something for the sharper arbor!

[Tony Croft aka hamadryad]

thats wicked:thumbup: wheres it from and what is it?

 

its one of Alans paintings called recreations, i will put some more up in due course.

[Tony Croft aka hamadryad]

I disagree Hama. There is a rule coined by a chap called Orgel that simply states "Evolution is cleverer than you are". Essentially this is an option C to your dichotomy of "either this or that". Diversity is well explained by the profusion of niches - they don't necessarily overlap as much as you think.

 

And I don't consider nature to be as unlimited in its imagination as you do. As an incremental process, evolution works with what it has. Which is why I have an appendix, whales have lungs and no animals have developed wheels.

 

Perhaps this is also a good point to ask what on earth does Rayner mean when he says in your quote "...which provide a communications interface for energy transfer from neighbour to neighbour, from living to dead, and from dead to living" - How do the dead use energy? And presuming that they have their own (so that the living can take it) why do they need to transfer (somehow) that energy from the living. Are they zombies?

 

Tony, you say diversity is limited by that which already exists, but this is not true, mutation is random, and like imagination anything anywhere is possible. what if this was true that eveolution was limited by that which went before?

 

How on earth would a mammal like the duck billed platypuss have evolved! it is the ONLY venomous mammal, it has a ducks bill, AND lays eggs!

 

if it is limited, why would such a creature exist?

 

or better still, if it is limited, try to get your head around a fungus that has diversified to such an extent it is now a genus of fungi that has a specific species dedicated to each species of insect in the jungle. This fungus is as unique as its hosts and infects the brain of the insect, causing a mental disorder causing the insect to climb to the highest avaliable point, where it perches, dies and then the fungus errupts out of the insects head and sporalates over great distances due to its hieght advantage!

[Albedo]

Ham I'm really on your side here and not after one of our old battles but what does this mean?

 

Quote A.R Inclusional Science - From Artefact To Natural Creativity

 

This success (Edit By me :refering to conventional science) has largely been based on an absolutely definitive logic that abstracts material ‘content’ from spatial ‘context’. Such abstraction greatly diminishes the dimensionality of natural, non-Euclidean, dynamic geometry by fixing reality within rectilinear structural limits of length, breadth and depth. It may therefore come at the expense of deeper understanding of natural dynamic processes, which is needed to address currently emerging environmental, social and psychological concerns bearing upon human well being.

[Albedo]

Notice how in this paragraph, unedited by me, he translates himself:

 

Objectivity is therefore liable to introduce profound bias, the very thing it claims to avoid, whilst also greatly restricting the scope of scientific enquiry and interpretation. It does so by presenting an ineluctably partial (one-sided and self-referential) view of reality, ironically through its very insistence on material completeness. Note, however, that this view is not entirely wrong, because it is partially based in reality! But it is utterly inadequate to account for natural creative possibility.

 

I'm working on understanding him, its a challenge now:thumbup1:

[Amelanchier]

Tony, you say diversity is limited by that which already exists, but this is not true, mutation is random, and like imagination anything anywhere is possible. what if this was true that eveolution was limited by that which went before?

 

How on earth would a mammal like the duck billed platypuss have evolved! it is the ONLY venomous mammal, it has a ducks bill, AND lays eggs!

 

if it is limited, why would such a creature exist?

 

or better still, if it is limited, try to get your head around a fungus that has diversified to such an extent it is now a genus of fungi that has a specific species dedicated to each species of insect in the jungle. This fungus is as unique as its hosts and infects the brain of the insect, causing a mental disorder causing the insect to climb to the highest avaliable point, where it perches, dies and then the fungus errupts out of the insects head and sporalates over great distances due to its hieght advantage!

 

So if you can't imagine a way it could have happened, then it can't have happened?

 

I'm familiar with the example - I was of the recollection that the complete life cycle required the gut of a ruminant (generally a cow) and therefore poor little parasitised ant trapses up to the tip blade of grass where it stays til morning. If it isn't eaten it returns again every night til it is. Strange place this world but remember Orgel's rule...

 

Lets use the platypus as an example. Why shouldn't it evolve? Because it's weird looking? Take its feeding adaptation away (big shovel on its face) and its defence toxin (unusual in mammals but common everywhere else) and what do you have? A fairly unimaginative variant on the basic mammalian blueprint.

 

We could chuck weird and wonderful beasts around all night, and in some parts of the world that's probably a good night in, but the point is subjective. I say if you start with a shared ancestor, there is a limit to the variation. No mutation is going to evolve an internal combustion engine or a piece of art deco architecture. You work with what you've got. Trees can't breakdance and they never will (I know, its a shame).

 

My point about the Rayner quote was that regardless of who transfers the energy, the dead don't need it / can't use it. So any energy transfer from living to dead is futile.

[Albedo]

I have AR open on another page and am wading into it. Feel a bit like the drowning crow must have felt, that I found in the pond earlier.

 

Just noticed, that he has a similar turn of phrase to what you do Hama old chap, you must have spent a long time reading him before you discovered arbtalk.

 

Again, not a dig at you, it could be the wine, it usually is.

[Tony Croft aka hamadryad]

So if you can't imagine a way it could have happened, then it can't have happened?

 

I'm familiar with the example - I was of the recollection that the complete life cycle required the gut of a ruminant (generally a cow) and therefore poor little parasitised ant trapses up to the tip blade of grass where it stays til morning. If it isn't eaten it returns again every night til it is. Strange place this world but remember Orgel's rule...

 

Lets use the platypus as an example. Why shouldn't it evolve? Because it's weird looking? Take its feeding adaptation away (big shovel on its face) and its defence toxin (unusual in mammals but common everywhere else) and what do you have? A fairly unimaginative variant on the basic mammalian blueprint.

 

We could chuck weird and wonderful beasts around all night, and in some parts of the world that's probably a good night in, but the point is subjective. I say if you start with a shared ancestor, there is a limit to the variation. No mutation is going to evolve an internal combustion engine or a piece of art deco architecture. You work with what you've got. Trees can't breakdance and they never will (I know, its a shame).

 

My point about the Rayner quote was that regardless of who transfers the energy, the dead don't need it / can't use it. So any energy transfer from living to dead is futile.

 

You need to think from another perspective, not an insult, the whole point of inclusionality! you are thinking like a trained thinker....

 

The transfer from dead to living is the transfer of dead woody material, by fungi, into life buy transference of the energy in dead woody material by fungi into usuable food or mineral/macro/micronutrient to the living, and from the living.

 

the "comunication is via the neural netwroks of fungi, the comunication interface between life and death, from the dead it gives energy to the living

 

now ive lost my point!

[Tony Croft aka hamadryad]

I have AR open on another page and am wading into it. Feel a bit like the drowning crow must have felt, that I found in the pond earlier.

 

Just noticed, that he has a similar turn of phrase to what you do Hama old chap, you must have spent a long time reading him before you discovered arbtalk.

 

Again, not a dig at you, it could be the wine, it usually is.

 

paul, would you like to be included into the email discussion gruop set up after saturdays naturescope event?

[Tony Croft aka hamadryad]

I have AR open on another page and am wading into it. Feel a bit like the drowning crow must have felt, that I found in the pond earlier.

 

Just noticed, that he has a similar turn of phrase to what you do Hama old chap, you must have spent a long time reading him before you discovered arbtalk.

Again, not a dig at you, it could be the wine, it usually is.

 

this point is not just due to me reading his material or having been in e mail discussion with him for a long while now, since TEP tree roots fung part two.

 

it is because i am a naturaly inclusive person, i am receptive to the idea because it makes sense to a man who has self taught and not been trained to view all things within the confines of an academic style or within a frame work or through the singularity approach.

 

I just learn by observation, i am childlike and unconditioned so i am kind of pre converted to "inclusional" thinking. IMO

 

it is for this reason that many people failt to grasp what inclusionality actualy means, because in order to understand it, you have to let go of a lot of what you have been taught is true or rather law or convential thought influences.

 

MMM what am i trying to say here, I mean to say is that our society, is largley based on principles and thoery from as far back as ancient greece and those great men of thought. but if you look at any tribal folk you will find a very different methodology or way of thinking, it isnt primitive as such, it is "inclusional" They live IN nature and live BY natures rules and view nature very differently to us, we alter them by introducing western ways, and it has drastic sad and the net result is they become westernised and diversity devolves, they become us.

[Albedo]

paul, would you like to be included into the email discussion gruop set up after saturdays naturescope event?

 

Yep, I'm open to any learnage, and quite like the mans credentials, just don't understand a word he says.

 

Flattered at the offer though hama

 

I'll pm you my email in a minute, don't know what an email group is though?