How come I'm still alive?

If natural selection is indifferent i may be dead by now by the probability predicting life before dying, i.e. evolutionary knowing of the chance for the situation being appropriate to my choices. But I've been working by the probability of life after dying, i.e. pure knowing of the fatality (or chance of believing in the right opinion, right action) appropriation at a denial, unless I deal philosophically in retrospect. Is there natural selection by the fatal way pf choosing and realizable probability? Or is the fatal way of worth only because that is only a miracle that I live by the right situation, the right specified choices?:sultan:

 

As usual, I'm only understanding a certain amount of what you are saying, I feel you may be coming from a philosophical standpoint in which Im not really sure I can respond to but to respond from an evolutionary framework..

I assume you have regular access to food, shelter, and practically no competition outside your own species for resources in your enviornment, many resources made available to you in the social dynamics of being human that booster your chances of survival. All these factors give you a significant evolutionary advantage of living even if you sit and pontificate that there is no reason you should be alive over being dead from some abstract philosophical standpoint.

 

For the same reason why there are still panda bears.

 

Individuals do not evolve in the way Darwin proposed. Species evolve over generations. Natural selection is a means of evolution of species, not individuals. Of course, you could apply both ideas to individuals in a different sense but not the traditional way that Darwin described. So the fact that any one of us are still alive throughout our lifetimes is not because of natural selection. The fact that we are alive as a species is more appropriate.

 

You mean some abstract philosophical standpoint like good fortune? What is our advantage? Are you saying we have advantage over things that don't exist? Life is constantly taking shape and we share the world with all manner of life shapes/forms. Are all those forms advantaged in the same way then that we are? There is no guaranty that I won't loose a fight with a microbe.

 

We are some of what is old and some of what is new and these are facets of inclination in this moment. Absorption refection and polarity. The never ending is unidirectional and from this we get the appearance of progression.

Is life a fatal condition?

 

Good post and I have not read much Darwin but I don't believe he suggested macromutational evolution in single generations, least not mammals and such.

Advantage isn't synonymous with guarantee, the evolutionary advantage comes from being in a species that has evolved to populate a city, all the amenities that come with that and keep competition from other species to a 'minimum', compared to say an isolated Black Western Rhino which hasn't been able to adapt in an evolutionarily successful manner.

I don't really know how to respond to your form aspect, as again it seems like philisophical musing which you and the op probably be better suited discussing, although fossil evidence suggests some forms have gone extinct which suggests to me some premium be had on them and thus coming equipped to be a form that is more likely to continue to survive in stasis or by becoming a 'superior' form has an advantage.

 

No. Of course not.

 

I'm not sure competition is the driving force behind evolution. Diversification to the point of specialization insures the greatest chances for all involved. Every species emerges within it's ecology or ecological niche. We as a species are every bit as vulnerable as the black western rhino to ecological disruption on many levels. A chemical factory experiences a toxic release into the air in a populated area and voila, mass casualty as the environmental quality of the air is changed. Life forms exist because they find good terms in their local environment. Our success coming from adaptability not from defeating other organisms although contesting environmental invaders is one way to adapt to the environmental change those invasive species represent.

Our advantage is not over other species as we cannot exist without other species so I ask what is our advantage? I think we feel in this instance that it is better to be alive than not. We are inclined to the effort of preserving and extending our own lives and this seems to be a common expression among all living things. If we are advantaged then it is an advantage we share with all things.

It is our own degree of specialization that makes us successful in most ecozones of the earth and that is in the term sapiens, tasting/knowing,
as we apprehend nature on a larger*,(more complex,) scale than black rhinoceri.

So I'm not sure your philosophy here. Are you saying to be static is superior and also to be adaptable is superior?

 

Because you didn't die, yet!!!

 

I'm assuming the question is rhetorical, if not I could probably expound further on my answer but I'm satisfied with it.

The dichotomy is between static or evolving. I use the term 'superior' with the presumption that natural selection has equipped a successfully evolving species to adapt to the changes in its enviornment. If a species is already well adapted to its enviornment, natural selection may not exert as much pressure for a species to evolve and it may remain static. Neither is inherently superior in the sense you are asking, there are likely variations.

 

Well I haven't quite understood what your answer to the op's question is
and perhaps it is because you didn't fully understand the question the way it is posed as you said. Not meaning to be obtuse it seemed you had simply restated the question in a different form reiterating the dichotomy of which is it, which is the original question, which is it?

It appears you are saying in this statement that it is a throw of the dice but that the dice are loaded. A matter of probability but some things are more probable than others. I also get the picture from what you are saying here that evolutionary pressure or access to fundamental change only arrives in the form of discomfort. That is if things are going well there is no need for adaptation. I think variation likely but stasis unlikely except in terms of motion being constant.

There is an element of personal choice that need be accounted for even if evolution be strictly mutational. For example the transition from water to land would be made by those who by choice habitually inhabited the littoral zones. Or perhaps as you suggest a certain kind find themselves marginalized through competition and that is what finds them in fringe environments. In the case of fishes and amphibians it could be the gradual drying up of confined bodies of water that provided the impetus but it could also represent the ability to see above the water line and be attracted by the potential for greater access to food and safety from familiar predators. Regardless the specific evolutionary motivator claimed the desire to be remains ubiquitous. We think to ourselves it is better or more an advantage to be alive than to be not alive.

 

I don't see evolutionary pressure only arriving from discomfort, at least intuitively, though that certainly can be a catalyst.

Adaptation is present in both evolving and stasis. I'll refer to the free dictionary definition and keeping the conversation in mind, perhaps it'll better illustrate my point.

This is important to note, other than hopefully helping you better understand my position, as perhaps it can allow for individual phenomena like (attempted) suicide or hunting species in which the evolutionary scale isn't as balanced in a typical predator/prey relationship. This is kind of a digression but hey usually how these threads go.

How can this following quote here allow for such phenomena?

 

At my age one certainly begins to wonder. It feels as though I've lived more than a lifetime's worth.

 

I think that you may be much happier if you tried clearing your mind and thinking much less, Anaximenes

 

Thank you for your refreshingly thoughtful replies.

In answer to your question first. The very short answer is the mind is naturally abstract. The mind is the choreographer of a human beings efforts, i.e. suicide and sport hunting. As I mentioned earlier life forms exist because they find good terms in their local environment and toward this end all living things strive. In it's most basic form the instinct for self preservation/extension. The suicidal fail to find the degree of abstraction, in life, that represents good terms to them and they desperately seek them. In the case of sport hunting the mind equates the pleasurable sensations of normal predator prey dynamics with a good behavioral investment on their part. Because of the abstract associations of our minds we find ourselves functioning in ways that are seemingly out of proportion.

How does the statement, adaptation is present in both evolving and stasis as an important point to note, allow for suicide and sport hunting?

 

I'm not following how desperately seeking the good terms in life would result in suicide if the instinct is for self preservation.

I can dig your thoughts on the 'sport hunting' example, although again I think you slightly misunderstood me.

I mentioned these examples were a digression, to paraphrase wizardofodd, natural selection is a means of a species, not an individual. If I were attempting to explain the phenomena in individuals in the examples like you, or them as you say, I'd probably resort to psychology.

The reason I am saying that it is important to note stasis as adaptation is that phenomena such as suicide or straying from normal hunting patterns should not be present if there is no adaptation taking place. If an established species like homo sapiens reached a stasis in it's ecological niche without the necessity for adaptation, the species as a whole should not waiver in it's behavior.

The struggle with adaptation allows for deviant behavior.

 

In such a case the good self is conceived of as existing outside of life. In the stark terms of overwhelming suffering it is disclosed that it is peace that we truly desire.

With natural selection as authority a persons body is common currency of the species so the individual I is appropriately addressed by psychology or the study of the soul . What is selection or adaptation for? Species survival strategy is not informed by the struggle to adapt but in making many copies.

What is the ecological niche of the human mind?

 

Don't utter a single word

 

Oh geez, come on ... I'm using a modern definition of psychology here. (and by modern I mean used for about the past century)

Adaption helps survival, finding environments in which species can survive is important and it's apparent that there is competition to reside in any given domain, i.e. hunter -> prey , hunter <-> hunter, prey <-> prey, etc. which is, to me, an obvious part of the struggle of adaptation. Based on how you define and view psychology, I'm not going to venture to guess what you mean by 'copies.' On the individual scope, reproduction is a survival strategy and the extension of that on the species scope, natural selection is a survival strategy.