items to help Terri
http://www.terrisfight.org/actionitems.html
.
|
|
| User: "shane" |
|
| Title: Re: Hitler's secular religion |
24 Jul 2005 05:05:31 PM |
|
|
wrote:
If you do not wish to know of any decision in 15.000.000.000 years of
history stick with Darwinism, if you wish to know some of them, turn to
creationism.
Why are these the only two alternatives? modern evolution is a third.
However i make decisions all the time, so even without any of the guff
you wrote above i know some decisions made within the last 15 billion
years. However you may be able to show some of what this thinking does,
please elabotate on a decision that occurred 12,198,257 years ago, how
it is important to us now, and how you know about it now.
If only it is a speck of dust ending up here in stead of there, a fly
turning left in stead of right, a leaf falling now in stead of a second
later, anything, keep your eyes peeled for any scientific text that
traces back a probablity right down to the decisionpoint at which the
probability was set.
Sounds like outcomes to me, just specks of dust and leaves responding to
the forces that act on them, nothing mysterious or mystical, just
science. And are you saying that specks of dust "decide" to go left or
right etc?
Then memorize it, emblazon it in your mind, and by
itteration of the phenomenon to the appearance of all things, you have
a basic sense of the creationist view on things.
Why? do you memorize where all the specks of dust go? No wonder you
cannot write coherently, you are too busy trying to memorise specks of
dust. Do you name them, or number them, in order to keep track of them all?
Then you may begin to
wonder, well aren't there any bigger decisions then a leaf falling or
not, like the earth coming to be or not, or fishes coming to be or not,
or plants? Do these probabilities culminate gradually, or do they leap
and bound?
I dont worry about it at all. If i was a creationist i would more likely
to be thinking that sufficient for today are the troubles thereof, and
forgetting about if Fred, a speck of dust, made a decision 14 BYA to
fall here rather than there.
And then you may find, this view in terms of decision gives the
neccessary oxygen for a spiritual view on nature, where you relate to
the owners of these decisions, and ask "Why?", why this way and not the
other?
That aint oxygen you are on there, mate. Or wait, perhaps it is, as I
believe one of the symptoms of breathing too much oxygen is blindness.
Evolution has asked those questions and the answer is by and large,
Natural Selection.
regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Deadrat" |
|
| Title: Re: Hitler's secular religion |
24 Jul 2005 01:49:16 PM |
|
|
Let me give this a metaphorical try.
Living things spin the roulette wheel of genetics and by chance
come up with a series of changes. The environment spins a
different roulette wheel to determine which things live to reproduce
and which things don't. Biologists note that in the aggregate, the
winners in the first roulette game have an advantage in winning the
second.
Note I said in the aggregate. Scientists don't study every individual
decision. For instance, with a pair of fair dice, scientists would expect
one out of every 36 throws to come up double sixes, and they confirm this
by throwing the dice many times. They wouldn't consider each individual
throw of any significance beyond an addition to the tally.
Now comes Nando. He wants to know why every throw came up the
way it did. Why, given the probabilities of genetics and environments
(i.e., given the contingencies and their likelihoods), did a particular
event
happen the way it did. At noon, the leaf had a 15% probability of
falling within the next half hour. Why did it fall at ten past?
The scientist says, "Look. The best I can do is track 1M leaves at noon
and tell you that at 12:30, 150,000 of them have fallen." Nando picks
one leaf that fell at ten past and asks "Why this leaf at 12:10?"
Radioactive decay is an even better example. Scientists understand the
statistics of decay but cannot tell you why a particular fission occurs when
it does.
Note that as an explanation for aggregate behavior (e.g., the heat generated
by a lump of Uranium), the scientists' understanding is more than adequate.
For existential questions -- Why is my particular self here at this
moment? --
science has no answer.
Is this your complaint?
<nando_ronteltap@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1122217757.753792.202070@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
If you do not wish to know of any decision in 15.000.000.000 years of
history stick with Darwinism, if you wish to know some of them, turn to
creationism.
If only it is a speck of dust ending up here in stead of there, a fly
turning left in stead of right, a leaf falling now in stead of a second
later, anything, keep your eyes peeled for any scientific text that
traces back a probablity right down to the decisionpoint at which the
probability was set. Then memorize it, emblazon it in your mind, and by
itteration of the phenomenon to the appearance of all things, you have
a basic sense of the creationist view on things. Then you may begin to
wonder, well aren't there any bigger decisions then a leaf falling or
not, like the earth coming to be or not, or fishes coming to be or not,
or plants? Do these probabilities culminate gradually, or do they leap
and bound?
And then you may find, this view in terms of decision gives the
neccessary oxygen for a spiritual view on nature, where you relate to
the owners of these decisions, and ask "Why?", why this way and not the
other?
regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Hitler's secular religion |
24 Jul 2005 10:22:23 PM |
|
|
As further proof that natural selection is the summum of science
weakness to deal with the concept of decision, I refer to Dawkins, who
has expressly stated that the purpose of organisms is reproduction, and
also proposes to know "why" humans exist. Questions of purpose and
"why" are only appropiate to decisionpoints, but Dawkins uses it in the
context of a mechanical natural selection.
So you see natural selection is nothing less then then the reconstrual
of the concept of decision in mechanical terms. Scientists cannot
handle the concept of decision in it's own right, so they made a theory
to pervert the concept into a mechanism, which they can handle.
I don't particularly want science to answer why questions, why the atom
decayed at that particular time, I just want them to pinpoint the
location of where the decision is made. Religionists can handle why
questions from there on.
regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu
.
|
|
|
| User: "Deadrat" |
|
| Title: Re: Hitler's secular religion |
24 Jul 2005 10:36:05 PM |
|
|
<nando_ronteltap@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1122261743.806415.287520@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
As further proof that natural selection is the summum of science
weakness to deal with the concept of decision, I refer to Dawkins, who
has expressly stated that the purpose of organisms is reproduction, and
also proposes to know "why" humans exist. Questions of purpose and
"why" are only appropiate to decisionpoints, but Dawkins uses it in the
context of a mechanical natural selection.
So you see natural selection is nothing less then then the reconstrual
of the concept of decision in mechanical terms. Scientists cannot
handle the concept of decision in it's own right, so they made a theory
to pervert the concept into a mechanism, which they can handle.
I don't particularly want science to answer why questions, why the atom
decayed at that particular time, I just want them to pinpoint the
location of where the decision is made.
Do you mean where the decision was made as in the point in spacetime
where the event occurred as in "The atom decayed in a reactor in Ghent
at 14:53 GMT?"
Or do you mean where the decision was made as in "I was sitting in my
bedroom when I decided to drive to Ghent."? (The actual event of
driving would happen later.)
Deadrat
Religionists can handle why
questions from there on.
regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Rick Merrill" |
|
| Title: Re: Hitler's secular religion |
25 Jul 2005 06:41:37 AM |
|
|
wrote:
As further proof that natural selection is the summum of science
weakness to deal with the concept of decision, I refer to Dawkins, who
has expressly stated that the purpose of organisms is reproduction, and
also proposes to know "why" humans exist. Questions of purpose and
"why" are only appropiate to decisionpoints, but Dawkins uses it in the
context of a mechanical natural selection.
So you see natural selection is nothing less then then the reconstrual
of the concept of decision in mechanical terms. Scientists cannot
handle the concept of decision in it's own right, so they made a theory
to pervert the concept into a mechanism, which they can handle.
I don't particularly want science to answer why questions, why the atom
decayed at that particular time, I just want them to pinpoint the
location of where the decision is made. Religionists can handle why
questions from there on.
regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu
What about the years of artificial selection? Does Dawkins include that?
What happened to natural selection when millions are martyred because of
their faith in god?
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "AC" |
|
| Title: Re: Hitler's secular religion |
24 Jul 2005 11:03:48 AM |
|
|
On 24 Jul 2005 08:09:17 -0700,
nando_ronteltap@yahoo.com <nando_ronteltap@yahoo.com> wrote:
If you do not wish to know of any decision in 15.000.000.000 years of
history stick with Darwinism, if you wish to know some of them, turn to
creationism.
If only it is a speck of dust ending up here in stead of there, a fly
turning left in stead of right, a leaf falling now in stead of a second
later, anything, keep your eyes peeled for any scientific text that
traces back a probablity right down to the decisionpoint at which the
probability was set. Then memorize it, emblazon it in your mind, and by
itteration of the phenomenon to the appearance of all things, you have
a basic sense of the creationist view on things. Then you may begin to
wonder, well aren't there any bigger decisions then a leaf falling or
not, like the earth coming to be or not, or fishes coming to be or not,
or plants? Do these probabilities culminate gradually, or do they leap
and bound?
And then you may find, this view in terms of decision gives the
neccessary oxygen for a spiritual view on nature, where you relate to
the owners of these decisions, and ask "Why?", why this way and not the
other?
I can't imagine how anybody can write so much word salad and then act like
everyone else ought not only to understand, but to accept it.
--
Aaron Clausen
mightymartianca@hotmail.com
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Hitler's secular religion |
24 Jul 2005 04:31:56 AM |
|
|
So far you've asked me to define:
"decision"
"darwinist scientist"
"valueladen"
"zero decisions"
Next you will ask what "next" means, what "you" means, what "will"
means, what "ask" means, what "what" means, and what "means" means.
regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu
.
|
|
|
| User: "shane" |
|
| Title: Re: Hitler's secular religion |
24 Jul 2005 08:08:55 AM |
|
|
wrote:
So far you've asked me to define:
"decision"
"darwinist scientist"
"valueladen"
"zero decisions"
And they look so difficult to define too, which may expalin your
apparent inability to do so. But honestly, I do not expect you will
define anything for one of two reasons,
1. you do not know what they mean in the context of NS or evolution,
2. you know exactly what they mean, but do not want to face the possible
uncomfortable reality that defining them shows you are fighting a
strawman version of NS and evolution.
Note that each word/concept may be undefined by you for either of the
two reasons.
Of course I could be wrong, but to show that would, I think, require you
to define the words, which up until now you seem either unable or
unprepared to do. It's no problem to me, as your ideas are the ones
being ignored, not mine.
Next you will ask what "next" means, what "you" means, what "will"
means, what "ask" means, what "what" means, and what "means" means.
Why, are you using those words in some weird way too?
regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu
--
shane
And the truth shall set you free.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "AC" |
|
| Title: Re: Hitler's secular religion |
24 Jul 2005 10:17:36 AM |
|
|
On 23 Jul 2005 07:32:22 -0700,
nando_ronteltap@yahoo.com <nando_ronteltap@yahoo.com> wrote:
Whatever.
Vacaous goalbased reasoning about "success" is what you are here
supporting.
Well, we know that individuals better suited to their environment have a
better chance of surviving.
Knowing zero decisions in 15 billion years of history is your
intellectual life now.
This is just word salad.
To consider emotions as sophisticated machines is your intellectual
future.
And this is too.
--
Aaron Clausen
mightymartianca@hotmail.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Hitler's secular religion |
24 Jul 2005 10:40:49 AM |
|
|
AC:
Well, we know that individuals better suited to their environment have a
better chance of surviving.
And what does being better suited to the environment mean in the
context of natural selection?
It means to have a better chance of surviving.
So you all know that individuals having a better chance of surviving do
actually have better chance of surviving. Well that's really
intelligent, not.
regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu
.
|
|
|
| User: "DanielSan" |
|
| Title: Re: Hitler's secular religion |
24 Jul 2005 03:46:03 PM |
|
|
wrote:
AC:
Well, we know that individuals better suited to their environment have a
better chance of surviving.
And what does being better suited to the environment mean in the
context of natural selection?
It means to have a better chance of surviving.
So you all know that individuals having a better chance of surviving do
actually have better chance of surviving. Well that's really
intelligent, not.
Tell that to the Eskimos versus the Ethiopians to Europeans. Their
respective environments changed their respective appearances
dramatically. Place an Ethiopian in northern Alaska and see how long
that Ethiopian lasts.
--
****************************************************
* DanielSan -- alt.atheism #2226 *
*--------------------------------------------------*
* "No one ever demonstrated, so far as I am aware, *
* the non-existence of Zeus or Thor - but they *
* have few followers now." Arthur C. Clarke *
****************************************************
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "AC" |
|
| Title: Re: Hitler's secular religion |
24 Jul 2005 11:02:31 AM |
|
|
On 24 Jul 2005 08:40:49 -0700,
nando_ronteltap@yahoo.com <nando_ronteltap@yahoo.com> wrote:
AC:
Well, we know that individuals better suited to their environment have a
better chance of surviving.
And what does being better suited to the environment mean in the
context of natural selection?
It means every individual is different, and that some are statistically more
likely to survive and pass on their genes than others.
It means to have a better chance of surviving.
So you all know that individuals having a better chance of surviving do
actually have better chance of surviving. Well that's really
intelligent, not.
And it's a force in driving evolution (not the only one btw).
--
Aaron Clausen
mightymartianca@hotmail.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Hitler's secular religion |
24 Jul 2005 09:26:02 PM |
|
|
AC wrote:
On 24 Jul 2005 08:40:49 -0700,
nando_ronteltap@yahoo.com <nando_ronteltap@yahoo.com> wrote:
AC:
Well, we know that individuals better suited to their environment have a
better chance of surviving.
And what does being better suited to the environment mean in the
context of natural selection?
It means every individual is different, and that some are statistically more
likely to survive and pass on their genes than others.
So then your original sentence becomes: individuals who have a higher
chance of survival corelated to a difference in structure, have a
higher chance of survival. This just results in a headache, not in a
clearer view of nature.
It means to have a better chance of surviving.
So you all know that individuals having a better chance of surviving do
actually have better chance of surviving. Well that's really
intelligent, not.
And it's a force in driving evolution (not the only one btw).
A comparison is not a force, one reproducing more then another is not a
force.
And no organism actually survives, all organisms die, which leaves
reproduction to preserve forms, and hence natural selection shapes the
next generation by the event of reproduction, having them reproduce or
not reproduce. Depending on the scenario this results in several
possible population actions, such as encroachment, diverging, stasis-,
stasis+, expansion, shrinkage etc.
Well my interpretation of natural selection is just beautiful,
reproduction preserving forms, population actions, it's just the thing.
The stasis- and stasis+ refers to the common scenario's of few fitter,
and few less fit going extinct respectively.
regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Hitler's secular religion |
23 Jul 2005 09:38:21 AM |
|
|
Whatever.
Vacaous goalbased reasoning about "success" is what you are here
supporting.
Knowing zero decisions in 15 billion years of history is your
intellectual life now.
To consider emotions as sophisticated machines is your intellectual
future.
regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu
.
|
|
|
| User: "AC" |
|
| Title: Re: Hitler's secular religion |
24 Jul 2005 10:18:36 AM |
|
|
On 23 Jul 2005 07:38:21 -0700,
nando_ronteltap@yahoo.com <nando_ronteltap@yahoo.com> wrote:
Whatever.
Vacaous goalbased reasoning about "success" is what you are here
supporting.
Knowing zero decisions in 15 billion years of history is your
intellectual life now.
To consider emotions as sophisticated machines is your intellectual
future.
I take it that when you simply repeat the same post that you are essentially
giving up the ghost.
--
Aaron Clausen
mightymartianca@hotmail.com
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Robin Levett" |
|
| Title: Re: Hitler's secular religion |
23 Jul 2005 12:15:12 PM |
|
|
wrote:
The origin of the fault in natural selection is from a denial, and
ignorance of the concept of decision.
Codswallop. What you call decision, scientists call contingency; and
evolutionary biologists are well aware of the effects of contingency. Have
you read any Gould? Do you know what he thinks would happen if evolution
was rewound to the Cambrian and then allowed to start afresh?
The faulty theory of natural
selection represents the summum of science's weakness to be able to
deal with the phenomeon of decision. Here we have a theory, where those
that apply it use the language of decision, but then at the end turn
around and deny that there was any decision at all, that it was all
mechanism and force. Evenso sometimes they say chance was involved,
chance is then not said to be covered by the theory, but said to
operate outside it. And even when they admit chance is involved in the
result, they do not have a name for the point where the chance is
realized or negated.
To an extent, it is good that scientists are ignorant about the concept
of decision. Because it is no good to be aware of the concept without a
foreboding sense of ethics about it. Our common knowledge states that
consciousness occurs at a point of decision. What may occur therefore
at a point of decision, is pain. Now what could be worse then a bunch
of scientists experimenting with points of decision, without any sense
of ethics about it? That would be to have the likes of Mengele in
science again.
regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu
--
Robin Levett
rlevett@rlevett.ibmuklunix.net (unmunge by removing big blue - don't yahoo)
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Hitler's secular religion |
24 Jul 2005 03:38:28 AM |
|
|
Yes I did read some of that of Gould, and he doesn't call it
contingency, but more turningpoint. He never seriously investigated any
turningpoint, never seriously tried to trace back the probability of
any specie appearing to the turninpoints / decisions, at which the
probability was set.
But as before in this thread, Gould may well turn out to be the first
of the new creationists on close inspection of his last tome.
regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu
.
|
|
|
| User: "Robin Levett" |
|
| Title: Re: Hitler's secular religion |
24 Jul 2005 07:57:59 AM |
|
|
wrote:
Will you *please* stop snipping what you're replying to. It makes it too
easy for you to lie about what has been said.
I reinstate below the post to which you're replying:
<reinstated post - with attribution of my content added>
---------------------------------------------------------
wrote:
The origin of the fault in natural selection is from a denial, and
ignorance of the concept of decision.
I wrote:-
Codswallop. What you call decision, scientists call contingency; and
evolutionary biologists are well aware of the effects of contingency. Have
you read any Gould? Do you know what he thinks would happen if evolution
was rewound to the Cambrian and then allowed to start afresh?
The faulty theory of natural
selection represents the summum of science's weakness to be able to
deal with the phenomeon of decision. Here we have a theory, where those
that apply it use the language of decision, but then at the end turn
around and deny that there was any decision at all, that it was all
mechanism and force. Evenso sometimes they say chance was involved,
chance is then not said to be covered by the theory, but said to
operate outside it. And even when they admit chance is involved in the
result, they do not have a name for the point where the chance is
realized or negated.
To an extent, it is good that scientists are ignorant about the concept
of decision. Because it is no good to be aware of the concept without a
foreboding sense of ethics about it. Our common knowledge states that
consciousness occurs at a point of decision. What may occur therefore
at a point of decision, is pain. Now what could be worse then a bunch
of scientists experimenting with points of decision, without any sense
of ethics about it? That would be to have the likes of Mengele in
science again.
------------------------------------------------------------
</reinstated post>
Yes I did read some of that of Gould, and he doesn't call it
contingency, but more turningpoint.
Nando, are you reading Gould in Dutch? If so, your translation is faulty;
the Dutch for "contingency", according to my (admittedly basic) Dutch
dictionary is "eventualiteit"; that cannot be translated as "turningpoint".
perhaps one of the native Dutch speakers can confirm this?
Regardless, Gould wrote in (American) English, and used the word
"contingency". And Darwin certainly used the concept, albeit but rarely
the word. Looking at page 290 of my copy of "Wonderful Life" (the
Rhone-Poulenc Prize edition), Gould has this to say:-
"Charles Darwin recognized this central distinction between laws in the
background and contingency in the details in a celebrated exchange of
letters with the devout Christian evolutionist Asa Gray. Gray, the Harvard
botanist, was inclined to support not only Darwin's demonstration of
evolution but also his principle of natural selection as its mechanism.
But Gray was also worried about the implications for Christian faith and
the meaning of life. He particularly fretted that Darwin's view left no
room for rule by law, and portrayed nature as shaped entirely by blind
chance.
Drawin, in his profound reply, acknowledged the existence of general laws
that regulate life in a broad sense. These laws, he argued, addressing
Gray's chief concern, might even (for all we know) reflect some higher
purpose in the universe. But the natural world is full of details, and
these form the primary subject matter of biology. Many of these details
are "cruel" when measured, inappropriately, by human moral standards. He
wrote to Gray '*(With respect to the theological view of the question.
This is always painful to me. I am bewildered. I had no intention to
write atheistically. But I own that I cannot see as plainly as others do,
and as I should wish to do, evidence of design and beneficence on all sides
of us. There seems to me too much misery in the world.)* I cannot
persuade myself that a beneficent and omnipotent God would have designedly
created the Ichneumonidae with the express intention of their feeding
within the living bodies of Caterpillars, or that a cat should play with
mice.' How, then, could the nonmorality of those laws be reconciled with a
universe whose general laws might reflect some higher purpose? Darwin
replied that the details lay in a realm of contingency undirected by laws
that set the channels. The universe, Darwin replied to Gray, runs by law,
'with the details, whether good or bad, left to the working out of what we
may call chance." (Emphasised words in parenthesis interpolated from the
original letter into Gould's quoted passage)
The passage in Darwin's letter which Gould so paraphrases at the end above
is set out below (following on immediately from the quoted portion above):-
"Not believing this, I see no necessity in the belief that the eye was
expressly designed. On the other hand, I cannot anyhow be contented to view
this wonderful universe, and especially the nature of man, and to conclude
that everything is the result of brute force. I am inclined to look at
everything as resulting from designed laws, with the details, whether good
or bad, left to the working out of what we may call chance. Not that this
notion AT ALL satisfies me. I feel most deeply that the whole subject is
too profound for the human intellect. A dog might as well speculate on the
mind of Newton. Let each man hope and believe what he can. Certainly I
agree with you that my views are not at all necessarily atheistical. The
lightning kills a man, whether a good one or bad one, owing to the
excessively complex action of natural laws. A child (who may turn out an
idiot) is born by the action of even more complex laws, and I can see no
reason why a man, or other animal, may not have been aboriginally produced
by other laws, and that all these laws may have been expressly designed by
an omniscient Creator, who foresaw every future event and consequence. But
the more I think the more bewildered I become; as indeed I probably have
shown by this letter."
On the Burgess Shale, Gould has this to say (p288):-
"Contingency is both the watchword and lesson of the new interpretation of
the Burgess Shale. The fascinating and transformative power of the Burgess
message - a fantastic explosion of early disparity followed by decimation,
perhaps largely by lottery - lies in its affirmation of history as the
chief determinant of life's directions."
After outlining Walcott's contrary view, he goes on to say:-
"The new view, on the other hand, is rooted in contingency. With so many
Burgess possibilities of apparently equivalent anatomical promise - over
twenty arthropod designs later decimated to four survivors, perhaps fifteen
or more unique anatomies available for recruitment as major branches, or
phyla, of life's tree - our modern pattern of anatomical disparity is
thrown into the lap of contingency. The modern order was not guaranteed by
basic laws (natural selection, mechanical superiority in anatomical
design), or even by lower-level generalities of ecology or evolutionary
theory. The modern order is largely a product of contingency..."
He goes on to make (p289):-
"A final point about predictability versus contingency. Am I really arguing
that nothing about life's history could be predicted, or might follow
directly from general laws of nature? Of course not; the question that we
face is one of scale, or level of focus. Life exhibits a structure
obedient to physical principles. We do not live in a chaos of historical
circumstance unaffected by anything accessible to the 'scientific method'
as traditionally conceived. I suspect that the origin of life on earth was
virtually inevitable, given the chemical composition of early oceans and
atmospheres, and the physical principles of self-organizing systems. Much
about the basic form of multicellular organisms must be constrained by
rules of construction and good design...
But these phenomena...lie too far from the details that interrest us about
life's history. Invariant laws of nature impact the general forms and
functions of organisms; they set the channels in which organic design must
evolve. But the channels are so broad relative to the details that
fascinate us!...The boundaries of the channels retreat even further into
the distance when we ask the essential questions about our own origin. Why
did mammals evolve among vertebrates? Why did primates take to the trees?
Why did the tiny twig that produced Home sapiens arise and survive in
Africa? When we set our focus upon the level of detail that regulates most
common questions about the history of life, contingency dominates and the
predictability of general form recedes to an irrelevant background."
There follows his discussion of Darwin's views above.
The final chapter ("Seven Possible Worlds") is an extended discussion of the
implications of the dominance of contingency. Read it - I'm not going to
type it all out for you.
While you're at it, try reading the whole book, and indeed some other Gould
- what you have said so far implies that you have actually read none of the
original, and presumably have relied upon quotemines.
He never seriously investigated any
turningpoint, never seriously tried to trace back the probability of
any specie appearing to the turninpoints / decisions, at which the
probability was set.
Can I suggest that your reflect upon what you have said above, and let me
know why it's absurd? Oh, and what's a "specie"?
But as before in this thread, Gould may well turn out to be the first
of the new creationists on close inspection of his last tome.
I doubt it - unless you are willing to call Darwin the same, and at the same
time to redefine creationist into oblivion. Let me know when you've read
the cover of the book - it's too much to hope for that you've opened it. I
have it, but have not yet read it. I might point out, however, that at
p1335 (yes, I looked in the index and dipped into the book), he points out
that "Over and over again, throughout the Origin, Darwin stresses that, for
large class of problems about species and interacting groups, answers must
be sought in the particular and contingent prior histories of individual
lineages, and not in general laws of nature that must affect all taxa in a
coordinated and identical way" giving an example from page 314 of the
Origin.
--
Robin Levett
rlevett@rlevett.ibmuklunix.net (unmunge by removing big blue - don't yahoo)
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Hitler's secular religion |
24 Jul 2005 09:51:35 AM |
|
|
Well I'm astounded you would go to the length of typing in these things
by hand. And so, what do these things have to do with the subject at
issue at all?
I said the fault in natural selection is because Darwinists deny, and
are ignorant of decision. Now let's see what you quote:
"Charles Darwin recognized this central distinction between laws in the
background and contingency in the details (Gould on Darwin)
The modern order was not guaranteed by
basic laws (natural selection, mechanical superiority in anatomical
design), (Gould)
Now read Ariew's paper I referenced before. It is wrong as Gould, and
Darwin do, to separate the operation of natural selection, from the
operation of chance. Darwinists propose a force, natural selection,
which inexorably works towards the goal of optimal fitness. But there
are other things in nature, like chance, which make the result less
then optimal fitness. This is faulty reasoning, as explained countless
times
The meaning of the word contingency is similar to the meaning of the
word chance. This is obviously not sufficient to talk sensibly about
several possible outcomes. One has to recognize the point at which the
chance is realized or negated, otherwise you have these contingencies
continuously hanging in the air. Elsewhere Gould used the word turning
point for that.
Now go read Gould's last tome, I have an intuition there may be a
signicant insight in it, on chance and turningpoints. See you in a
couple of months again, the book being rather thick.
regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu
.
|
|
|
| User: "Robin Levett" |
|
| Title: Re: Hitler's secular religion |
24 Jul 2005 11:24:53 AM |
|
|
wrote:
Well I'm astounded you would go to the length of typing in these things
by hand. And so, what do these things have to do with the subject at
issue at all?
And I'm astonished (not really - I've seen you operating for years) that you
continue to refuse to quote or directly respond to the post to which you
are replying.
I said the fault in natural selection is because Darwinists deny, and
are ignorant of decision. Now let's see what you quote:
"Charles Darwin recognized this central distinction between laws in the
background and contingency in the details (Gould on Darwin)
The modern order was not guaranteed by
basic laws (natural selection, mechanical superiority in anatomical
design), (Gould)
I typed in a great deal more than that. Restore it and address it all.
Now read Ariew's paper I referenced before.
Done. Now explain its relevance to your point.
It is wrong as Gould, and
Darwin do, to separate the operation of natural selection, from the
operation of chance. Darwinists propose a force, natural selection,
which inexorably works towards the goal of optimal fitness. But there
are other things in nature, like chance, which make the result less
then optimal fitness.
Indeed; as Gould and Darwin recognise. Your point?
This is faulty reasoning, as explained countless
times
The meaning of the word contingency is similar to the meaning of the
word chance. This is obviously not sufficient to talk sensibly about
several possible outcomes. One has to recognize the point at which the
chance is realized or negated, otherwise you have these contingencies
continuously hanging in the air. Elsewhere Gould used the word turning
point for that.
Word salad; make a comprehensible point. And where is your explanation for
your denial that Gould used the word "contingency"? The fact that you've
snipped the denial doesn't make it go away.
Now go read Gould's last tome, I have an intuition there may be a
signicant insight in it, on chance and turningpoints. See you in a
couple of months again, the book being rather thick.
It is indeed; but perhaps you should start reading it too - it's clear that
you haven't to date. Where is your comment on my quote from it? Haven't
you been able to find it yet, the library not being open on a Sunday?
--
Robin Levett
rlevett@rlevett.ibmuklunix.net (unmunge by removing big blue - don't yahoo)
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Hitler's secular religion |
24 Jul 2005 09:26:02 PM |
|
|
Robin Levett wrote:
Syamsu:
It is wrong as Gould, and
Darwin do, to separate the operation of natural selection, from the
operation of chance. Darwinists propose a force, natural selection,
which inexorably works towards the goal of optimal fitness. But there
are other things in nature, like chance, which make the result less
then optimal fitness.
Indeed; as Gould and Darwin recognise. Your point?
The point is below, it is faulty reasoning, as explained by Ariew in
the paper I referenced. So now you can respond again to my post, but
then addressing the point at issue.
This is faulty reasoning, as explained countless
times
The meaning of the word contingency is similar to the meaning of the
word chance. This is obviously not sufficient to talk sensibly about
several possible outcomes. One has to recognize the point at which the
chance is realized or negated, otherwise you have these contingencies
continuously hanging in the air. Elsewhere Gould used the word turning
point for that.
Word salad; make a comprehensible point. And where is your explanation for
your denial that Gould used the word "contingency"? The fact that you've
snipped the denial doesn't make it go away.
I didn't deny Gould used the word contingency, I denied that he used it
in stead of decision. In stead of decision Gould uses turning point.
regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu
.
|
|
|
| User: "Robin Levett" |
|
| Title: Re: Hitler's secular religion |
24 Jul 2005 10:23:42 PM |
|
|
wrote:
Robin Levett wrote:
Syamsu:
It is wrong as Gould, and
Darwin do, to separate the operation of natural selection, from the
operation of chance. Darwinists propose a force, natural selection,
which inexorably works towards the goal of optimal fitness. But there
are other things in nature, like chance, which make the result less
then optimal fitness.
Indeed; as Gould and Darwin recognise. Your point?
The point is below, it is faulty reasoning, as explained by Ariew in
the paper I referenced. So now you can respond again to my post, but
then addressing the point at issue.
You first. I notice that once again you've made unmarked snips. I await
your explanation of the relevance of Ariew's paper to your point such as it
is. I don't think you actually understand the argument they're making in
it.
This is faulty reasoning, as explained countless
times
The meaning of the word contingency is similar to the meaning of the
word chance. This is obviously not sufficient to talk sensibly about
several possible outcomes. One has to recognize the point at which the
chance is realized or negated, otherwise you have these contingencies
continuously hanging in the air. Elsewhere Gould used the word turning
point for that.
Word salad; make a comprehensible point. And where is your explanation
for
your denial that Gould used the word "contingency"? The fact that you've
snipped the denial doesn't make it go away.
I didn't deny Gould used the word contingency,
So who was it that said:-
"Yes I did read some of that of Gould, and he doesn't call it contingency,
but more turningpoint."
and signed the post "Mohammad Nor Syamsu"
I denied that he used it
in stead of decision. In stead of decision Gould uses turning point.
And you have failed to make that claim good by any reference to Gould's
writings. Here's your chance - when you've finished dealign with all the
other issues that you have, to date, sidestepped by snipping.
--
Robin Levett
rlevett@rlevett.ibmuklunix.net (unmunge by removing big blue - don't yahoo)
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Hitler's secular religion |
24 Jul 2005 10:51:17 PM |
|
|
Garbage. Accusatory drivel. Go back and address my actual point without
trying to turn everything into an accusation.
Supposedly I deceptively snipped my "denial" that Gould used the word
contingency, knowing full well that Gould did use that word, but being
blatantly dishonest about it. That's an insane accusation.
regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu
.
|
|
| | | | | | | | |
