Natural Selection Seems Insufficient

[Ravenshire]

@Jal

“That one body may act upon another at a distance through a vacuum, without the mediation of anything else... is to me so great an absurdity that I believe no man who has in philosophical matters a competent faculty of thinking can ever fall into it."

And yet light from the Sun (one body) acts upon the Earth (another body) at a distance without the mediation of anything else.

Looks like Newton was wrong. Maybe you should take everything he said as authoritative or apodictic.  

Boru

(my bold)

Odds that he proposed ether?

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

@Jal


And yet light from the Sun (one body) acts upon the Earth (another body) at a distance without the mediation of anything else.

Looks like Newton was wrong. Maybe you should take everything he said as authoritative or apodictic.  

Boru

(my bold)

Odds that he proposed ether?

No bet.

Boru

[The Grand Nudger]

Here I was thinking it was the moons pull that caused the tides that drowned the little girl on the other side of the big pool.  Turns out it's gods hand christbriding.  Just like plants only seem to grow toward the sun by means of a photophobic growth hormone.  Akshually....that's god gently stroking them until they're fully turgid with conscious excitement!

[Belacqua]

"That one body may act upon another at a distance through a vacuum, without the mediation of anything else... is to me so great an absurdity that I believe no man who has in philosophical matters a competent faculty of thinking can ever fall into it."

This is Newton saying, "If you believe in an immaterial force acting across a distance, you must be an idiot."

I think we can make this clearer if we quote more of the letter:

Here is the paragraph:

Tis unconceivable that inanimate brute matter should (without the mediation of something else which is not material) operate upon & affect other matter without mutual contact; as it must if gravitation in the sense of Epicurus be essential & inherent in it. And this is one reason why I desired you would not ascribe {innate} gravity to me. That gravity should be innate inherent & {essential} to matter so that one body may act upon another at a distance through a vacuum without the mediation of any thing else by & through which their action or force {may} be conveyed from one to another is to me so great an absurdity that I beleive no man who has in philosophical matters any competent faculty of thinking can ever fall into it. Gravity must be caused by an agent {acting} <7v> consta{ntl}y according to certain laws, but whether this agent be material or immaterial is a question I have left to the consideration of my readers.

It's clear that he's arguing against the theory of Epicurus, who said that gravity is an inherent quality of objects. 

Instead, he is proposing that gravity must be caused by an agent which acts according to certain laws, and that this agent may be immaterial. It is not something essential to or contained within the heavy object -- it is a force which acts on the heavy object. 

So he's defending his view that gravity is an agent (we would be more likely to say "force"), which exists, which is immaterial, and which acts on objects through a vacuum.

The first part of the first sentence says that physical objects at a distance cannot affect each other unless there is some immaterial agent mediating. The immaterial agent is gravity.

It's true that Newton never says exactly what gravity is, other than to say, basically, it's a force which does the things that gravity does. He doesn't feel he has to say what it is or where it came from, he only has to describe how it acts. 

This is all part of a larger project to dismantle Aristotle's mechanics. Aristotle said that things can only move because they are influenced by physical interactions -- i.e., they get pushed by some material object. Aristotle's theories of motion and mechanics had been seen as outdated since the 14th century, when a group of theologians known as the Oxford Calculators used a combination of empirical experiment and math to show that his ideas about acceleration were incorrect. Still, Newton and Bentley were careful to show in exactly what way they disagreed with Aristotle and Epicurus.

Here is the full letter:

https://www.newtonproject.ox.ac.uk/view/...20of%20any

[Nay_Sayer]

Practical question: Wasn't this thread supposed to be about natural selection?

[The Grand Nudger]

@Jal

To continue with what may be or at least could be a useful discussion for you......when you use the phrase "in an atheistic reductionism" and then comment on hunger not actually doing anything...you're not referring to an atheistic reductionism. The term for that content group is epiphenomena. To continue using the domino analogy...and in the strongest terms....in that kind of world (or with that kind of mind) hunger is not in the chain of dominos but is a domino off to the side of the chain. It falls, but does not cause any other dominos to fall. They still fall how they were going to. Terrible...terrible place.

OFC, it might also be the case, as Angrboda pointed out, that hunger is in that chain rather than or in addition to being off to the side. Think of the domino falling off to the side that then starts a new cascade leading back to some prior point in the domino chain. If you think that's wholly implausible - then you would have a hard time understanding how feedback loops work. Thermostats, refrigerators, and air conditioners all rely on feedback loops. Cruise control, auto dimming mirrors, and fuel gauge lights. Coffee makers, toasters, and sump pumps. Your toilet. Street lights. Circuit breakers.

Obviously this does not explain the existence of consciousness....but I'll put it to you like this- If an "atheistic reductionist" world is - to you, a world where hunger and brains and all that seeming are just falling domino style feedback loops...like the ones in appliances..that's exactly the kind of world where natural selection has the greatest explanatory power. Where it would be maximally potent to possess those traits or structures.

[Jal]

@Jal

“That one body may act upon another at a distance through a vacuum, without the mediation of anything else... is to me so great an absurdity that I believe no man who has in philosophical matters a competent faculty of thinking can ever fall into it."

And yet light from the Sun (one body) acts upon the Earth (another body) at a distance without the mediation of anything else.

Looks like Newton was wrong. Maybe you should take everything he said as authoritative or apodictic.  

Boru

Knowing full well that I am not well-versed in science, you try to deceive me by appealing to a false example. Shame on you.  

The truth is that photons impact the earth. This is not a legitimate example of the magic/sorcery/wizardry that Newton was objecting to (i.e. the idiocy of believing that immaterial forces magically push or pull distant objects). 

Again, shame on you.

[Jal]

@Jal

To continue with what may be or at least could be a useful discussion for you......when you use the phrase "in an atheistic reductionism" and then comment on hunger not actually doing anything...you're not referring to an atheistic reductionism.  The term for that content group is epiphenomena.  To continue using the domino analogy...and in the strongest terms....in that kind of world (or with that kind of mind) hunger is not in the chain of dominos but is a domino off to the side of the chain.   It falls, but does not cause any other dominos to fall.  They still fall how they were going to.  Terrible...terrible place.  

OFC, it might also be the case, as Angrboda pointed out, that hunger is in that chain rather than or in addition to being off to the side.  Think of the domino falling off to the side that then starts a new cascade leading back to some prior point in the domino chain.  If you think that's wholly implausible - then you would have a hard time understanding how feedback loops work.  Thermostats, refrigerators, and air conditioners all rely on feedback loops.  Cruise control, auto dimming mirrors, and fuel gauge lights.  Coffee makers, toasters, and sump pumps.  Your toilet.  Street lights.  Circuit breakers.  

Obviously this does not explain the existence of consciousness....but I'll put it to you like this-  If an "atheistic reductionist" world is - to you, a world where hunger and brains and all that seeming are just falling domino style feedback loops...like the ones in appliances..that's exactly the kind of world where natural selection has the greatest explanatory power.  Where it would be maximally potent to possess those traits or structures.

Epiphonema versus reductionism?  Potato-potaaaato as far as I'm concerned, for purposes of this discussion. Essentially emergent in both cases, rather than innate.

Feedback loops? Unless you can convince me they are driven by hunger, I can't see myself spending time to investigate the relevance. 

In a domino-effect, hunger is superfluous. Which is not a realistic picture of the world.

[Jal]

You need that reasoning explained? And you guys call me idiotic? Seriously? Ok I'll explain it. You and your 10-year old daughter are standing on opposite sides of a swimming pool.  both of you are outside the pool. Unexpectedly she finds herself in the water.  She then blames you for pulling her into the pool. Are Newton and I the only ones who see a problem with this accusation? Wouldn't you have to reach out and touch her, to pull her into the pool?  I can't believe I have to explain this.

This isn't an explanation. It's pure fucking drivel.

Holy fuck, but you're dumb. Not just willfully ignorant, and proud of it, but also absolutely fucking dumb.

Sadly, some readers might be fooled by your facade.

[Jal]

This is Newton saying, "If you believe in an immaterial force acting across a distance, you must be an idiot."

I think we can make this clearer if we quote more of the letter:

Here is the paragraph:

Tis unconceivable that inanimate brute matter should (without the mediation of something else which is not material) operate upon & affect other matter without mutual contact; as it must if gravitation in the sense of Epicurus be essential & inherent in it. And this is one reason why I desired you would not ascribe {innate} gravity to me. That gravity should be innate inherent & {essential} to matter so that one body may act upon another at a distance through a vacuum without the mediation of any thing else by & through which their action or force {may} be conveyed from one to another is to me so great an absurdity that I beleive no man who has in philosophical matters any competent faculty of thinking can ever fall into it. Gravity must be caused by an agent {acting} <7v> consta{ntl}y according to certain laws, but whether this agent be material or immaterial is a question I have left to the consideration of my readers.

It's clear that he's arguing against the theory of Epicurus, who said that gravity is an inherent quality of objects. 

Instead, he is proposing that gravity must be caused by an agent which acts according to certain laws, and that this agent may be immaterial. It is not something essential to or contained within the heavy object -- it is a force which acts on the heavy object. 

So he's defending his view that gravity is an agent (we would be more likely to say "force"), which exists, which is immaterial, and which acts on objects through a vacuum.

The first part of the first sentence says that physical objects at a distance cannot affect each other unless there is some immaterial agent mediating. The immaterial agent is gravity.

It's true that Newton never says exactly what gravity is, other than to say, basically, it's a force which does the things that gravity does. He doesn't feel he has to say what it is or where it came from, he only has to describe how it acts. 

This is all part of a larger project to dismantle Aristotle's mechanics. Aristotle said that things can only move because they are influenced by physical interactions -- i.e., they get pushed by some material object. Aristotle's theories of motion and mechanics had been seen as outdated since the 14th century, when a group of theologians known as the Oxford Calculators used a combination of empirical experiment and math to show that his ideas about acceleration were incorrect. Still, Newton and Bentley were careful to show in exactly what way they disagreed with Aristotle and Epicurus.

Here is the full letter:

https://www.newtonproject.ox.ac.uk/view/...20of%20any

Any allowance of immateriality is idiocy in my view, especially when it is alleged to push or pull material objects.  

But fair enough. Newton evidently allowed the possibility of immaterial realities. This is not really a surprise, since he held to at least some of the traditional Christian beliefs, which generally involve an immaterial realm. He vacillated over whether gravity was the hand of God - and I suppose for him, it would mean an immaterial hand/God. 

Setting aside God for the moment,  he did commit to a medium of some kind.