Dear Readers: Please feel free to review the Contents of my book and biography in Gods, Genes, Conscience (iUniverse.com worldwide release 2006); and/or here (Google Books Search 2007) or here (Amazon.com Look Inside 2008). A list of global booksellers near you can be found here. Thank you all for scrutinizing!Immediate Posting: The following Commentaries (developing thinkings) were made in response to the concerned articles, sources, and dates listed in March 2010, so as to promote the Good Dialogues worldwide. Thank you all for reading and scrutinizing!
- [NB: I'm in preparation of writing 2 books Decoding Scientism and Consciousness & the Subconscious (works in progress since July 2007), so my future Dialogues worldwide would not be engaged, and posted herein, as often as I had been over the past 4 years or so.]
- 1) Armchair Skeptics -- RE: Armchair Skepticism vs. Neo-Darwinism!? (SkepticblogUSA; March 4)
- 2) Hiding place for HIV revealed -- RE: HIV is 'cleverer' than we could think!? (NatureNewsUK; March 10)
- 3) Darwin’s Conscious -- RE: Revisiting Darwinism: Somatic ontogeny vs. Intellectual ontogeny!? (NewScientistUK; March 12) [where my opposing view was deleted after 4 days of posting -- since my comment was short, let me just post a file copy of which en masse herein under for readers' convenience and scrutiny (with edits in red):
[RE: Revisiting Darwinism: Somatic ontogeny vs. Intellectual ontogeny!?
Reg Morrison muses above that: Charles Darwin, 170 years ago, scribbled the following asides in his notes: "Thought, however unintelligible it may be, seems as much a function of organ, as bile of liver," and "This view should teach one profound humility, no one deserves credit for anything, nor ought one to blame others."
And Morrison further concluded that "Sadly, this fact-based proposition is as unpalatable now as when Darwin originally noted it."
Whereas I must disagree with Morrison's assessment of the young Darwin's musing on 'thought' -- or our intellectual ontogeny -- was a 'fact-based' proposition. On the contrary, if Darwin had had pursued 'medicine' as a profession, he would have had not equated the function or 'thought process' of our brain, with the 'bile secretion' of our liver, as Morrison quoted above.
In fact, over 20 years later, Darwin did correct himself by clearly differentiating his own naturalist work of the somatic ontogeny of species, from the intellectual ontogeny work of other scholars -- like that of his contemporary polymath Herbert Spencer -- as he deftly concluded in his then masterpiece treatise 'On the Origin of Species' that "In the future I see open fields for far more important researches. Psychology will be securely based on the foundation already well laid by Mr Herbert Spencer, that of the necessary acquirement of each mental power and capacity by gradation. Much light will be thrown on the origin of man and his history [as a matter of humanism or our intellectual ontogeny].
As such Darwin was indeed conscious; and conscientious too, about his own naturalist work and scientific scholarship; especially on his taxonomy-based naturalism vs. others’ sociology or ideology-based psychology -- or “modern population geneticism” as one that has had been propagated by the neo-Darwinists since the 1940s, as the Modern Synthesis, that I recently identified here: “What Darwin Got Wrong” by Jerry Fodor and Massimo Piattelli-Palmarini -- RE: Classical Darwinism vs. neo-Darwinism: What Fodor, et al got wrong!? (GuardianUK; February 14).
Best wishes, Mong 3/12/10usct3:27p; practical science-philosophy critic; author "Decoding Scientism" and "Consciousness & the Subconscious" (works in progress since July 2007), "Gods, Genes, Conscience" (2006: http://www.iuniverse.com/bookstore/book_detail.asp?isbn=0595379907 ) and "Gods, Genes, Conscience: Global Dialogues Now" (blogging avidly since 2006: http://www2.blogger.com/profile/18303146609950569778 ).]
