Physical idealism

[bennyboy]

You may think that, I may think that..but a few posts back (#38) Benny told me that this wasn't the case.  That there's no difference between what he would call an idea and what I might call "something else". 

To clarify: I said that in an individual instance, like a single human being, the physical idea of reproduction and the genetic fact (or any other view) of reproduction are pretty much the same.  That's because you can't really infer a formative principle in a single individual.  That's why I suggested you hadn't read what you quoted: because the word "individual" seemed to have gotten missed based on how you answered the quote.

If you look at animals in general, we can see that reproduction is likely to have evolved because of the incredible benefits they would have in creating new organisms with a chance to fight against statistical moment-- moments where a form (i.e. an organism) is tested in a relatively chaotic environment. I'd argue that some form of sexual reproduction is likely to pop up in any environment chaotic enough to allow for abiogenesis, given enough time. I'd therefore call it a physical idea: a pattern that will pop up in the universe so often that it is transcendent of the particular mechanism (in our case, DNA).