Re: * makes hubey

Ralph L Holloway (
Tue, 28 Nov 1995 00:30:19 -0500

On 27 Nov 1995, H. M. Hubey wrote:

> Ralph L Holloway <> writes:
> >None of this evolution, Hubey, it is simply change, and it remains to see
> Where did I say that it was genetic evolution. Or do you want to
> expropriate words like evolution, determinism and complexity
> only for biology?
I guess I missed something in all these threads. I thought we were
talking about biological evolution. Its the only evolution I know about.
You know, if you would stay with one topic and stop jumping around all
the time from one concept to another perhaps we'd all be a little more
certain just what you are talking about. We were talking about brains and
intelligence I thought, when suddenly we are talking about liberal
democracies as if these were organic matters.

> Then I suggest that you and your cronies leave the word plan
> for economists, Ockham's razor of philosophers, goal for
> psychologists, and stick to making up new Latin words so you
> can play more word games.

Here you go again complaining about word games. You are the proverbial
kettle calling the pot black, my friend. Most of your posts are word
games, and only that. I am impressed with your vocabularly, OK?

> Don't worry about my ignorance Holloway. I know how little I know
> and it is because of the simple fact that I've seen real science done
> that I can spot floundering around when I see it. Compared to what
> can be done what's been done in biology (and life sciences) is
> so pitiful that it will take 150-200 years before people in the
> field are even able to realize the immensity of their ignorance. Until
> then pompousness will reign supreme. Where there are no horses,
> donkeys are racers.

What's been done in biology is pitiful, huh? The immensity of our
ignorance, huh?> Weren't you chastising me a while back for taking too
dim a view on the human species' stupidity and possible contribution to
the death of all of life on this planet? You still think we have 150-200

IF we wanted to be able to precisely and accurately describe
> the operation of a single cell it would require the solution
> of about 3,000-5,000 nonlinear differential equations. Now the
> pompous asses are claiming to understand the operation of
> 100 billion neurons and how everything happened after gazing
> at some bones dug up over years.
> It's pitiful.
Do you really believe we know enough about the cell to apply 3000-5000
nonlinear differential equations? How did you arrive at that number, and
just what question(s) would the simultaneous solution of these equations
answer, Hubey? Nobody that I've read claims to know what the hell is
going on precisely in the brain with 100 billion neurons going on and off.
It's no more pitiful that some of the equation-gazers I run into recently/...

> >post something useful for a change, instead of a mishmash of very old
> >ideas about intelligence and evolution?
> LIke what?
> OK, here is a very simple idea. Look at Roughgarden's book (or
> Kojima's). In the population genetics sections, there are DE's
> for geneflows. Most of what you see is one-dimensional because
> it's easier (i.e. it's for a single gene). The equations are
> DE's and therefore have derivatives. They are hence velocities.
> Now for the whole organism there are many genes. That means
> that the complete equations have many dimensions. That means
> that in this n-dimensional space (where n is really large)
> the motion of a many many points is something like the flow
> of a fluid (don't forget that this is a stochastic problem).
> You can think of a representative point, maybe something
> like an average and follow its motion in this space. This
> motion (in this space is evolution).
> Now I said that these particles (or the representative
> point) moves and hence posseses a well-defined velocity

> in this space. Velocity in n-space has a direction.
> That is the direction of evolution.
> Now, what exactly is all this shit about evolution not
> having a direction?

Yes, but Hubey, how long are these microdirections lasting, and for how
long in what direction? And how short a time is there for some of them to
reverse? You still believe your gorramn equations are going to
characterize evolution at all levels, macro, micro, and molecular. Some
of the stuff will not be recursive and one might as well be talking
markov chains. The rest is simply indeterminate without knowing the
values of epigenetic interactions.

> I want a public apology from all those
who've been
pestering > me over this and an admission that they do not or did not
> understand what evolution is about. I think their diplomas

OK, Hubey, I apologise. I don't really know what evolution is all about.
I'm still trying to learn. Now why don't you apologize for being such a
damn poor teacher...?

Ralph Holloway