Thoughts.
My brain is saturated. It is time to vent. I need to reach a solution concentration where more solute particles can dissolve.
Here are the precipitates. They are just some ideas floating around my head.
[1] Over the course of the evolution of land vertebrates, aquatic forms emerged. More importantly, obligate marine animals emerged from taxons that were once obligately terrestrial. This is interesting, but it bothers me. Why have terrestrial animals that moved to the ocean found success? They are found often as apex predators or sometimes large primary consumers. For example, the cetaceans evolved from hooved mammals. What is more interesting is the emergence of many taxons of marine reptiles, non of which are monophyletic. Pliosauria, Ichthyosauria and Mosasaria (all extinct). Marine turtles and marine lizards still exist to this day (although each has a portion of its life cycle on land). Why aren't these organisms out competed by fish?
Some would argue the development of higher brain function is unique to terrestrial habitats, but this is incorrect; Cephalopods exhibit significant cognitive development, and even eusocial behavior. Large brains amoung vertebrates, however, are unique to terrestrial vertebrates. However, I'm still not convinced that a marine reptile like a Mosasaur was really given a selective advantage over other large predators because of its brain size. How much smarter was this predator than, say, sharks that lived at that time in the mesozoic? Also, if 'brains' and the resulting complexities have such a selective advantage that animals that can't even breathe underwater have been more succesful than those that can, why didn't ray finned fishes or cartalige fishes undergo that selection pressure instead?
There must be some other factor that can explain the bizzare tendency for large terrestrial animals to become apex predators in marine ecosystems. It is an amazing niche to just "leave open" for a terrestrial vertebrate to take up. While I realize that just because something is the apex predator doesn't mean it is "the most successful" in the ecosystem, it is still interesting that there is not enough competitive exclusion to from sharks and other large fishes from prevent the success of once terrestrial organisms.
[2] If we can isolate areas of post transcriptional RNA A to I editing from analyzing the bee genome, could we do comparative studies to look at the evolution of sociality from behavioral polymorphisms in ancestor groups?
For example, if we can find that RNA editing occurs at the same rate in a wasp, that is known to be less derived from the ancestor, in adult bees, we have a place to start. Does the editing rate change in foraging bees over those that protect the nest? Etc. Many ancestor wasps exhibit semi-social behavior. Perhaps there are different triggers, but the same response, or vice versa. These groups then can be compared to the less derived wasp related to ants. The goal would be to find conservation of DNA that leads to RNA in many different areas, trying to prove or disprove the current theory that ants and bees are not monophyletic. If there is conservation at these sites, then everything is blown to hell.
I'm still trying to flesh out my understanding of hymenopteran evolution and the techniques used to study insect genetics. However, at this point even my piecemeal ideas are entirely new and unique for me.
[3] I feel like I found what I've was "looking for". I wanted to understand my/the universe. I invest in the use of empirical analysis and existential psychology. It's working.
Empirical analysis is science proper. There simply is no better combination of 'rules' which produces more believable and pragmatic knowledge of the external world. However, I also analyze politics and history with the same healthy skepticism I use in the labratory. I do not take any events as even remotely resembling some sort of empirical objective truth unless the phenomenon can be repeated and observed. The conundrum, you see, is that you can't "experiment" with history. I can't go back and see what would happen if we experienced Rome all over again (Sorry, the imperialistic globalism of western corporations is similar, but that would be psuedoreplication). Thusly when it comes to history, I only have Plato's "likely story"; I view history proper more like paleontology is viewed in biology. We may never know the color that dinosaurs were for certain, and likewise I accept that we will never know if Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. We can argue until we are blue in the face, until a time machine is discovered, there will be an entire plethora of ideas, some credible and some not, and even a few incredible. Likewise, there will be a cacaphony of voices to representing the spectrum.
I acknowledge the existence of two universes. There is the empirical universe which I can study through science, and there is my existential universe. My existential universe involves different methods, and it is not based on "Satrean existentialism". Science proper cannot be applied to my existential universe. Science is ineffective at solving my social and personal problems. The root of my behavior is the rationale for my choices and the isostacy of my sub-concious desires.
I cannot look at the inner functions of my rational mind through my rational analysis anymore than a scientist can study how a microscope works with the same microscope. Likewise, I experience my ego, and the lens that is all sense experience. A scientist can learn "about" microscope by paying attention to how it gathers information about the world, I am doing the same.
My sense experience is also in an ethical, and thusly, social, context. Within this existential universe exists things as intangible as the physical geology of Mars in the empirical universe: my emotions in response to others. I feel compassion and love, but also hatred and emotional distance. I think sentences that I do not dare say aloud, so I repress them instead. It is through introspection, the experience of my identity in a social context and the analysis of existential philosophy that I have built what I can properly call knowledge of my existential universe of the same accuracy of indisputable scientific knowledge in the empirical universe.
These 'systems', if you can call them that, are working. The idea of if they are right or wrong really is not a sort of anxiety for me, I know that they work. It seems illogical to continue along any other path of knowledge if I have found that it doesn't work.
These two metaphysical universes tend to overlap. When they do, it is both profoundly insightful for my understanding of science, and emotionally powerful.
[4] Nietzsche held a stark objection to the recipricocity of virtue. He argued for focus on on virtue or quality above all others "so that fate has more of a knot to hold on to."
Ever the idolizer of this German stylist, I have learned to apply his words in some context. I have found that I wish to maximize my abilities in a broad spectrum. Instead of trying to be "simply good" at most anything in my disciplines, I should aim to amazing at a few things. I know that my passion for science comes out in both my writing and speaking, and I should focus on developing those skills. I know that my understanding of mathematics is hardly holistic and cohesive. I shouldn't bother trying to "make up" for this shortcoming the way I have willed for some time. Instead, I should merely face the situations as they come--it was worked thus far. I know that I will be a passionate and educational teacher and, I cannot wait to teach my own class. That is a sort of "light at the end of the tunnel". I could not even imagine how awesome it would being responsible for an entire semester course in my subject area. Hell, I might even have fun with a General Biology class.
Here are the precipitates. They are just some ideas floating around my head.
[1] Over the course of the evolution of land vertebrates, aquatic forms emerged. More importantly, obligate marine animals emerged from taxons that were once obligately terrestrial. This is interesting, but it bothers me. Why have terrestrial animals that moved to the ocean found success? They are found often as apex predators or sometimes large primary consumers. For example, the cetaceans evolved from hooved mammals. What is more interesting is the emergence of many taxons of marine reptiles, non of which are monophyletic. Pliosauria, Ichthyosauria and Mosasaria (all extinct). Marine turtles and marine lizards still exist to this day (although each has a portion of its life cycle on land). Why aren't these organisms out competed by fish?
Some would argue the development of higher brain function is unique to terrestrial habitats, but this is incorrect; Cephalopods exhibit significant cognitive development, and even eusocial behavior. Large brains amoung vertebrates, however, are unique to terrestrial vertebrates. However, I'm still not convinced that a marine reptile like a Mosasaur was really given a selective advantage over other large predators because of its brain size. How much smarter was this predator than, say, sharks that lived at that time in the mesozoic? Also, if 'brains' and the resulting complexities have such a selective advantage that animals that can't even breathe underwater have been more succesful than those that can, why didn't ray finned fishes or cartalige fishes undergo that selection pressure instead?
There must be some other factor that can explain the bizzare tendency for large terrestrial animals to become apex predators in marine ecosystems. It is an amazing niche to just "leave open" for a terrestrial vertebrate to take up. While I realize that just because something is the apex predator doesn't mean it is "the most successful" in the ecosystem, it is still interesting that there is not enough competitive exclusion to from sharks and other large fishes from prevent the success of once terrestrial organisms.
[2] If we can isolate areas of post transcriptional RNA A to I editing from analyzing the bee genome, could we do comparative studies to look at the evolution of sociality from behavioral polymorphisms in ancestor groups?
For example, if we can find that RNA editing occurs at the same rate in a wasp, that is known to be less derived from the ancestor, in adult bees, we have a place to start. Does the editing rate change in foraging bees over those that protect the nest? Etc. Many ancestor wasps exhibit semi-social behavior. Perhaps there are different triggers, but the same response, or vice versa. These groups then can be compared to the less derived wasp related to ants. The goal would be to find conservation of DNA that leads to RNA in many different areas, trying to prove or disprove the current theory that ants and bees are not monophyletic. If there is conservation at these sites, then everything is blown to hell.
I'm still trying to flesh out my understanding of hymenopteran evolution and the techniques used to study insect genetics. However, at this point even my piecemeal ideas are entirely new and unique for me.
[3] I feel like I found what I've was "looking for". I wanted to understand my/the universe. I invest in the use of empirical analysis and existential psychology. It's working.
Empirical analysis is science proper. There simply is no better combination of 'rules' which produces more believable and pragmatic knowledge of the external world. However, I also analyze politics and history with the same healthy skepticism I use in the labratory. I do not take any events as even remotely resembling some sort of empirical objective truth unless the phenomenon can be repeated and observed. The conundrum, you see, is that you can't "experiment" with history. I can't go back and see what would happen if we experienced Rome all over again (Sorry, the imperialistic globalism of western corporations is similar, but that would be psuedoreplication). Thusly when it comes to history, I only have Plato's "likely story"; I view history proper more like paleontology is viewed in biology. We may never know the color that dinosaurs were for certain, and likewise I accept that we will never know if Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. We can argue until we are blue in the face, until a time machine is discovered, there will be an entire plethora of ideas, some credible and some not, and even a few incredible. Likewise, there will be a cacaphony of voices to representing the spectrum.
I acknowledge the existence of two universes. There is the empirical universe which I can study through science, and there is my existential universe. My existential universe involves different methods, and it is not based on "Satrean existentialism". Science proper cannot be applied to my existential universe. Science is ineffective at solving my social and personal problems. The root of my behavior is the rationale for my choices and the isostacy of my sub-concious desires.
I cannot look at the inner functions of my rational mind through my rational analysis anymore than a scientist can study how a microscope works with the same microscope. Likewise, I experience my ego, and the lens that is all sense experience. A scientist can learn "about" microscope by paying attention to how it gathers information about the world, I am doing the same.
My sense experience is also in an ethical, and thusly, social, context. Within this existential universe exists things as intangible as the physical geology of Mars in the empirical universe: my emotions in response to others. I feel compassion and love, but also hatred and emotional distance. I think sentences that I do not dare say aloud, so I repress them instead. It is through introspection, the experience of my identity in a social context and the analysis of existential philosophy that I have built what I can properly call knowledge of my existential universe of the same accuracy of indisputable scientific knowledge in the empirical universe.
These 'systems', if you can call them that, are working. The idea of if they are right or wrong really is not a sort of anxiety for me, I know that they work. It seems illogical to continue along any other path of knowledge if I have found that it doesn't work.
These two metaphysical universes tend to overlap. When they do, it is both profoundly insightful for my understanding of science, and emotionally powerful.
[4] Nietzsche held a stark objection to the recipricocity of virtue. He argued for focus on on virtue or quality above all others "so that fate has more of a knot to hold on to."
Ever the idolizer of this German stylist, I have learned to apply his words in some context. I have found that I wish to maximize my abilities in a broad spectrum. Instead of trying to be "simply good" at most anything in my disciplines, I should aim to amazing at a few things. I know that my passion for science comes out in both my writing and speaking, and I should focus on developing those skills. I know that my understanding of mathematics is hardly holistic and cohesive. I shouldn't bother trying to "make up" for this shortcoming the way I have willed for some time. Instead, I should merely face the situations as they come--it was worked thus far. I know that I will be a passionate and educational teacher and, I cannot wait to teach my own class. That is a sort of "light at the end of the tunnel". I could not even imagine how awesome it would being responsible for an entire semester course in my subject area. Hell, I might even have fun with a General Biology class.