Physical idealism

[The Grand Nudger]

lol did YOU read it?

Evolution isn't a thing or even a process which acts on things.  It doesn't EXIST as such.  And yet it is the formative principle by which a collecion of like animals slowly change in nature over time.  I'm arguing that while it doesn't exist physically, it is still very real as a physical idea-- it is the inevitable result of the interactions of chaotic systems with persistent patterns over time.

You know I did.   You know I don't see any sense in calling a collection of natural forces both made -of- and achieved -by- material objects and interactions a "formative principle" or "physical idea".

Have I argued that ideas are immaterial?  No.  Have I said that evolution isn't real?  No.

If an idea is just another word for a material object/interaction then this discussion is DOA.  As to the latter..yes..ofc you did, when you claimed that it didn't exist...after telling us that the "idea" of a hand, (fin, or scale)_ was the driving force behind the evolution that doesn't exist. Not only have you flatly stated that it doesn't exist (and yes, I see you backpedaling) - you also tried to sub out it's known mechanisms for something more appropriate to your proposition.

I'm trying to dig deep here, and understand the relation between chaos and order, and what this means for things like evolution.  You are fixating on semantics, and on keeping your world view in a tidy little box.  If we are going to continue, you'll have to demonstrate that you have grokked how I've defined the word "idea" in this thread.

Perhaps -you- should demonstrate that you understand what your own claims are?  Provide greater clarity. As I alluded to above, if these "ideas" (however you define them) which are fundamental and somehow informative as to the relationship between order and chaos are interchangeable with material objects and interactions, then you aren't digging deeper...you're just re-branding. I'll simply continue to call what you call "ideas" material objects and interactions and suggest that these notions are nothing more than plagiarizing deepities.

If you're going to make corrections to our worldview and to biology, then I don't want to hear any noise about being careful with semantics, or the tiny boxes of others, or that people "just don't get it" and must demonstrate to you that they do. That shit is insufferable.