From: sharni 24/01/00 23:02:45 Subject: evolution post id: 29819 I just went to FAQ and read a few replies in the Evolution section. However, I am still confused as to where the dust particles or whatever came from. And if you answer that question then the question is .... and where did that come from and if you and that then...... what is the starting point: is there one ( my little logical mind wants one - one that is not God either) From: Min-Zhao Lee 24/01/00 23:08:59 Subject: re: evolution post id: 29821 If I remember correctly: BANG ==> Lots of energy-mass ==> Expansion ==> Formation of more mass ==> Gravity causes mass to coagulate ==> Stars form, Galaxies, etc... ==> Leftover material in disc of star dust forms planets ==> Earth cools to have thin crust ==> Geological activity slows with cooling ==> 'Primeval soup'. It is also possible that life began in > 373K conditions in deep sea (I think?). From: Dr. Ed G (Avatar) 25/01/00 3:22:31 Subject: re: evolution post id: 29889 Either the Universe is cyclic, going through an infinite number of expansions and collapses in succession, or it is a one-off event. Either way, and whether or not there is or you believe there to be a god, there had to be some point when something (either the Universe or the creator of the Universe) spontaneously came into existence without a prior cause. Unfortunately no-one be it scientist, philosopher, or theologian, has ever been able to get around this fact, so I'm afraid its something one just has to accept and live with. :-) Soupie twist, Ed G. From: Martin B 25/01/00 9:19:24 Subject: re: evolution post id: 29898 This argument is called the "Ontological Argument" and has been used by Theologians to 'prove' the existence of God. It don't work. (IMHO) From: David the Atheist 25/01/00 9:21:48 Subject: re: evolution post id: 29899 Yes, but where did "God" come from? From: Martin B 25/01/00 9:32:23 Subject: re: evolution post id: 29900 That's why it don't work... (Well one reason anyway. A lot of theologians would turn around and define God as the thing-that-does-not-need-a-cause.) From: Rapunzel 25/01/00 10:31:58 Subject: re: evolution post id: 29914 Either way, and whether or not there is or you believe there to be a god, there had to be some point when something (either the Universe or the creator of the Universe) spontaneously came into existence without a prior cause. Hhhmmm - I don't think that necessarily follows, and I'm under the impression that philosophy hasn't solved this one, and never can. Does science solve it? Where's Chris with his astonishing CPU, convoluted and tortuous equations and his talk of what logically precludes what? :-) As I understand it, philosophically speaking, it is one of those either-or questions: Either the universe has always existed, or it had a beginning - and both these possibilities, from that perspective, are equally reasonable as they are unreasonable. It may be possible to prove that there was a Big Bang (BTW, with what degree of confidence?), but can we prove what went before it? And how do we really know that there was "nothing" before the Big Bang? I'm going to throw in something else to consider: We are of necessity not observing reality, but only a limited subset of it, and that subset is significantly distorted by the nature of our particular set of senses and the "wiring" of human reasoning. Does a lot of the debate hinge on semantics, i.e. what we mean by the term "universe"? *Rapunzel sits in her glass tower hoping for a tide of deep and meaningful debate* From: Martin B 25/01/00 10:46:20 Subject: re: evolution post id: 29917 Actually Rapunzel, I think most of it hinges on what we mean by the word 'before'. I've had a go about this previously on the forum, but let's have another bash. We live our whole lives with the sensation of time flowing in a linear manner, with every 'after' having a 'before'. Even when we construct our most sophisticated philosophical theories about the Universe, we tend to employ this concept of time if we are not careful. So when we think of the Big Bang, we immediately picture that as a point in this linear flowing time that must have had a 'before', because, after all, every moment in time has a before, doesn't it? Does it? We now know that our näive conception about time is wrong. Not very wrong - for all of our everyday experience this conception is 100% satisfactory. But it is still wrong. At high speeds, at high energies, in strong gravitational fields, time acts very differently. The Big Bang is just such an event. Our current understanding of the Big Bang (which may be wrong, but is based on some pretty good evidence) is that it is an 'after' with no 'before'. Time was simply not behaving like we expect it to at the Big Bang. So Science does not 'solve' the question, but at the moment the science is saying to me that we are not asking the right question - the one we are asking just doesn't make sense. From: Chris (Avatar) 25/01/00 10:55:02 Subject: re: evolution post id: 29919 I think you guys are more than handling things without me! :o) We are of necessity not observing reality, but only a limited subset of it, and that subset is significantly distorted by the nature of our particular set of senses and the "wiring" of human reasoning. and Actually Rapunzel, I think most of it hinges on what we mean by the word 'before'. are right on the money. It's all about causation and our obsession with it. Certainly the very small universe doesn't understand it in the same way we do. Personally I think Rapunzel and Martin should keep at this one. Something very enlightening might come of it! Chris From: Chris (Avatar) 25/01/00 11:03:20 Subject: re: evolution post id: 29923 errrr... on re-reading that it sounds as though it could be interpreted as being condescending. It isn't meant to be, I just think that this is a very interesting question and would like others to offer their views. I wouldn't want to be labelled one of the often immature over specialised condescending avatars... ;o) From: Martin B 25/01/00 11:07:50 Subject: re: evolution post id: 29928 That's alright Chris. No offence taken. I would never think of you as an immature over specialised condescending Avatar... (files away reference for later use) From: Dr Paul (Avatar) 25/01/00 12:30:40 Subject: re: evolution post id: 29997 Hi shami, a good question and and interesting thread following. I will attempt only the first bit. Where did the stuff and dust come from. Current guestimates for the age of the universe is about 13.5 billion years (give or take a few billion years) the current guestimate for the age of the solar system is about 4.55 billion years (give or take a few halves of billions of years). So the universe has about 9 billion years of chemical evolution before the accretion of our solar system. That is the universe has twice the number of years of evolution of heavy atoms (from the fusion of hydrogen and fusion products) as the age of evolution of our solar system. If I can remember the Henbest books, the first stars accreted and started fusion at about 100 to 500 million years after the formation of the universe (as much as one could define formation) (or so, it is a guess from memory and it could be out by 100 or 500 million years). However, in the early universe, where all the mass and energy are in a smaller universe volume, so are more dense, the stars accreting will lead to blue supergiant stars. These will conduct fusion reactions very quickly and then supernovae a significant amount of their heavy elements out into the universe. It is this early fusion reactons that will have formed the heavier than hydrogen nuclei within the universe. It may be the case that a second or third generation of these stars existed before the accretion of our local matter into the solar system as would have been known about 4 billion years ago. So what makes us is the product of many fusion events. The answer to where the heavy elements come from is answered by the response, "how much time do I have to "evolve" such a range of heavy elements?". 9000000000 years is a long time (as a guestimate for the age of the universe before the accretion of the solar system) All the generation of amino acids, nucleic acids, porphryns, lipids, carbohydrates, mesometalic inorganic compounds for the aggregation of metals ions into electrochemical capable molecules appears to have occured within 700 million to 1 000 000 000 years after the accretion of the solar system. These would have formed through chemical reactions on the early surface of the planet. Easily within this. The first fossil "life forms" are known from two sites, Western Australia and Greenland, and are dated by radioisotope and other methods to 3 800 000 000 years ago, 3.8 billion years ago. This is about 700 million years after the start of the planetary surface as can be best guestimated. Paul As to the purpose of the universe or the existence of god, another good question. From: Rapunzel 25/01/00 21:43:18 Subject: re: evolution post id: 30187 Personally I think Rapunzel and Martin should keep at this one. Something very enlightening might come of it! Thanks Chris! :-) I will have all the floors removed from my glass tower and walk everywhere within it on tightropes for a day or two to get into the right frame of mind for this one. ;-) But I will definitely be back. Condescension? Not a bit! :-) That's the first time someone has apologised for a compliment. I'm not an astrophysics specialist like *some* around here, but have a little exposure to philosophy. Your feedback will be appreciated. Rapunzel From: kelvin fox 25/01/00 21:59:21 Subject: re: evolution post id: 30196 Hi there Does the universe have a purpopse? This suggests that the universe was either created (either for the use of a creator or for the use if the other entities that he created as part of the universe )or that it has the properties of a living entity in the way the earth is considered in the "Giaia" (sp)hypothesis. The problem with the creationist model is that if the universe was created for the use of the inhabitants it is not "user friendly" for those inhabitants. eg why create people that require hydrocarbons, then bury the hydrocarbons in difficult places to find them. If one believes in cosmology and geology, then the universe does not need a purpose but just exists, and does not have living enity status. Also, if the earth has living entity characteristics what are it's requirements for successful 'life'.? kelvin From: Rapunzel 26/01/00 23:37:00 Subject: re: evolution post id: 30569 Some Philosophical Perspectives We are of necessity not observing reality, but only a limited subset of it, and that subset is significantly distorted by the nature of our particular set of senses and the "wiring" of human reasoning. I would like to explain the statement I made in my earlier post in more detail, and to delve a little into some aspects of philosophy which I think are relevant to the questions being raised in this thread. The purpose of this post is exploratory and to stimulate discussion. I am not attempting to provide answers, just to play with ideas and to ask questions. Please understand at the outset that the treatment I can give this topic is necessarily limited, but I hope that some good discussion points will come of it. Limitations of the Human Senses Just as humans like to imagine themselves the pinnacle of all living beings, they like to imagine that their five senses put them in touch with all of reality. I have mentioned on this forum before that as a biologist I am intensely conscious of the fact that we are organisms and that this of necessity limits what we can "see" and how we can "think." The "thinking" aspect will be covered in the next section. This section will briefly deal with the senses. As I said previously, I think human beings only "see" a subset of the whole of reality. In sensory terms, we see the world differently to the way, for example, bees see it - to give a very simplistic example, bee vision picks up a different band of the EMR spectrum than human vision. Humans see, hear, touch, taste, smell - and our sensory capacities in each of these five categories are incomplete in themselves; and there are also things outside these five categories we cannot sense, some of which other organisms can. For example, some animals sense things like the earth’s magnetic field; we can’t. Of course, technology has extended the human senses way beyond our natural capacities and therefore allowed the human collective subset to increase dramatically in size. But it is still a subset. So, bees see one subset, bears see another subset, humans another etc; and actually, every different individual sees a different subset. Even collectively, all the subsets of all the organisms would only add up to another subset. This is because organisms are limited in what they can sense. But it is also possible that there are some aspects of reality which cannot actually be sensed, and not just because there are no sensory organs to deal with them. Reality is, in my view, not just a collection of information. (to be continued…) From: Rapunzel 26/01/00 23:38:08 Subject: re: evolution post id: 30570 (continued…) The Law of Causality, Kant’s Tinted Glasses, and the "Wiring" of Human Reason Just as the senses have their limitations, reason has its limitations. Chris mentioned our obsession with causation. To give an example, when a tennis ball rolls through a doorway into a room, the immediate response of a kitten would probably be to pounce on it. The immediate response of a human being beyond early childhood is that they would probably turn around, look through the doorway, and try to figure out where the tennis ball came from. Philosophy has occupied itself with the law of causality from the outset. Early philosophy, and probably most of modern science, likes to consider causality as something that is built into the universe. The philosopher Hume rejected this idea. He believed that it was only force of habit that made us see a causal link behind all natural processes. For example, a stone falling to the ground is a common experience, and this we attribute to the law of gravity. But Hume says it is not possible to experience that stones will always fall to the ground. Also, he argues that we have never actually experienced the law of gravitiation - we have only experienced that the stone has fallen. We cannot prove that the stone will always fall to the ground, and the concept of the supposedly unbreakable laws of nature is just an artefact of our experience. Just because one has only ever seen black crows all one’s life doesn’t mean there is no such thing as a white crow. The philosopher Kant agreed with Hume that the law of causality did not belong to external reality. However, he made the very thing Hume said we cannot prove into an attribute of human reason. He said that the law of causality is eternal and absolute simply because the human reason perceives everything that happens as a matter of cause and effect. Kant, like Hume, believed that we cannot see what the world is like "in itself" - we can only see what the world is like "for me" - and in some ways for other human beings. To illustrate this concept, imagine that you are putting on a pair of red-tinted glasses. How will you perceive the world? The glasses limit the way you perceive reality. Everything you see is part of the world around you, but how you see it is determined by the glasses you are wearing. And… your senses and reason are the glasses you are wearing. Kant’s greatest contribution to philosophy is the distinction he drew between things in themselves, and things as they appear to us. We can never have certain knowledge of things in themselves - we can only know how they will appear to us. However, prior to any particular experience we can say something about the way a thing will be perceived by the human mind. Cause-and-effect thinking is a mode of thinking wired into the human brain. It is a strength - but it is also a limitation. Language and Mysticism The philosopher Wittgenstein (recently subject of an interesting movie screened on SBS) was interested in the relationship between language and science. He believed that the function of language was one of picturing the world, and talked about natural science being the totality of true propositions. However, Wittgenstein was aware of the limitations of language. He said that when it came to the mystical (by which he meant the intuitive sense of the world as a whole), language fails, and we must remain silent. What is "seen" (word used symbolically) in a moment of mystical awareness cannot be "pictured" with language and cannot be expressed literally. Wittgenstein also believed that a number of other things, such as the subject self and death, could not be described owing to lack of experience. Wittgenstein thus saw limits to what could be said, and by implication, limits to science. (to be continued…) From: Rapunzel 26/01/00 23:39:06 Subject: re: evolution post id: 30572 (continued…) Wittgenstein’s line of thought has resulted in the questions: In not modern cosmology a bit "mystical"? Does it not seek to find images, including the Big Bang, by which to express events so unlike anything experienced of Earth, that literal language is of little use? Does science not sometimes require imaginative leaps beyond evidence, in the formation of new paradigms within which detailed work and calculation can subsequently find its place? What is the place of intuition in the scientific process? Like an eye which sees everything other than itself, intuition may underpin much of the scientific endeavour without ever itself featuring directly. - questions quoted from Thompson, M. (1995), Philosophy, Hodder&Stoughton, London. What are the Laws of Physics? The discussion previously on the nature of the law of causality and the law of gravity also applies to the laws of physics in general, and any other natural laws. Things are considerably less black-and-white than they appear. For further discourse on this particular topic, call on JR or Chris… Reality? Kant’s distinction between things as they appear to us and things in themselves was mentioned earlier. I would now like to turn to some philosophers who dealt with the idea of a reality beyond matter. You don’t have to agree with them, or with anyone, but this is food for thought. And anyone who is thoroughly convinced that they have a firm handle on the absolute truth is, in my view, a bit of an optimist. Berkeley Berkeley denied the existence of an external reality altogether. He claimed that worldy things are indeed as we perceive them, but that they are not "things." He said that the only things that exist are those we perceive. We do not perceive things as tangible objects, and to think that we are sensing an underlying substance is jumping to conclusions. Now to me, probably because I’m so personally incensed by anthropocentric thinking, it is ridiculous to assert that the existence of anything is dependant on the human perception of it. That seems to me like the panultimate in anthropocentric thought, and I do not find that idea very liberating. Berkeley, however, believed that the underlying cause ( :-) ) of our consciousness is not material in nature, but spiritual. Berkeley thought that the whole world was a spiritual projection of the mind of God. In his view, we are not really human beings of flesh and blood, and our world has no material things in it - we are encircled by our own mind, and by the mind of God, and everything is just a dreamlike projection. I intuitively disagree with Berkeley, but this does not mean anyone can prove he was wrong. (to be continued…) From: Rapunzel 26/01/00 23:40:38 Subject: re: evolution post id: 30573 (continued…) Post-Enlightenment Romanticism The philosophers of the Enlightenment (Montesquieu, Voltaire, Rosseau etc.) had such an unshakeable faith in human reason that their epoch of philosophy is often referred to as the Age of Reason. This philosophy had significant repercussions particularly on ethics and education. However, it also led to what some saw as an overemphasis on the importance of reason. Romanticism was a counterreaction to this, and has been described as Europe’s last great cultural epoch, encompassing poetry, philosophy, art, science and music. The key words of Romanticism were feeling, imagination, experience, and yearning. Beethoven, a Romantic composer, expressed his own feelings in his music and was in a sense a "free" artist, in contrast to preceding Baroque composers such as Handel and Bach, who composed their works mostly in strict musical forms and to the glory of God. Romanticism was about individualism, and in this there were parallels to the Renaissance. Romanticism was also about recognising spirit as well as matter. Many Romantics saw themselves as Kant’s successors. Kant, in his investigation of aesthetics, believed that when we abandon ourselves to a work of art, we are brought closer to experiencing the inexpressible, and the elusive "thing in itself." The artist can provide something philosophers and scientists can’t express, because he/she plays freely with their imagination - often Romantics referred to this as a "universe-creating imagination." Romantics believed that the transports of artistic rapture could bring you to a place where the boundary between dream and reality dissolved. As Novalis put it, "The world becomes a dream, and the dream becomes reality." Descartes and Hume had drawn a sharp line between the self and extended reality. Romantics overthrew this line and said that nature is nothing but one big "I." Romanticism also referred to a "world soul" and "world spirit." Schelling, the leading Romantic philosopher, believed that nature is visible spirit and that spirit is invisible nature. Novalis said that "The path of mystery leads inwards" - meaning that man bears the whole universe within himself and comes closest to the mystery by stepping inside himself. Romantics approached philosophy, poetry and the natural sciences as a synthesis. Writing poetry and studying plants and rocks and planets were seen as two sides of the same coin, as nature was not seen as a dead mechanism. The Romantic movement has often been summarised in these words by Henrik Steffens: "Tired of the eternal efforts to fight our way through raw matter, we chose another way and sought to embrace the infinite. We went inside ourselves and created a new world." Some Closing Thoughts This last section dealt with the idea of "spirit" as well as matter. Spirit, of course, cannot be "measured" and therefore cannot be verified by the scientific method. However, I think the mistake a lot of dedicated contemporary scientists make is to develop a tunnel vision where they imagine that all of reality is open to scientific investigation. It implies that everything that exists can be observed and measured by human beings - a point of view which is, as I see it, actually very vain, arrogant and unrealistic. This is why it has been rather interesting for me to watch a number of the science people in the "Who Made God" thread make comments which were totally dismissive of the idea of a spiritual dimension. It is as silly to imagine that you can disprove God/a spiritual dimension by the scientific method, or any other human construct, as it is to imagine you can prove God/a spiritual dimension in such a manner. Watching this debate, my eyebrows have been firmly raised with both the creationist contingent and with those people on the scientific side of the debate who like to imagine they know more than they actually do. So, who made God? :-) Best wishes Rapunzel From: helen 27/01/00 11:44:58 Subject: re: evolution post id: 30764 thanks Rapunzel - that was very, very cool (and probably a nice addition to the oranges thread as well ;-)?). Have you read Descartes' Error? From: Rapunzel 27/01/00 11:47:03 Subject: re: evolution post id: 30767 Hi Helen No, enlighten me! I have such trouble getting through books... *sigh* From: helen 27/01/00 12:10:38 Subject: re: evolution post id: 30793 :-) getting through individual ones, or that bloody great pile of ones you've been meaning to read? Descartes' Error (Damasio, 1994) is more science than philosophy, but deals with assumptions we often make about "higher reasoning" - rationality, logic and so on - which largely derive from Descartes and his cohort. There's a small uprising of "I feel therefore I am" in neuroscience at the moment, and this is a very readable part of it. From: helen 27/01/00 12:13:25 Subject: re: evolution post id: 30801 :-) getting through individual ones, or that bloody great pile of ones you've been meaning to read? Descartes' Error (Damasio, 1994) is more science than philosophy, but deals with assumptions we often make about "higher reasoning" - rationality, logic and so on - which largely derive from Descartes and his cohort. There's a small uprising of "I feel therefore I am" in neuroscience at the moment, and this is a very readable part of it. From: Kothos 30/01/00 13:34:17 Subject: re: evolution post id: 32264 Rapunzel, I've read your philosphy posts, and was wondering if you can tell me whether or not I'm drawing valid conclusions about them or if my understanding is way off base. I've tried to understand it all as best I can, but at best I think I've only made a beginning... (I've only ever read some of Descartes work, and already discounted much of it even though he was an excellent logician). So... 1. What we can know is only a subset of reality. 2. What we perceive is a subset unique to ourselves. 3. Since we are limited by what we can find out, we can never draw absolute conlcusions about anything. 4. Kant and Hume agreed that the law of causality did not belong to external reality. How were they able to make such an absolute assertion? Point 3 dictates that at best, we can only say that the we don't know if the law belongs to external reality or not. 5. The law of causality appears to be absolute. This could be because it is, or because human awareness functions in this way. Either way, to all intents and purposes, the law of causality appears to be absolute to humans. (Kant, right?) Question: Why is cause-and-effect thinking a limitation? Of the part of reality we cannot perceive, how do we know for sure that the cause-and-effect law is necessarily invalid, for which this type of thinking would limit us? Surely we can only speculate and say we don't know what laws the non-perceivable part of reality obeys? 6. Wittgenstein said that natural science is the "totality of true propositions", so presumably the rest of reality is made up of some of the totality of propositions whose validity is indertiminate? I think that's a pretty cool definition of science. Nevertheless, cannot science encompass the indeterminate propositions in its philosophy, through concpets like Heisenbergs Uncertainty Principle for example? Or must it be assumed that there might always exist a reality we cannot even imagine - hang on, this one is starting to confuse the bejeezus out of me. 7. He also said that "Mystical awareness" was an intuitive sense of reality as a whole. Why? Couldn't this sensation just as easily be our normal perceptions going temporarily haywire? Granted there are limits to science (science itself has this as one of its rules). But we don't have any other tools at our disposal do we? Everything else is mere speculation. 8. Berkely is entirely jumping to unsubstantiable conclusions. 9. "The key words of Romanticism were feeling, imagination, experience, and yearning." Who's to say that these concepts won't eventaully be scientifically quantifiable? I agree the thinking behind the Age of Reason was limited, because it seemed to assume that what we know now is all there is. This is wrong, but isn't equally wrong to assume that what we don't know now can never be known? Romanticism seems to be simply a regression into our primitive intuitive brain, whereas I think we'll eventually find scientific formulae to describe art (our modern conscious brain will catch up to the old one). The thing I don't understand is, after we decide that reality is made up of two parts, the perceivable and the not perceivable, why is there all this insistence on making conjectures and drawing conclusions about the imperceptible part of reality? It's imperceptible, isn't it? Why do we even have to try and disprove the existence of God? I could spend all day disproving the existence of the dragon under my bed (I don't see it. It's invisible. I've never heard it. Maybe it's very quiet. There's not enough room under there. It could be very small. What does it eat? Who's to say what it can and can't eat, or even if it needs to eat at all. No one else has ever seen it. How many people have ever even looked under the bed? etc...) What's the point? Rapunzel, anyway, can you recommend references for all you've described? I don't wanna go out and buy books randomly as I'll probably pick up 8 crap ones for every useful one. (I've already noted the Thompson reference you quoted and Helen's Damasio one (thanks Helen)). Apologies if I've got almost everything backwards and upside down (which is more than likely). I takes time to get my mind wrapped properly around stuff like this. PS And thanks! From: Rapunzel 31/01/00 21:50:21 Subject: re: evolution post id: 33013 Hello Kothos Great stuff...I'll respond later this week, promise, but right now my brain is jelly, and this topic deserves more than jelly. :-) Rapunzel From: Kothos 31/01/00 21:53:04 Subject: re: evolution post id: 33016 Hiya, and coolies. Speaking of jelly, I'm off to get some custard (no, I don't know what the one has to do with the other either, I just wanted to sound philosophical). From: James Richmond (Avatar) 3/02/00 0:25:20 Subject: re: evolution post id: 34361 Rapunzel, Your post raises many philosophical issues, and I couldn't possibly even attempt to address them all in detail. Books have been written on this stuff. So, I'll settle instead for putting down some random thoughts which occurred to me as I read your post. Limitations of the Human Senses The issue here is whether we actually see "reality", or whether the limits of our senses give us a distorted view of the universe. For example, it is true that we see differently from bees, which see partially into the ultraviolet region of the electromagnetic spectrum. Other animals are able to sense electric and magnetic fields directly. Dogs have a sense of smell hundreds of times more sensitive than we do. These sense differences must give different animals quite a different view of the world compared to humans. But does this mean we do not appreciate things as they "really are"? I have my doubts. Although we cannot directly sense things like magnetic fields and radio waves, we have developed instruments which can detect these things. Physicists would be very surprised to discover a new fundamental interaction (different from the four we already know of - gravity, electromagnetism, strong and weak nuclear forces). Perhaps we can never have an intuitive understanding of forces which we do not directly perceive, but we can certainly comprehend such forces intellectually. "Perhaps there are aspects of reality that cannot be sensed, technologically or otherwise", you say. If so, how could we hope to comprehend them? And even if they exist, how could they possibly affect us in any important way? Why worry about something which has no observable effects? The Law of Causality, Kant’s Tinted Glasses, and the "Wiring" of Human Reason I guess, as far as these issues go, I'm a pragmatist. The laws of causation (everything has a cause, effects follow causes etc.) demonstrably work, in that they allow us to predict how things in the world will behave. Similarly, although we cannot directly experience the proven truth of a "law of nature", we can usually rely on such laws. The sun need not rise tomorrow just because it always has before, but I'm willing to bet large amounts of money that it will. Perhaps I am missing something here, but I find it difficult to observe regularities in nature and then draw the conclusion that causation is a mere artifact of the human mind. It could be the case, of course, that things just happen to be correlated with each other for no special reason and we retrospectively misidentify the correlation as causal links. But if causation is a fiction, it is a very useful one. Kant's tinted glasses only work up to a point. If you're wearing red glasses, then your perception of the world will necessarily by different from "reality". But sooner or later you will begin to notice that your view of the world is limited in some way. Once you have accumulated enough information from sources other than your eyes you will begin to appreciate the limitations of the eyes. There is a possible problem with this, in that you may not realise that your senses are limited, but this will only happen in the case of aspects of reality that are not important enough to investigate anyway since they have no important consequences (see above). Rapunzel, your last two sentences in this section asserted that "Cause-and-effect thinking is a mode of thinking wired into the human brain. It is a strength - but it is also a limitation." Can I ask you directly - in what way do you think it is a limitation? (continued below...) From: James Richmond (Avatar) 3/02/00 0:26:29 Subject: re: evolution post id: 34362 Language and Mysticism I'm not sure whether I agree with Wittgenstein's point here. He asserts that there are mystical experiences which cannot be expressed with language. I doubt this. If you have had a vision of God, for example, you may not feel like you can express the true depth of the experience in words or adequately explain how or why it affected you. I don't think this is fundamentally a limitation of language. A poet may be able to sum up your experience much more adequately due to a facility for language which you do not possess. It may be that you cannot explain how or why the experience affected you because such experiences are not logical - they are emotional. To understand the emotion you felt, another person would have to be you; mere explanation is not sufficient. But this doesn't mean that an explanation in language is not possible - just that the explanation will not have the same impact on another person as the experience itself had on you. The following specific points were made about science: Is not modern cosmology a bit "mystical"? Does it not seek to find images, including the Big Bang, by which to express events so unlike anything experienced of Earth, that literal language is of little use? Cosmology is a bit mystical in that cosmologists can be tempted to speculate beyond what is justified by the available facts. However, the language of cosmology, like much of physics, is mathematics. The mathematics tells us things which are beyond everyday experience, but the meaning is clear and, moreover, translatable into the somewhat more transparent forms of language we are used to (though only at the expense of some of the detail, as in any translation). If cosmology was not expressible using language, it would not exist as a field of study. Does science not sometimes require imaginative leaps beyond evidence, in the formation of new paradigms within which detailed work and calculation can subsequently find its place? What is the place of intuition in the scientific process? Like an eye which sees everything other than itself, intuition may underpin much of the scientific endeavour without ever itself featuring directly. Intuition is of fundamental important in science. Every theory starts off with an intuitive guess at how the world may work. But intuition is not really mystical. It is based largely on past experience and existing knowledge, together with an element of creativity. Reality beyond matter I don't think many scientists would agree with Berkeley's idea that external reality doesn't exist and that the only things which exist are those things we perceive. For a start, we all agree that the same things exist (on the whole). No-one can prove, of course, that we aren't all God's Big Dream, but this is not an idea of any practical use (hmmm... pragmatism again - do I begin to sense a theme here?). Post-Enlightenment Romanticism Kant again: The artist can provide something philosophers and scientists can’t express, because he/she plays freely with their imagination - often Romantics referred to this as a "universe-creating imagination." I wonder - is what artists do fundamentally different from what philosophers and scientists do? Art requires as much thinking and expressing of ideas as science and philosophy, though its aim is different. Of course, artists are more often concerned with feelings than members of the other disciplines, and express their ideas in different ways. But scientists and philosophers also play freely with their imaginations. No human is just a scientist, or just an artist. If an artist can express an idea, a scientist can express it too, although each may choose to do so in a different way, and one way may be perceived as more effective than another. Romantics approached philosophy, poetry and the natural sciences as a synthesis. Writing poetry and studying plants and rocks and planets were seen as two sides of the same coin, as nature was not seen as a dead mechanism. Finally, something I can agree with! I guess that makes me a Romantic. I am inclined to believe that everything is interconnected; everything is part of a "whole" of some kind. I appreciate both sides of the coin, marvelling at both the creations of people and the natural wonders of the universe. Science without Art is cold; Art without Science is blind. On "spirit" etc. I totally agree with your "closing thoughts" above, Rapunzel, and since I've already said a lot about such things elsewhere, I won't add to them here. JR From: Chris (Avatar) 3/02/00 9:49:27 Subject: re: evolution post id: 34515 Ah - nice philosophical wrap, Tower-girl! :o) Here's a conundrum: There's a problem with the perspectives of the philosophers given above - and that is that they think they can stand aside from the world and observe and comment on it. Nowadays science teaches us that at its most fundamental levels the universe is wholly interactive. There is no such thing as the objective observer, every experimenter affects the outcome of his/her experiment. And yet we see this in the context of the views presented. Couldn't one argue that the nature of philosophic thought in the past (ie a withdrawal from mundane society and devotion to the pondering from the Greek Polis of Hellenic times to the boys clubs and universities of last century) is heavily influenced by that withdrawal? So the thinker withdraws, the withdrawal promotes thinking which is objective and "spectator" oriented (ie existenial realities), but all along the mode of thought has coloured the thinking. Ironically, the subjective universe has the last laugh! I think that macroscopic everyday life grows two fictions for us, fictions in that they are not part of the fundamental (ie quantum) universe. One is nice linear causation (and predictable, solid mechanical laws) and the other is objective reality. But both are "real" in our universe because we perceive them. Just thoughts. Chris From: Robert 3/02/00 10:26:29 Subject: re: evolution post id: 34535 Senses etc. Our reality/consciousness is definitely unique to our species. I'll side with James that it shouldn't be an impossible hurdle to jump with the advent of technology. Reasoning etc. James, Ok, but if you look up you will see that the Law of causality was first brought up in the issue of the Big Bang by Chris. And, of course, during the big bang space-time was a bit of a compacted mess with all kinds of physics we don't know about ruling the Universe. Perhaps here I will try to take a parallel to Newtonian physics. Say the Law of causality is like Newtonian physics in that it will work in your everyday life and you will win your bets when you put large amounts of money on this law. However, in certain circumstances highly unusual for human beings, it simply does not give the right answer; it does not conform to the observations of Nature. This of course is where Einstein's Relativity theories come in and save the day. Now, why not consider the possiblity that the Law of causality won't hold under the conditions of our very early Universe? From: Robert 3/02/00 10:46:44 Subject: re: evolution post id: 34545 (exuse my poor html work above - sorry) :o) Our senses may very well not hinder our understanding of the Universe, but what about our reasoning? I mean, when it comes to the high-level stuff? Our reasoning has only developed to what it has had to, hence the counter-intuitivity of quantum physics - just ask Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen! (I think I got that right). And Chris, is it really necessary to introduce Mr. Heisenberg to this discussion here? :o) From: Chris (Avatar) 3/02/00 10:56:39 Subject: re: evolution post id: 34550 Perhaps here I will try to take a parallel to Newtonian physics. Say the Law of causality is like Newtonian physics in that it will work in your everyday life and you will win your bets when you put large amounts of money on this law. However, in certain circumstances highly unusual for human beings, it simply does not give the right answer; it does not conform to the observations of Nature. Right idea! :o) (I'd add quantum mechanics to your relativity theory though...) From: Rapunzel 3/02/00 22:48:53 Subject: re: evolution post id: 34915 Well thank you, James and Chris, for adding your perspectives - I will plough through this thread again on the weekend if I get time, but definitely have to do some work now. By the way - discussing philosophers and finding their points of view interesting doesn't mean I necessarily agree with them. That stuff just makes me think; and so do the things you gentlemen have added to the thread. I find all this stuff fascinating. Ah - nice philosophical wrap, Tower-girl! :o) Well, it's nice that I somehow appear to have met with your partial approval at last, Oh-Boy-Of-The-Same-Colour-As-A-Baboon's-Bottom! ;-) You in a good mood or something, or doing a good deed as part of your obligations to a scouts group? I could get used to this. My bottom is still sore from where you kicked it... be careful with my bottom. It's a delicate piece of equipment. And I need it as an attachment point for my locomotion-related limbs. Of course, people who sit on their backsides all day long may not understand that... ;-) From: Trev(TAO)® 3/02/00 22:52:08 Subject: re: evolution post id: 34917 be careful with my bottom. *heheheh chuckle giggle* *trev thinking of being back in year 10 and all the fun i coulda had with that line* :-)> Trev(TAO) From: Robert 4/02/00 17:14:22 Subject: re: evolution post id: 35144 Closing comments: Immunity to disproof of God and the Spirit God Lets go back in time to, say, the caveman era. For the purposes of simplicity, let's say that the knowledge of the Universe that was possesed was roughly uniform. Now, let's see how much their knowledge base encompassed. Fire, making tools/weapons/clothing/shelter, drawing didactic pictures and that is about it. I think it is fair to say that they thought there were mysterious forces at work when they witnessed lightning, rain, volcanic eruptions etc. Who was responsible for these mysterious forces? God (or gods - but we'll stick to monotheism for simplicity). God at this point had a pretty big domain: night and day, weather, life and death - let alone the mysteries of the Universe that still face us today! Now, lets move forward a little bit to when the Old Testament was written. Not a lot has changed, really. God retains control of the creation of the Universe, Earth and humankind. He made the sky blue and hemispherical, let there be light and punished humans because they were naughty hence no perfect world. Fast-forward again to present day. God has lost his grip on the Universe but still retains some good cards. Namely: quantum gravity, what happened before the Universe was a couple of nanoseconds old and perhaps unified field theory. However, due to the advancement of science, what he used to have control over before has been conveniently dismissed as symbolic metaphor. Now, we know why the sky is blue. We know how old the Earth is. We know about dinosaurs. We know about the spherical shape of the Earth. We know quite a bit about the true causes of natural phenomena. We know that you can't put life on Earth before you make the Sun and the rest of the Universe. We know about the follies of incest (sorry Noah, but you are a sicko) :o) We know why, for the last four billion years or so, why night and day alternate the way they do. We have a pretty good idea how the species diversified and why we are as closely related to chimps as horses are to donkeys. We know where light comes from, and is isn't because God said so. Ok, now comes the big one - into the future. What if (that is if we don't manage to kill ourselves) we last a couple more billion years and our knowledge continues to increase. Will it ever reach the point where we can explain everything without the need to invoke God? God, at this hypothetical stage, is now responsible for nothing. He will definitely at this point not be a humanoid guy with a big white beard, but an entity, consisting of neither energy nor matter. It has no size nor position. But what does (or did) God do? At the stage of total knowledge, nothing. Absolutely nothing. Now, describe nothing. No, its not a vacuum, nor can it be why stuff happens. Nothing (by definition) does nothing. It is nowhere and it does nothing nor has it ever done anything. What have I just described? God. At this hypothetical stage, the concept of God has become synonymous with the concept of nothing. Nothing and God have become one and the same. And guess what - nothing doesn't exist! Therefore - God does not exist. Of course, this relies on the fact that we can ever attain total knowledge, given enough time. Is it such a far-fetched idea if humans remain relatively pacifist towards their own species? Our abilities to increase knowledge are not bounded by our current limitations. With technology, luck, help, and evolution (remember the timeframe here), those boundaries can be extended. So, it seems, it is possible to extend our knowledge so far that God becomes superfluous and therefore non-existent. Thank you for your time - now for part two. From: Robert 4/02/00 17:47:31 Subject: re: evolution post id: 35156 Spirit I am confused by your definiton of your definition of spirit. You say it is not matter, so is it energy? (matter + anti-matter = EMR + spirits ???) :-) Alright, so what is it then? Personality - the individuality of people's response (emotional and/or physical) to stimuli? Are you talking about souls? Surely not. Oh and what is the 'spiritual dimension'? You can't be using the standard definiton of dimension? :-) Ok, that's enough questions I think. :-) From: Robert 4/02/00 20:33:40 Subject: re: evolution post id: 35176 Please ignore my previous post. Spirit (Take two) Here is what Carl Sagan had to say about science and spiritaulity: ' "Spirit" comes from the Latin word 'to breathe'. What we breathe is air, which is certainly matter, however thin. Despite usage to the contrary, there is no necessary implication in the word 'spiritual' that we are talking of anything other than matter (including the matter of which the brain is made), or anything else outside the realm of science. On occasion, I will feel free to the word. Science is not only compatible with spirituality; it is a profound source of spirituality. When we recognize our place in an immensity of light years and in the passage of ages, when we grasp the intricacy, beauty, and subltety of life, then that soaring feeling, that sense of elation and humility combined, is surely spiritual... The notion that science and spirituality are somehow mutually exclusive does a disservice to both.' From: Robert 4/02/00 20:38:19 Subject: re: evolution post id: 35177 On occasion, I will feel free to the word should read: On occasion, I will feel free to use the word. From: Rapunzel 4/02/00 21:15:58 Subject: re: evolution post id: 35189 Hi Robert Nice quote...pity Sagan was such a dag! ;-) I break out in a rash when someone tries to get me to watch one of his programmes (on tape). He always seems to be dressed in plastic and to be surrounded by preposterous little gimmicks that go "bing" and flash flourescence into the beyond... From: Rapunzel 4/02/00 21:38:25 Subject: re: evolution post id: 35199 Hi all I will be responding in dribs and drabs because of the volume that has been brought up. Just a quick thought that occurred to me: I think that macroscopic everyday life grows two fictions for us... Only two, Chris? Are you an optimist, then? ;-) Good post, BTW! :-) From: MikeE 4/02/00 22:11:36 Subject: re: evolution post id: 35210 This universe exists with this set of laws, what may have pre-exitsted may well have had a different set of laws, re: universe created with time ILO in time …. and let's not forget the "sum of all possibilities". From: Rapunzel 5/02/00 13:42:17 Subject: re: evolution post id: 35379 For Robert Please excuse me if I am unwilling to rehash all the stuff that has been done to death on this forum about the impossibility of using science to disprove God/spiritual things. There are some threads in FAQ/not FAQ covering this; as well as a recent thread on the active forum. If you still have questions after that, maybe James or Chris will be happy to oblige. Besides that, a personal comment for you: Many people who have had experiences on a spiritual level will probably tell you that one of the most striking things about it is that it is so unlike anything you have ever previously conceived or could ever have imagined. It is just so unbelievably different, and even half a lifetime later you will still go into wide-eyed amazement, despite of the familiarity of sorts it begins to have for you on a personal level. It's extremely difficult to even begin to relate that sort of thing to someone else (except perhaps when you're talking to a person who has had similar experiences: and then you usually end up talking in metaphors). And...it's impossible to discuss it in a scientific context. Or to come up with proofs of any kind... One thing I will say is that, in contrast to common perception, in my own experience having a spiritual side doesn't make things any easier for you, or provide you with black-and-white answers, etc etc ...and I do need to distinguish between religion and spirituality here: I am not talking about religion, or anything to do with human organisations. Religion to me is about mindset (and I refuse to wear it); it's about social groups with regulations and conditioning and ulterior motives. Spirituality to me is something totally other, and I actually find it extremely difficult... but the most difficult things are also the most beautiful. For Kothos, James, Chris Will get back to you! Thanks for your patience; particularly Kothos, I just haven't had the energy to think philosophy this week, I've slept between 4 and 6.5 hours a night all week - last night it was 4 again - yawn!! I think I'm going back to bed, it's Saturday... *Rapunzel yawns like a rhinoceros and wishes for the umpteenth time that she had either the sense to go to bed at 10pm every night, or that someone would banish her to her bedroom when she should be sleeping...no wonder children have so much energy; they have someone who makes them go to bed* From: James Richmond (Avatar) 5/02/00 14:36:57 Subject: re: evolution post id: 35390 Rapunzel, Not everyone thinks of Carl Sagan that way. Sagan was a pioneer in popularising science. The facinating scientific documentaries you see on TV today owe a large debt to Sagan's groundbreaking Cosmos programme. In addition, Sagan was a first rate planetary scientist and an expert on exobiology and SETI. He participated in the planning and execution of the Mariner missions to Mars, and the Voyager missions to the outer planets. Finally, Sagan was a campaigner for the recognition of the world as a single entity. He was in favour of environmental awareness, the reduction of nuclear weapons and took an active role in lobbying governments about such issues long before it became trendy to do so. There was a lot more to the man than a somewhat idiosyncratic television presentation style. In any case, I suggest you watch some of his programmes before you make such hasty judgments. JR From: Rapunzel 5/02/00 14:51:45 Subject: re: evolution post id: 35398 JR: I did! Maybe I'm just too young to like him... ;-) From: James Richmond (Avatar) 5/02/00 15:02:32 Subject: re: evolution post id: 35403 Have you read any of his books? e.g. I would highly recommend The Demon-Haunted World and Shadows of Forgotten Ancestors. The latter, incidentally, says a lot of the things you've been bringing up in the "testosterone" thread. JR From: Rapunzel 5/02/00 15:08:51 Subject: re: evolution post id: 35405 James: Thank you for your suggestions, any books you find relevant are in all probability well worth reading. Please note that vomiting at the sight of a TV programme doesn't mean you are necessarily going to vomit at a book.. ;-) *Rapunzel is definitely going back to bed now as she is too tired for further discussion on the topic of stomach contents* Have a great weekend, everyone! :-) From: Robert 5/02/00 18:28:32 Subject: re: evolution post id: 35442 James, I have read Cosmos, Demon-Haunted World and Shadows of Forgotten Ancestors and loved them all. In 'Shadows of Forgotten Ancestors' there is reference to a sequel. Do you know what this is/if it exists? From: Robert 6/02/00 1:43:17 Subject: re: evolution post id: 35640 I have just read the couple of thousand posts relating to God,Science vs God,Who Made God. Incidentally, only about 50 at best were on topic. A couple of observations: *Sidetracking is a major problem in large threads (bras and avatars!?!?!?) *No-one has yet mentioned that the null hypothesis is "God does not exist" and that hence the burden of proof here lies on the disproof of God. *JR: Given that you listed the distinction (lack of) between humans and animals as your pet hate, I can see why you liked Shadows of Forgotten Ancestors *Chris seems to think that when faith and logical reason conflict there is a stalemate - surely that rational thinking gets priority here is self-evident? *The definiton of God used was dynamic. We had the full range from anthropomorphic (sp?) Christian Gods to the type that Chris and Dr Ed. (IIRC) alluded to - that is, inherent properties of nature; explanations for undescribable things, etc. Personally, I see these 'thin' definitons as the "God hypothesis"'s last resort - I mean, are we really talking about God here? You might as well be talking about Magic Chickens. (Ok, bad name, but my point is that renaming of the hypothesis would be required here) Surely the word 'God' implies active - or at least dormant. I think I have gone on too long here, but my point is I challenge you to define an unfalsifiable God that is still defining God, not something else. eg. Defining God as an explanation for the unknown: What does he look like? No, it's just an explanation, not a person.Right.... (walks away slowly) From: Kothos 6/02/00 2:01:39 Subject: re: evolution post id: 35644 Robert, at the risk of extending the Who Made God? thread into this one, I agree with you right there. God as people who are members of the worlds religions believe in Him is not some abstract force/entity/conglomeration of information/inexplicable coming together of all our unknowns. He is essentially a superhuman man with the same fallibilities and motivations, and as such, I maintain that since this is self-inconsistent with the religions' other purported characteristics of God of omniscience and omnipotence, His existence can be disproved. From: Greg Mc 6/02/00 2:16:28 Subject: re: evolution post id: 35649 Yup! For an omniscientomnipotentomnipresent entity he does seem prone to the odd tanty and seems a wee bit easily shocked and disgusted. "I'll create these hermaphroditic snails but eeewwww, Julian Clary's friends just gross me out, eeewwww" I think the/a real God is/would be more profound than the naive concepts that get thrown around the odd cathedral/mosque/tabernacle/ashram/add to the list. From: Kothos 6/02/00 3:00:45 Subject: re: evolution post id: 35656 I'm glad there seems to be at least a few of us who think this way! I just saw Dogma by Kevin Smith at the cinema and it tries to address a few of these issues by attempting to portray God as more profound and slightly fallible. It's still heavily steeped in traditional religious mythology and mysticism, but I thought it was a top movie (funny too). From: Rapunzel 7/02/00 9:42:51 Subject: re: evolution post id: 35882 No-one has yet mentioned that the null hypothesis is "God does not exist" and that hence the burden of proof here lies on the disproof of God. That has been previously discussed, actually - did you look in the FAQ/not the FAQ? From: Purple 7/02/00 9:47:41 Subject: re: evolution post id: 35886 I base this on no solid argument but here goes.... If we weren't evolving, why are the kids getting bigger??? An awful lot of the kids going into high school now are HUGE! Or is this some environmental thing? From: Robert 7/02/00 9:53:24 Subject: re: evolution post id: 35891 That has been previously discussed, actually - did you look in the FAQ/not the FAQ? Yes, but it took me about an hour or two, I must have skipped over it. From: Robert 7/02/00 9:55:05 Subject: re: evolution post id: 35894 I base this on no solid argument but here goes.... If we weren't evolving, why are the kids getting bigger??? An awful lot of the kids going into high school now are HUGE! Or is this some environmental thing? You are quite right. It is dietary, though, not evolution. From: Rapunzel 7/02/00 9:55:26 Subject: re: evolution post id: 35895 Nobody in this thread has been debating whether or not evolution is a reality (at least I'm not!). I'm just pointing out that the assertion "God can be disproven by science" won't hold up; just as "God can be proven by science" won't. And that, ladies and genetlemen, has been explained so many times I am wondering it's still being brought up. I'll leave this one to others - I have to go to work! But please, please don't turn this into a rehash of the "Who Made God" thread... From: Robert 7/02/00 10:17:45 Subject: re: evolution post id: 35902 Ok, here's a hypothetical: (Using classical defitinition of God, here) Tommorow, God comes out of hibernation and says hello to the world in a booming voice. Observed world wide, microphones, cameras etc. pick up evidence that we are not on drugs released into the atmosphere. God then manifests again in physical form (ala Jesus) and performs his party tricks in front of scientists who confirm that he is distorting the laws of physics here. QED - God is proven (definiton: Abstract definition - God started the big bang) Scientists determine that the Universe is in fact closed causing the space-time to eventually collapse into itself. However, it is discovered there is a certain threshold limit to which space-time can be warped and it resists, expanding again keeping time intact. So we now have a cyclic Universe that has causal links between the cycles ( -- calm down Chris, it's only a hypothetical) So, it Universe has always been and that there was no initial Big Bang for God to start. QED God disproven [Why didn't I pick an easier example] See, if you use static, specific definitions then you can prove/disprove those definitions with enough supporting/conflicting evidence. However, the dynamic definition can in fact never be proved because no definition has been selected. The only way the definition is defeatable is with Total Knowledge. Total Knowledge is not pratically attainable. However, with more knowledge, the 'slippery God' has less options - thus weakening the original hypothesis. From: Rapunzel 13/02/00 23:27:10 Subject: re: evolution post id: 37950 Hi Kothos I've read your philosphy posts, and was wondering if you can tell me whether or not I'm drawing valid conclusions about them or if my understanding is way off base. I've tried to understand it all as best I can, but at best I think I've only made a beginning... (I've only ever read some of Descartes work, and already discounted much of it even though he was an excellent logician). So... As I have been promising, I will do my best to address your points / queries, but please remember that I’m not an authority on philosophy or reality! :-) 1. What we can know is only a subset of reality. I think that’s undoubtedly the case. 2. What we perceive is a subset unique to ourselves. That I also think is beyond doubt. 3. Since we are limited by what we can find out, we can never draw absolute conclusions about anything. Never say never! We can probably know some things for sure - such as that we are alive, that we don’t see the whole of reality, that everyone sees a different subset etc. Would the physicists / logicians of this site (James, Chris, etc.) like to offer what they think we can know for sure, in terms of science? I do think there are a lot of things we cannot draw absolute conclusions about. 4. Kant and Hume agreed that the law of causality did not belong to external reality. How were they able to make such an absolute assertion? Point 3 dictates that at best, we can only say that the we don't know if the law belongs to external reality or not. I agree with you! Kant and Hume made such assertions in the same way that many philosophers like to make absolute assertions. People need to take philosophy with a grain of salt - but it’s excellent stuff to get you thinking. Philosophy is full of extreme points of view; but such theses and antitheses are very useful for exploratory purposes, and for the development of syntheses which may get closer to the truth, if there is such a thing. Some philosophy strikes me as random nutting, and a lot of it as unsupported opinion… but it’s all valuable in some way. I think my Dad’s favourite maxim also applies to philosophy: Nobody is so bad that they are entirely useless. At the very least they can serve as a bad example. :-) 5. The law of causality appears to be absolute. This could be because it is, or because human awareness functions in this way. Either way, to all intents and purposes, the law of causality appears to be absolute to humans. I’m not sure whether the law of causality is absolute. That’s like saying you will never see a white raven just because you have seen black ravens all your life. (continued...) From: Rapunzel 13/02/00 23:28:55 Subject: re: evolution post id: 37951 (continued) Question: Why is cause-and-effect thinking a limitation? I would like you to draw 3 rows of 3 equidistant dots per row, precisely underneath each other, so that they are forming a square with 8 dots around the perimeter and 1 dot in the center. Now, try to connect all these dots using 4 straight lines, but you must be able to retrace your solution without taking your pen off the paper or going over any line or part of a line twice. It can be done - but it takes a lot of people hours when they first try to do it. Interestingly enough, I have found that my youngest students seem to do this fastest! It’s because they have less preconceived ideas. Their conceptual glasses are less tinted with red than those of adults. Basically, what I am trying to say is that preconceived ideas can get in the way, even if they are useful for us when living our lives. Of the part of reality we cannot perceive, how do we know for sure that the cause-and-effect law is necessarily invalid, for which this type of thinking would limit us? Surely we can only speculate and say we don't know what laws the non-perceivable part of reality obeys? We don’t know whether or not the cause-or-effect law is necessarily valid under all circumstances, and I think it would be limiting for us to assume that no other alternative exists, because it restrains our thinking - and in fact, I think it unconsciously affects our thinking anyway, and gets in the way. (Just like in the boundaries exercise with the dots described above.) It is hard to break out of hard-wired patterns - often it may be impossible to escape from such limitations completely, or even significantly. The point about cause-and-effect thinking originally came up in this thread when Chris was remarking on why people have problems thinking about the big bang / the origins of the universe. I think you should take this question up further with him because he is likely to be more lucid on this topic than I am. Here’s an exercise on our perception of reality I did with my Physics class last week. First of all, take your wristwatch and put it in your pocket before reading any further. (You must do this now, or you will be cheating!) Then get a piece of paper and draw as much as you can remember of the watch face. After you finish, compare your drawing with the watch itself. :-) Remember that you look at your watch dozens of times a day. But how much of it do you really take notice of? 6. Wittgenstein said that natural science is the "totality of true propositions", so presumably the rest of reality is made up of some of the totality of propositions whose validity is indertiminate? I think that's a pretty cool definition of science. Nevertheless, cannot science encompass the indeterminate propositions in its philosophy, through concepts like Heisenbergs Uncertainty Principle for example? Or must it be assumed that there might always exist a reality we cannot even imagine - hang on, this one is starting to confuse the bejeezus out of me. And out of me too! :-) We need to call in James and Chris here. And anything involving calculus, Quantum anythings etc tends to leave my brain in a hopeless heap… :-) 7. He also said that "Mystical awareness" was an intuitive sense of reality as a whole. Why? Couldn't this sensation just as easily be our normal perceptions going temporarily haywire? That is very possible - and something we can’t know for sure one way or the other, I suspect! Granted there are limits to science (science itself has this as one of its rules). But we don't have any other tools at our disposal do we? Everything else is mere speculation. True. But a lot of science is also speculation, and I think we tend to forget that. (continued...) From: Rapunzel 13/02/00 23:30:17 Subject: re: evolution post id: 37952 (continued) 8. Berkeley is entirely jumping to unsubstantiable conclusions. Berkeley would have said the same thing about us imagining we are not just a spiritual dream. Intuitively I disagree with Berkeley, but I don’t think we can actually prove that he was wrong. 9. "The key words of Romanticism were feeling, imagination, experience, and yearning." Who's to say that these concepts won't eventually be scientifically quantifiable? Because some things cannot be totally objective. In fact, few things may be totally objective. In science, we tend to distinguish between things that are quantifiable and things that are not quantifiable. I think there are some things, probably many things, that reductionism will never get at. And… the whole is often greater than the sum of its parts… I agree the thinking behind the Age of Reason was limited, because it seemed to assume that what we know now is all there is. This is wrong, but isn't equally wrong to assume that what we don't know now can never be known? Romanticism seems to be simply a regression into our primitive intuitive brain, whereas I think we'll eventually find scientific formulae to describe art (our modern conscious brain will catch up to the old one). Actually, I enjoy regressing into my primitive intuitive brain, if that’s what it is! :-) I think it would be a disservice to label Romanticism as primitive, I think the ideas are very valuable. And I don’t think human reason is necessarily quite as developed and wonderful as we tend to think it is. At the end of the day I suppose I believe that a human being is more than an android, and that the universe is more than a big complicated mechanism. However, that may be primitive intuitive me speaking! I personally don’t think we will find scientific formulae to "describe" art, in the full sense of what there is to describe. (Do you remember that scene in Dead Poets Society about Dr J.Evans Pritchard, Ph.D., and his attempt to turn poetry into an exercise in reductionism?) I experience a lot of things that I don’t think could be put into words or equations, but that’s just my intuition talking again! :-) The thing I don't understand is, after we decide that reality is made up of two parts, the perceivable and the not perceivable, why is there all this insistence on making conjectures and drawing conclusions about the imperceptible part of reality? It's imperceptible, isn't it? I don’t think we can draw conclusions about the imperceivable, or about everything that is perceivable. Another thing: There are some things that are not perceivable in the scientific sense, but may be perceivable in other ways. Lots of things, however, are probably imperceivable through science, or through other ways. This is not an invitation to give up - because it doesn’t matter whether we can’t see a huge part of reality; the exploration process is still valuable - and loads of fun! :-) Why do we even have to try and disprove the existence of God? My point exactly. Or, on the other side of the coin, to try to "prove" God. Both strike me as futile exercises. (continued...) From: Rapunzel 13/02/00 23:31:53 Subject: re: evolution post id: 37953 (continued) I could spend all day disproving the existence of the dragon under my bed (I don't see it. It's invisible. I've never heard it. Maybe it's very quiet. There's not enough room under there. It could be very small. What does it eat? Who's to say what it can and can't eat, or even if it needs to eat at all. No one else has ever seen it. How many people have ever even looked under the bed? etc...) What's the point? Cute illustration! :-) There isn’t any point, but that doesn’t mean that you can be absolutely sure that there isn’t a dragon under your bed! :-) Rapunzel, anyway, can you recommend references for all you've described? I don't wanna go out and buy books randomly as I'll probably pick up 8 crap ones for every useful one. (I've already noted the Thompson reference you quoted and Helen's Damasio one (thanks Helen)). Well, Jostein Gaarder’s Sophie’s World is a good starting point for anyone who wants a readable introduction to philosophy. A more serious tome is Honderlich, Ted (ed), The Oxford Companion to Philosophy, Oxford University Press, 1995. Apologies if I've got almost everything backwards and upside down (which is more than likely). I takes time to get my mind wrapped properly around stuff like this. Tell me about it! Being here is a learning process for me too. I am relying on others to think about what I’m saying and to point out anything they think needs to be pointed out… PS And thanks! No problem, I am enjoying this thread - if only I could get paid for it, or didn’t need to sleep! :-) Thanks also to all those who have put their time into this thread so far, and who are considering putting time into it in the future. It’s much appreciated. Best wishes Rapunzel PS: James, Chris etc: I will try to address your posts eventually, I’m just a bit stuck for time. This stuff takes me ages... From: Mjr 13/02/00 23:36:48 Subject: re: evolution post id: 37956 WOW! *cough* Dr Karl *cough* *cough* Look here *cough* *cough* Future Avatar *cough* Mjr (NUFAH) From: Rapunzel 13/02/00 23:39:51 Subject: re: evolution post id: 37957 Thanks for the compliment, Mjr! However, your prognosis is doomed as I wouldn't accept it! :-) Rapunzel From: Mjr 13/02/00 23:41:51 Subject: re: evolution post id: 37958 Really?? Why not? You deserve the credit... Mjr (NUFAH) From: Rapunzel 13/02/00 23:42:06 Subject: re: evolution post id: 37960 ...but the smile you have just put on my face has doubled the ambient brightness of the room I'm in... :-))) Thanks!!! From: Rapunzel 13/02/00 23:45:04 Subject: re: evolution post id: 37962 For "why not" see some recent threads on the topic of avatars. From: Mjr 13/02/00 23:47:03 Subject: re: evolution post id: 37963 ahhh yes yes... I remember now! Well we can just call you "Rapunzel - Coulda, Woulda, but didn't Wanna - Avatar" Has a nice ring to it ; ) Mjr (NUFAH) From: Rapunzel 13/02/00 23:49:47 Subject: re: evolution post id: 37964 Just call me Rapunzel - the alleged fairy princess... ;-) From: Mjr 13/02/00 23:50:58 Subject: re: evolution post id: 37966 hahahahahaha deal Mjr (NUFAH) From: Di 13/02/00 23:51:13 Subject: re: evolution post id: 37967 Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhh! Mjr, don't get her started!!!!!!! :) From: Rapunzel 13/02/00 23:53:08 Subject: re: evolution post id: 37968 *ROFLMAO* From: Grant¹ 14/02/00 0:53:38 Subject: re: evolution post id: 38000 Mjr, don't get her started!!!!!!! Only if in the appropriate thread. From: Kothos 14/02/00 21:47:41 Subject: re: evolution post id: 38371 Hi Rapunzel Fair enough to every time you said something was at least worthwhile as an exercise, I agree. About the law of causality being a limitation. I didn't know you were citing it as a limitation merely because we assume it to be true from day one, and those sorts of assumptions aren't justified - so okay I get where you're coming from (I think). Remember that you look at your watch dozens of times a day. But how much of it do you really take notice of? I got 5 out of 7 items correct. But one of the two I missed is the huge gigantic solar cells across the top. But a lot of science is also speculation, and I think we tend to forget that. Okay, I'll agree with that, even though it's not supposed to be that way. The taking of scientific speculation as science itself is just something people get carried away with sometimes. Actually, I enjoy regressing into my primitive intuitive brain, if that’s what it is! :-) I think it would be a disservice to label Romanticism as primitive, I think the ideas are very valuable. And I don’t think human reason is necessarily quite as developed and wonderful as we tend to think it is. I agree with all that, but... At the end of the day I suppose I believe that a human being is more than an android, and that the universe is more than a big complicated mechanism. However, that may be primitive intuitive me speaking! I personally don’t think we will find scientific formulae to "describe" art, in the full sense of what there is to describe. (Do you remember that scene in Dead Poets Society about Dr J.Evans Pritchard, Ph.D., and his attempt to turn poetry into an exercise in reductionism?) ...the primitive intuitive brain has to work according to physical principles doesn't it? Surely that should mean we should be able to reduce it eventually? Agreed that reductionism gets carried way into the ridiculous sometimes (like the Dead Poet's Society reference), but I still think eventually we will be able to write some sort of computer program that will write great poetry (IMHO). There are some things that are not perceivable in the scientific sense What though? Why do we even have to try and disprove the existence of God? My point exactly. Or, on the other side of the coin, to try to "prove" God. Both strike me as futile exercises. Mmm, I dunno about futile, I'm trying to disprove God right now, just for fun and profit (well fun anyway). Cute illustration! :-) There isn’t any point, but that doesn’t mean that you can be absolutely sure that there isn’t a dragon under your bed! :-) No, I can never really prove it isn't there. But every decision I make in my life is based on the assumption that it isn't - there's gotta be something to that, doesn't there? Anyway, I still have to get through the rest of the thread. Need to sleep now. From: Robert 14/02/00 22:07:47 Subject: re: evolution post id: 38386 There isn’t any point, but that doesn’t mean that you can be absolutely sure that there isn’t a dragon under your bed! :-) No point? Again I'll quote Carl Sagan who wrote a whole chapter on a similar dragon :-) "Now, what's the difference between an invisible, incorporeal, floating dragon who spits heatless fire and no dragon at all? ... Claims that cannot be tested, assertions that are immune to disproof are veridically worthless, whatever value they may have in inspiring us or in exciting our sense of wonder. .... The only thing you've really learned from my insistence that there's a dragon in my garage is that something funny is going on inside my head. You'd wonder, if no physical tests apply, what convinced me. The possibility that it was a dream or hallucination would certainly enter your mind. But then why am I taking it so seriously? Maybe I need help. At the very least, maybe I've seriously underestimated human fallibility." From: Kothos 14/02/00 22:11:35 Subject: re: evolution post id: 38393 Cool quotes Robert. From books by Sagan? From: Robert 14/02/00 22:14:45 Subject: re: evolution post id: 38401 Both from The Demon-Haunted World. The book is basically about the perils of pseudoscience - but it covers so much more! I highly reccomend it. From: Kothos 14/02/00 22:32:57 Subject: re: evolution post id: 38429 I think I'll definately get it too (: From: Rapunzel 16/02/00 9:59:57 Subject: re: evolution post id: 38900 On dragons... I maintain I don't know if there is much point in people looking for unverifiable dragons - but that's not to say there is no point in thinking about them. However, if an unverifiable dragon were to, by magic :-), come up and talk to you, would you tell it to go away? ;-) Assume that the talking is done in such a way as to prevent objective verification! *smiles broadly* From: Robert 16/02/00 10:10:27 Subject: re: evolution post id: 38901 However, if an unverifiable dragon were to, by magic :-), come up and talk to you Wait, that's a contradiction ... oh ok I didn't see your qualifier..... Assume that the talking is done in such a way as to prevent objective verification! Sorry, even if you are smiling and you put and exclamation mark at the end I can not allow that! Hallucination perhaps? Schizophrenia - or something else that makes you hear voices? From: Rapunzel 16/02/00 10:23:55 Subject: re: evolution post id: 38908 I can not allow that! All unverifiable dragons please note that you have now been decreed illegal, so make sure you stay hiding in your corners! :-) *Rapunzel now has to go and look after her league of 110 dwarves* From: Robert 16/02/00 10:30:43 Subject: re: evolution post id: 38915 All unverifiable dragons please note that you have now been decreed illegal I prefer non-existent *Rapunzel now has to go and look after her league of 110 dwarves* What? You've mixed metaphors, Snow White! (Or is there something missing from my version of the story) :-) From: Rapunzel 16/02/00 19:11:57 Subject: re: evolution post id: 39109 I prefer non-existent Yeah, your personal preference is pretty obvious, but it can't influence the existence or otherwise of God, and neither can scientific investigation - as Chris and James have hopefully managed to explain to you in a more recent thread. BTW the number of dwarves I have at the moment is exactly 110 - I did a tally recently! ...yes, I think you have missed something. :-) I'm definitely not Snowy White. :-) And Snowy White only had 7 dwarves, not 110. ;-) Rapunzel (Friend of the Dwarves and Unverifiable Dragons) From: Robert 16/02/00 20:20:11 Subject: re: evolution post id: 39117 Yeah, your personal preference is pretty obvious... Hahaha... *smiles* Ok let me rephrase my position, again using the words of Carl Sagan: ....the only sensible approach is tentatively to reject the dragon hypothesis, to be open to future physical data, and to wonder what the cause might be that so many apparently sane and sober people share the same strange delusion... There you go, so if you any physical data whatsoever, please send it this way - but for the moment I'll reject the hypothesis. (ditto God) Satisfied? From: Kothos 16/02/00 21:29:26 Subject: re: evolution post id: 39154 Rapunzel, you've read Tolkein huh? From: Rapunzel 17/02/00 1:25:55 Subject: re: evolution post id: 39267 Rapunzel, you've read Tolkein huh? Absolutely not! I detest the entire genre! It's like soap opera!!! From: Rapunzel 17/02/00 1:36:22 Subject: re: evolution post id: 39269 Hi Robert! :-) Ok let me rephrase my position, again using the words of Carl Sagan... Some people like to quote scripture at me. Others like to quote Sagan at me in a similar manner. Life is *very* interesting like that! *heeheehee* There you go, so if you any physical data whatsoever, please send it this way - but for the moment I'll reject the hypothesis. (ditto God) First of all, I think you've missed the point that people have been trying to explain to you this afternoon on a more recent thread. :-) ...and secondly, it isn't my responsibility to gather evidence on your behalf. I don't really care what point of view someone chooses to adopt. I don't believe in universal answers to existential questions. Satisfied? Huh??? Cheers Rapunzel PS: Want to adopt a dwarf? :-) From: Robert 17/02/00 15:25:15 Subject: re: evolution post id: 39482 Hello, Some people like to quote scripture at me. Others like to quote Sagan at me in a similar manner. Life is *very* interesting like that! *heeheehee* Yes, Sagan is my scientific scripture :-) First of all, I think you've missed the point that people have been trying to explain to you this afternoon on a more recent thread. :-) Which one? The one from Chris where he said you can't get physical data? I have tried to be very flexible with my thoughts because you, Chris, James and Kothos have all had great input into the two threads. Ask any Christian abuot physical data - within a few milliseconds they will answer 'Jesus'. Indeed, if scientists were able to deem that the said person could actually alter the laws of physics and reality as we know it at will, then in fact we would have physical data, wouldn't we? Exactly what we are after - an illogical, non-physical entity manifesting itself in human form and loads of testable consequences. Of course, its a bit late now, so we are back to square one... .and secondly, it isn't my responsibility to gather evidence on your behalf. I don't really care what point of view someone chooses to adopt. I don't believe in universal answers to existential questions. Ummm..... well, if you did happen to see some flames under your bed, strange footprints in the dust, or even if it materialises in front of you, it would be kind of you to forward this evidence to the scientific community and to me as I am interested in such dragons :-) If you happen to be interested in the exact value of Hubble's constant or the theory of quantum gravity, it is up to you and others in the pursuit of the same knowledge to search for evidence. Currently, evidence may indeed be impossible to attain (as Chris said), but conditions may change (why not?) and then God/dragon may delcare Itself unequivocally. Conversely, if you couldn't care less, then you can just be ignorant. NB. I don't mean ignorant in an offensive way - I only have a vague idea of what you mean by 'existential questions', but from what I can gather you may be quite justified in not being interested in answers. PS: Want to adopt a dwarf? :-) Let's see ..... the dwarves were meant to symbolise your schoolchildren .... wait, that's illegal, isn't it? :-) Ps. From the changing tone of your posts, perhaps you may be getting sick of this discussion (I don't blame you, this is very old ground and it is a science forum, after all). Would you like a truce soon? pps. I don't really care what point of view someone chooses to adopt. - Rapunzel, 17/2 I like the question, Robert, and I'd like to hear your ideas on the evolution thread... - Rapunzel 2/2 :-) From: Chris (Avatar) 17/02/00 16:34:35 Subject: re: evolution post id: 39501 Interesting discussion. In the interests of fanning the flames of deep thought, suppose we link the God concept to the title of this thread. It's all very well to compare God with the magic chicken (of which I am so fond myself) on the coneptual level - at least insofar as neither is provable or disprovable. However we ought to keep in mind that the magic chicken - as it is commonly used here - is a scientific construct with scientific merit. God is not a scientific construct, and arguably has little or no scientific merit. Yet God (of one sort or other) has been - and is - pretty damn popular! One would be a fool to dismiss all merit from something so popular, and so the question begs: what of the evolution of God? At least as a concept? Is there an evolutionary advantage conferred by subscribing to a God concept? Or should we consider the evolution of the concept as struggling itself? Hmmm.... From: Kothos 17/02/00 16:45:48 Subject: re: evolution post id: 39502 God is the infantile form of those two societal pillars, Science and Law. Unfortunately, We (Science and Law) must currently co-exist with that other, disgustingly more primitive offspring of God, the Neanderthal God, the Modern God. (IMHO) From: Chris (Avatar) 17/02/00 17:01:25 Subject: re: evolution post id: 39508 Interesting, Kothos. Suppose you and I journey a little along your path of thought there. I'm assuming that by "infantile" you meant that science and law (in their current forms) grew out of a more primitive belief in God. (And also that you couldn't resist a bit of a stab! ;o) If so, is God a necessary evolutionary phase in the development of science and of law (a) in general and (b) as they stand today? From: Kothos 17/02/00 17:16:54 Subject: re: evolution post id: 39510 That's interesting. I can't say I have an opinion on what the answer might be. It's possible, I suppose, that a creature in the early stages of developing intelligence, must pass through a point during which it believes in God. "Oh lookee, I'm smart enough to wonder at the origin of my environment, but too dumb to come up with any but the simplest of answers." The simplest answer of all of course, is God. (God is defined as that which hath made everything.) From: Rapunzel 17/02/00 20:15:27 Subject: re: evolution post id: 39565 Hello again, Robert! :-) Yes, Sagan is my scientific scripture :-) Heeheehee. I'm sure Ruprecht would find that quite amusing, but he's disappeared in a puff of smoke, like a proper self-respecting unverifiable entity! ;-) Ask any Christian abuot physical data - within a few milliseconds they will answer 'Jesus'. I need to repeat a point with you which James made in the more recent thread: How do you propose to know what "any Christian" believes / answers??? That's a bit of a broad stroke! I doubt that persons with any passable understanding of science would accept Jesus as "physical evidence" of God. Might as well call a granite headland "physical evidence" for the existence of God. Indeed, if scientists were able to deem that the said person could actually alter the laws of physics and reality as we know it at will, then in fact we would have physical data, wouldn't we? Neither miracles nor resurrection have - to the best of my understanding anyway - ever been scientifically verified. And even if you could observe a miracle, how would you know it wasn't a hallucination? And if you did get somehow get some hard physical data, such as water turning into wine or whatever, how far would n=1 get you? And even if it was repeatable, what would it be evidence of? It still wouldn't be evidence of God. It would just be evidence that something extraordinary had happened - but you would not be able to verify the cause (if there is a cause, of course!). A proverbial booming voice going, "I'm God, and I did it!" wouldn't prove a thing either. Exactly what we are after - an illogical, non-physical entity manifesting itself in human form and loads of testable consequences. Of course, its a bit late now, so we are back to square one... :-) Exactly. Ummm..... well, if you did happen to see some flames under your bed, strange footprints in the dust, or even if it materialises in front of you, it would be kind of you to forward this evidence to the scientific community and to me as I am interested in such dragons :-) Hhhmmm well, since you ask so nicely, and you've almost used the magic word, I will look upon your request favourably. :-) However, for reasons previously discussed, I don't think you need to hold your breath... Conversely, if you couldn't care less, then you can just be ignorant. NB. I don't mean ignorant in an offensive way... Read it again, because I think you've misunderstood! :-) I care a lot about everything and anything there is to learn about the natural world. In the context of this discussion, I don't really care what point of view someone chooses to adopt. - I only have a vague idea of what you mean by 'existential questions', Which I think is the crux of the misunderstanding. The philosopher Kierkegaard distinguished between universal and personal truths. He didn't see God as something that could be related to theoretically or academically - it's an existential question. He saw existential questions as things you didn't discuss sedately over cucumber sandwiches, muttering "interesting" at intervals. He saw such questions as questions that needed to be approached with enormous passion and sincerity - and questions which could neither have universal answers, nor be answered through reason or knowledge. This is to him where the concept of faith comes in; and an interesting statement from the Middle Ages that sort of sums it up is: Credo quia absurdum (I believe because it is absurd). An existential question that might be closer to home is the question of whether another human being loves you. It isn't verifiable. You have to believe it, or not believe it - but you can't scientifically verify it. PS: Want to adopt a dwarf? :-) Let's see ..... the dwarves were meant to symbolise your schoolchildren .... wait, that's illegal, isn't it? No! Not if you have a police clearance! I adopt 110 of them from 8.40 to 3.15 every day. :-) Cheers :-) Rapunzel From: Rapunzel 17/02/00 20:32:38 Subject: re: evolution post id: 39574 Hello Chris :-) In the interests of fanning the flames of deep thought, suppose we link the God concept to the title of this thread. Where did I put my fire extinguisher? ;-) It's all very well to compare God with the magic chicken (of which I am so fond myself) on the coneptual level - at least insofar as neither is provable or disprovable. However we ought to keep in mind that the magic chicken - as it is commonly used here - is a scientific construct with scientific merit. God is not a scientific construct, and arguably has little or no scientific merit. Did anyone utter the term "magic chicken" in this thread? I didn't hear it... (but then it's been a long thread.) ...One would be a fool to dismiss all merit from something so popular... Baaah!!! :-) I didn't think popularity had anything to do with merit. What of the evolution of God? At least as a concept? That, I will leave to others. What of the evolution of a water closet? ;-) Also an interesting question...I've got a good reference on that... Is there an evolutionary advantage conferred by subscribing to a God concept? Not sure about the God concept. But there's a striking evolutionary advantage that comes with a lot of brands of organised religion: They tend to breed more prolifically. :-) Or should we consider the evolution of the concept as struggling itself? I don't get you. Can you explain? Cheers Rapunzel PS: Silly mood... I've been roasting in a sauna of an indoor swimming facility all day keeping times for over 100 events, and it has adversely affected my desire for intellectual discussion. :-) From: Rapunzel 17/02/00 20:43:11 Subject: re: evolution post id: 39577 Oh Chris, I forgot to ask you: Do you have fries with your magic chicken? ;-) BTW, I'm still thinking about the conundrum you talked about in your previous post in this thread, but it's going to take a while before I can respond on that one. Need to think it through. From: Rapunzel 17/02/00 20:46:32 Subject: re: evolution post id: 39578 Addendum to the post for Robert :-) Exactly was a reference to being back to square one - not to anything that preceded it in the paragraph of yours I quoted. Sorry, bit tired, and then I can miss an ambiguity! :-) From: Robert 18/02/00 0:06:28 Subject: re: evolution post id: 39634 Hello again, :-) (I had to delete about a page of response because of this point you made) Which I think is the crux of the misunderstanding And I think this is the crux of my disagreement :-) Very well but you have 'parametised' God as Chris calls it. You have assumed that God doesn't make itself open to discovery - ever. Why is it so self-evident that this is the case, that God can only be considered existentially? You haven't (can't) deduced this, but assumed it. Perhaps the universal/existential dichotomy is false - and instead there is a trichotomy as such: universal/existential/universal-and-existential. I would be interested to see how Kierkegaard came to this. Do you see my point? You have said that God is existential - but how could you possibly know that? You cannot say that God does not have universal existence, but what you can say is that God is not restrained by universal existence. (Chris will like that) :-) (It's ironic that Chris' points are now working in my favour here, albeit modified) Since this is the last rhetorical resort, I think it would be appropriate to classify God here: Purely existential existence: God (I think that's an appropriate name - perhaps a different name to avoid confusion?) Purely universal existence: 'Superextraordinary' (defined as something that has occured physically, but is shown experimentally to have infact no causal link - unlikely but possible) Ability to transcend both existences: 'Superextraordinary' as above - if you thought you found something superextraordinary, you couldn't know if it was purely or partially universal. (I obviously made up 'superextraordinary' it comes from your understatement: "... just be evidence that something extraordinary had happened...") No causal link is pretty extraordinary! Not if you have a police clearance! Easier said than done :-) From: Kothos 18/02/00 10:27:41 Subject: re: evolution post id: 39670 Did anyone utter the term "magic chicken" in this thread? I didn't hear it... (but then it's been a long thread.) Well, I've pretty much been alluding to it a lot - but no i don't think the term has actually been mentioned at all. What of the evolution of a water closet? ;-) Also an interesting question...I've got a good reference on that... WC's have evolved? And here I thought they were just supposed to be holes in the ground. From: Chris (Avatar) 18/02/00 10:53:58 Subject: re: evolution post id: 39679 Rapunzel: Popularity and merit. Suppose something is immensely popular. Ask yourself "why" it is popular to others. Somewhere they see some merit in it. Whether you see merit in it, or how you classify their seeing of that merit is subjective and narrow. I would argue that anything which is popular has an appreciable merit to those who find it popular. Robert I think it would be appropriate to classify God here: It's a tough habit to break, isn't it? ;o) Chris From: Robert 18/02/00 11:09:01 Subject: re: evolution post id: 39687 It's a tough habit to break, isn't it? ;o) I think you will find the trichotomy is true - if you can think of any other possibilities please speak up! Either God is always exisitential, sometimes or never. All I was suggesting was a simplification of the overall hypothesis into three separate hypotheses. From: Rapunzel 18/02/00 15:09:07 Subject: re: evolution post id: 39750 Hi all Only have time for a small commercial break - more detailed discussion will have to follow when I'm not at work. Robert I was discussing Kierkegaard with you. Please do not assume that I was necessarily discussing my personal views. If you think Kierkegaard is guilty of trying to classify God - is he doing it any more than you have been? ;-) Chris On popularity and merit... I'm beginning to think a definition of what we mean by "merit" could be useful here. Suppose something is immensely popular. Ask yourself "why" it is popular to others. Somewhere they see some merit in it. Whether you see merit in it, or how you classify their seeing of that merit is subjective and narrow. I would argue that anything which is popular has an appreciable merit to those who find it popular. By that definition, the extermination of the Jews in WW2 had merit (at least to some people). The Spanish Inquisition had merit. Taking heroin has merit. This troubles me. Rapunzel PS: None of these examples had / has large-scale popularity in terms of the percentage of the population involved, but they had popularity with some of the population. Also: I'm aware that persons involved could list the merits of the situations referred to above. But do you see what I mean, and why I am suspicious of popularity? From: Robert 18/02/00 16:22:32 Subject: re: evolution post id: 39759 If you think Kierkegaard is guilty of trying to classify God - is he doing it any more than you have been? Err... there is a big difference between classification and assuming a property. If the fact that you used the word 'have' (past tense) indicates that you were referring to posts before my previous one, then I will happily retract those assumptions. Please do not assume that I was necessarily discussing my personal views In which case you either defend Kierkegaard or isolate yourself from him. (Can't exactly speak for himself, can he) But, seeing you asked so nicely, I will clarify the direction of my statements at Kirkegaard. By that definition .. extermination of the Jews in WW2 had merit ... Well it did teach us about the susceptability of humans to propaganda and prejudice ... I think by merit this is more what he means - ie. What is the mechanism for something becoming so popular? Furthermore, why are humans so susceptibile to certain ideas - be they true, false, neither true nor false, morally right or wrong, etc. ? In this case, we perhaps might discover some primitive xenophobia rising from the ashes dating back to the days when homo sapiens nomadically travelled in groups? I don't think this particular explanation is right, but this might be the sort of thing Chris is after (we'll see when he responds, just my thoughts). From: Kothos 18/02/00 16:27:15 Subject: re: evolution post id: 39761 Maybe popularity shares some of it's pros and cons with Occam's Razor. Popularity might be one factor when deciding what things you should consider as possibly having merit, but won't tell you whether those things actually do have merit. Or something. From: Rapunzel 18/02/00 21:34:47 Subject: re: evolution post id: 39828 Hi Robert It’s a big thread, isn’t it! Is anyone else’s brain hurting? :-) In which case you either defend Kierkegaard or isolate yourself from him. (Can't exactly speak for himself, can he) I don't see why it is necessary for someone to take sides when discussing another person's point of view. I have no obligation to either defend Kierkegaard or to distance myself from him. I have the right to discuss his philosophy from a neutral perspective, if my personality will allow it! :-) Actually, as I'm reading more philosophy, I'm finding my response to the ideas I come across is no longer primarily agree or disagree, but interesting! A more detailed response to some of your earlier points: Very well but you have 'parametised' God as Chris calls it. Actually, I haven’t - as I pointed out to you before, I was discussing some philosophical perspectives which I thought would be relevant to this discussion. You have assumed that God doesn't make itself open to discovery - ever. Again, you are attributing to me personally what you made of what I wrote when discussing Kierkegaard’s philosophy. If you’re going to talk about making assumptions, please avoid making them yourself! :-) I personally think God transcends scientific proof, yes. Science is limited by the necessarily limited nature of the human senses and reason… this I’m not going to re-hash, I talked about it at length earlier in this thread. But I don’t think God "doesn’t make himself open to discovery - ever!" :-) And neither did Kierkegaard, incidentally… :-) You have said that God is existential - but how could you possibly know that? Hehehe! :-) *Rapunzel is highly amused :-)))* Actually, just because I think God is existential, doesn’t mean I’ve limited him in any way. I’ve just talked about an attribute. If I say a rose is red, that doesn’t mean I’ve therefore said that it can’t smell wonderful, look beautiful - and have thorns as well!!! :-) You cannot say that God does not have universal existence, but what you can say is that God is not restrained by universal existence. (Chris will like that) :-) I agree with you here. However, God being an unverifiable dragon (at least in my opinion), if he’s omnipotent, or even just very, very good :-), he could choose not to have a universal existence if he felt like it. No causal link is pretty extraordinary! Yes, but then what is the law of causality? :-) And finally… (Police clearance) Easier said than done :-) You haven’t been naughty, have you? ;-) Actually, it’s disgusting, $34 for a piece of paper saying you either haven’t done anything naughty, or you were too clever to be found out! Best wishes Rapunzel From: Robert 19/02/00 0:45:48 Subject: re: evolution post id: 39951 Hello Rapunzel, (even though we have opposing points of view I am still finding this quite enjoyable!) :-) I have the right to discuss his philosophy from a neutral perspective, if my personality will allow it! Fair enough - hence this sentence from my last post: But, seeing you asked so nicely, I will clarify the direction of my statements at Kirkegaard. I personally think God transcends scientific proof, yes. Science is limited by the necessarily limited nature of the human senses and reason… this I’m not going to re-hash, I talked about it at length earlier in this thread. But I don’t think God "doesn’t make himself open to discovery - ever!" :-) "Transcends scientific proof implies immune to discovery" The statement I have just made is only false if (and only if) you can find a better tool for knowledge than science. At the moment, science is the best we have got and I think you underestimate it (I am not saying the statement is definitely true, but you should specify that using a better tool is what you are referring to by discovery). You say that science is limited by our senses and reason ... here I beg to differ. Eg 1: Senses. Science can never know anything about radio waves because our senses only cover the visible light spectrum of EMR. This is of course, untrue. But why? Because we used technology to convert extrasensory information into sensory information. All you need is a radio/oscilloscope etc. and your problem is solved. Eg 2: Reason - Is our reason really a restriction? An electron starts at A and finishes at B, it must have taken a particular path from A to B. Einstein had a bit of trouble with this one, as would anyone else who took a commonsense approach to this. Commonsense is our in-built reason, but it is wrong sometimes, particularly at the quantum level! This is why quantum physics is such an achievement - because it is so counter-intuitive. What we have done is improve our initial reason - what is stopping it from being improved furthermore? If our brain starts to hurt, then technology can again step in, giving the answer in a human-friendly form. I’ve just talked about an attribute Not allowed. Several times I have tried this and been dismissed, so I don't see why you should be any different. :-) Yes, but then what is the law of causality? :-) Lost me here. For every cause there is an effect, vice-versa? Not extraordinary? What did you mean? While we are on the topic, consider the following thought experiment: The Second Law of Thermodynamics states that in the Universe as a whole, disorder increases as time goes on. (Of course, locally worlds and life and intelligence can emerge, at the cost of a decrease in order somewhere else in the Universe.) But if we live in a Universe in which the present Big Bang expansion will slow, stop, and be replaced by a contraction, might the Second Law then be reversed? Can effects precede causes?* *Quote from you-know-who :-) You haven’t been naughty, have you? ;-) Actually, it’s disgusting, $34 for a piece of paper saying you either haven’t done anything naughty, or you were too clever to be found out! But it doesn't exactly entitle you to 'adopt' dwarves at random off the street - or does it? :-) From: Robert 19/02/00 0:49:12 Subject: re: evolution post id: 39955 "An electron starts at A and finishes at B, it must have taken a particular path from A to B" Just to clarify - this stament is untrue in certain circumstances - hence the discussion. From: Rapunzel 19/02/00 1:04:12 Subject: re: evolution post id: 39963 Hello Robert I don't have time tonight for another detailed reply, but a few points: "Transcends scientific proof implies immune to discovery" I disagree. And not for the reasons you suggested. BTW I don't think I underestimate science. And I don't need to specify what you are suggesting I should, as I am not referring to a better tool. I am not going to confine my argument to your boundaries. Eg 1: Senses. Science can never know anything about radio waves because our senses only cover the visible light spectrum of EMR. This is of course, untrue. But why? Because we used technology to convert extrasensory information into sensory information. All you need is a radio/oscilloscope etc. and your problem is solved. If you read my original posts in this thread, you would have notices that I discussed the extension of the human senses through technology. I am not about to re-hash. Eg 2: Reason - Is our reason really a restriction? I think you are vastly overoptimistic about the computing capacities of human brains and the technologies those brains have invented. I would like to leave further debate on this point to others, as I've already discussed my views on this earlier in the thread. I’ve just talked about an attribute Not allowed. Several times I have tried this and been dismissed, so I don't see why you should be any different. :-) I stand by the paragraph you quoted me from. Pray tell what is illogical about it. Lost me here. For every cause there is an effect, vice-versa? This has been discussed earlier in the thread, and I've suggested someone get Chris to elaborate on this one. But it doesn't exactly entitle you to 'adopt' dwarves at random off the street - or does it? :-) I never suggested "at random off the street"! Cheers Rapunzel PS: Excuse me for being a bit short on this, I'm tired and I've done a lot of posting today. I hope you'll keep enjoying yourself! :-) From: Robert 19/02/00 12:51:30 Subject: re: evolution post id: 40012 Hello Rapunzel, :-) I appreciate your reasons for lack of elaboration - but here is my interim reply. I stand by the paragraph you quoted me from. Pray tell what is illogical about it. I wouldn't use the word illogical. What you have done is this - discussed an attribute (existentialism) which implies no proof nor disproof possible. Earlier, I discussed attributes which imply vulnerability to proof or disproof. In my opinion, these are both perfectly logical - they are of the form IF ... THEN ... aren't they? However, it is the 'if' that represents a problem here and indeed leads to an absurdity: If God is existential then: *no proof nor disproof *no knowledge through science/logic But, If no knowledge through science/logic then: *no knowledge of existentialism anyway (through science/logic) So, *No point discussing it? This is where I await elaboration on your idea of 'discovery'. To make myself more open to attack :-) , here is my current train of thought: *To discover something, you need to have attained relevant knowledge about it *To attain knowledge, you need a consistent and self-critical method to avoid errors *The best way we have of getting knowledge is science *Superior methods should take precedence over inferior methods All this to me implies that the only way we can discover something is through science (or something better) - and it is here I suppose you disagree. [Causality] The only other time I have seen this mentioned is in reference to the beginnings of our space and time and the lack of links between this and other space/times of hypothetical different Universes. Do you really want to go here? [Dwarves] No, I'm not very interesting in dwarves anyway. :-) From: Robert 19/02/00 12:55:21 Subject: re: evolution post id: 40013 And... [Re-hashing] Quite right - it is rehashing - so no more after this. ;-) From: Rapunzel 19/02/00 13:09:16 Subject: re: evolution post id: 40017 Hello Robert I stand by everything I've said so far, and will now let others take on the discussion. One thing: This is where I await elaboration on your idea of 'discovery'. You may be fishing, but you're not going to catch anything! ;-) Best wishes :-) Rapunzel PS: You're not so interested in dwarves? Boy, are you missing out! Dwarves are great!!! :-))) From: Robert 19/02/00 14:03:05 Subject: re: evolution post id: 40022 In which case I will stand by what I have said (especially in the more recent posts) :-) Thanks. From: Rapunzel 19/02/00 20:51:51 Subject: re: evolution post id: 40084 Just some food for thought For those who would dismiss all that lies outside the realm of science The Conundrum of Love Love is something which is very subjective and which cannot easily be pinned down. We can talk about the brain chemistry behind it and the evolutionary advantages of it, but we cannot scientifically prove whether another person loves us. We can’t ever know that a person loves us, however much they might insist that they do, and whatever passion they might show us - we can only believe it, or not believe it. So, in the name of rationality, should we keep all persons emotionally at arm’s length because we can never verify with absolute certainty whether or not they love us? Are we unreasonable fools to reciprocate love to those who claim to love us, and to even base our lives on the mere belief that there is love? …ask someone who has just been through a marriage breakdown that question… What is love supposed to be, anyway? If it’s a mere hallucination induced biochemically on the brain, what objective worth does it have? The effects of it have worth in evolutionary terms - such as by keeping our species from extinction...but love itself? And what’s a person who avidly wishes to abide by science alone to do? Must they conscientiously object to love for the rest of their days? Love is not a product of rationality and logical thinking. It might be a trick of the primitive side of our brain. We can talk about it, but nobody can ever be really sure exactly what it is, or exactly where it is. Love (if it exists) doesn’t require a deity to exist, and neither does the universe. But some would argue that because love cannot be verified, it therefore does not exist. And some people get by without it. Regards Rapunzel From: Grant¹ 19/02/00 21:11:01 Subject: re: evolution post id: 40104 Love is just a socially acceptable form of lust & insanity combined. From: Robert 19/02/00 22:11:33 Subject: re: evolution post id: 40196 If it’s a mere hallucination induced biochemically on the brain, what objective worth does it have? Perhaps the worth would lie in what caused the biochemical effect to be triggered? From: Kothos 20/02/00 3:03:04 Subject: re: evolution post id: 40299 I got some time to catch up with this thread, so, I might as well translate my thoughts into permanent form... James said, Kant's tinted glasses only work up to a point. If you're wearing red glasses, then your perception of the world will necessarily by different from "reality". But sooner or later you will begin to notice that your view of the world is limited in some way. Once you have accumulated enough information from sources other than your eyes you will begin to appreciate the limitations of the eyes. There is a possible problem with this, in that you may not realise that your senses are limited, but this will only happen in the case of aspects of reality that are not important enough to investigate anyway since they have no important consequences (see above). I read this and wondered, how do you define what's important and what isn't? Possibly there could be a failing in an intelligent creature such that what it regarded as unimportant was erroneous. In that case, it would never investigate these (supposedly not) unimportant issues via other information sources... If you have had a vision of God, for example, you may not feel like you can express the true depth of the experience in words or adequately explain how or why it affected you. ... But this doesn't mean that an explanation in language is not possible - just that the explanation will not have the same impact on another person as the experience itself had on you. What if God purposely effected you in such a way so as to make an explanation in language impossible? What if He did this a lot? Surely He would be capable of that? No-one can prove, of course, that we aren't all God's Big Dream, but this is not an idea of any practical use (I would say that the idea of God is of no practical use.) But yeah, whether we are dream or reality makes no difference - as long as we can't tell the difference between the two. If it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck... then who cares whether it is or isn't a duck? Rapunzel said, Rapunzel, you've read Tolkein huh? Absolutely not! I detest the entire genre! It's like soap opera!!! You spell 'dwarves' the way Tolkien accidentally invented it. The plural is actually 'dwarfs'. (-: Chris said, what of the evolution of God? At least as a concept? Is there an evolutionary advantage conferred by subscribing to a God concept? Or should we consider the evolution of the concept as struggling itself? I've been thinking about this and Robert has already posted his version of the evolution of the concept of God earlier in the thread, but I'll have a stab at my own (which is very similar anyway). One would think that as soon as a social creature developed conscious intelligence with some processing power to spare, the use of this spare CPU time to develop Science and Law would definately confer an evolutionary advantage. The concept of and belief in God as a stepping stone toward Science and Law, whether necessary or not, would then definately serve its purpose (many have said that for all their faults, religions have been a great civilising influence). Man would wake up one day with the brain power to realise that everything had an origin. For every action there was a cause, for every creature there was a parent. He would see the order in the universe and realise that behind order must be intelligence. He would postulate an ultimate cause and call it God. His simple consciousness would leave it at that for a while. Unwittingly using Occam's Razor, because his simple brain has only progressed far enough to formulate the simplest idea, he would be satisifed with the simple idea that there existed an ultimate creator. Progressing in consciousness, he would invest more definition and order into God. Seeing himself as lord over creation, he would assign a human form to God, and a gender. Most likely female, because of the womb, but this idea would not hold up for very long in paternalistic societies. He may even have one God of each gender, as some cultures have had it (Mother Earth and Father Sky were having sex one day, and when they seperated, they gave birth to the ordered void between them which we inhabit etc...) Progressing even further in consciousness, Man would be able to handle ever more complicated ideas, and see more and more flaws in the simple ones he'd believed in earlier. Who created God? Why did God create the universe? etc... He would invent suitable fictions as each question arose, as complicated as his current learning allowed. In our enlightened times, we see the folly of assiging God a gender, and finally remove it again (If there is only one God, what does he need a dick for?) We see the folly of organised religion purporting to know the word of God, and return to the basic idea of God as creator. Eventually I hope we will see the concept of God for wh From: Kothos 20/02/00 3:04:31 Subject: re: evolution post id: 40300 Eventually I hope we will see the concept of God for what it is and remove that as well. Rapnuzel said, We can’t ever know that a person loves us, however much they might insist that they do, and whatever passion they might show us - we can only believe it, or not believe it. I would take issue with this statement, if the following point can be satisfied. Namely, is there a difference between believing something, and choosing to believe something? For example, applying this hypothetically to me because it'll be the easiest scenario for me to relate, say I'm going out with a girl, and she says she loves me. Now, she might, or she might not. Say that I acknowledge that I can never actually know. I don't believe she loves me, and I don't believe she doesn't (I believe that I don't know). Then say I make a conscious choice to believe she does, because choosing to believe that I don't know is the same as choosing to believe she doesn't (both are a rejection of her admission), and because I would rather think she does. I must make a choice, and I take the risk of choosing the one that will make me happier - I might be wrong and get burned, in which case I'll simply have to try again. I base this risk on the conclusion that love can exist. This part I know, because you see, I love her. So when I live with a chosen conviction, rather than an actual conviction, does it rank the same? I think it does. Choosing to take the plunge and believe is a risk well worth taking I think, because you at least know that love might be there, particularly when there is no evidence to the contrary. (As opposed to belief in God, where I think there is multitudes of evidence to the contrary, re further up this post I think is a much more rational explanation for the concept of God, compared to the explanation that there actually is one.) And what’s a person who avidly wishes to abide by science alone to do? Must they conscientiously object to love for the rest of their days? Love is not a product of rationality and logical thinking. It might be a trick of the primitive side of our brain. We can talk about it, but nobody can ever be really sure exactly what it is, or exactly where it is. How come I tend to work logic into everything I post? I think love is the feeling that you want to develop a relationship of total cooperation with someone you have judged to be fair and true and good, for the purposes of procreating. If your intentions are true (which only you will ever know) then you love them, if theirs are true, then they love you. But some would argue that because love cannot be verified, it therefore does not exist. Well, you can verify it within yourself, you only can't verify it in someone else. But you can still have strong suspicians one way or another. It is possible to have a fair idea when someone is telling the truth or not (body language can be a dead giveaway) regardless of whether they are talking about love or the price of fish. So, a scientific explanation of love, and why we should feel it? And some people get by without it. Merde, je peux meme pas imaginer! (I probably got the grammar all wrong there.) From: Rapunzel 20/02/00 12:57:53 Subject: re: evolution post id: 40322 I think love is the feeling that you want to develop a relationship of total cooperation with someone you have judged to be fair and true and good, for the purposes of procreating. If your intentions are true (which only you will ever know) then you love them, if theirs are true, then they love you. If that is love, then as Falstaff said, I'll none of it! Love to me is like a storm, wild and glorious, and it blows you away! Love to me is wanting to break down the wall between yourself and another person, in full consciousness that you both have faults as well as wonders inside of you. Love to me is about fighting the boundaries that have all of us essentially alone, however we are surrounded by people. Love to me is about feeling the other person in the blood running through your veins. Love to me is about taking joy in the flight of the other and not wanting to clip their wings. Love is a celebration of being alive. Love is unconditional. To me love is about giving and about accepting. It's about holding and not grasping. It's about having humility, and about saying sorry when you have been wrong, and forgiving when you have been wronged. It's about helping each other develop your fullest potential as human beings. It's about life-long learning. It's about making each other smile, and about going outside when it rains so you can embrace with water from the clouds running over your skin. Love is about lots of things too numerous to mention. But to me love is about passion - and about enormous amounts of respect. It's subjective and personal, isn't it? :-) Rapunzel From: Graeme 20/02/00 13:45:32 Subject: re: evolution post id: 40327 Very poetic Rapunzel, and no doubt right because that is what a lot of us experience. But perhaps Love is also the biologically necessary glue for forming a pair-bond relationship necessary for the reproduction of our genetic species, and hopefully this pair-bond will also last the time necessary for child rearing. In our species child rearing takes about 18 years, a fairly long time compared to other animal species. As our society has become more highly organised, the child rearing responsibilities are increasingly being undertaken by the state. This makes it possible for those who don't want to work at their relationship to opt out. Thus an increasing number of single parent families. Various forces work to create this glue. Biological- love, and a year-long mating season by the female; Social- taboos and stigma of divorce, religious prohibitions against divorce, and Governmental unwillingness to fund single parent families. And a whole lot more small and subtle influences that go to try to reinforce this pair-bond glue. Even the social conditioning of needing to be involved in social interaction and the fear of being alone. Even though we really are alone - "lost in the void on this sad speck of sand. Nobody knows where we are, No-one cares, And the tears that we shed in the dark no-one shares." Poetry by Don McLean. But this is not that bad Rapunzel - Leonard Cohen is even more depressing! From: James Richmond (Avatar) 20/02/00 17:58:06 Subject: re: evolution post id: 40374 ... you may not realise that your senses are limited, but this will only happen in the case of aspects of reality that are not important enough to investigate anyway since they have no important consequences. I read this and wondered, how do you define what's important and what isn't? Possibly there could be a failing in an intelligent creature such that what it regarded as unimportant was erroneous. In that case, it would never investigate these (supposedly not) unimportant issues via other information sources... The aspects of reality that I would call "important" in this context are those things that constrain our freedom of action in some way. The constraint can be physical or something more abstract like a moral constraint. For example, one trivial reason gravity is important is because if we ignore it we can fall down and hurt ourselves. At the other extreme, God (if He exists) is important for all kinds of reasons, both physical and, presumably, moral. I trust that our (extensible) senses allow us to be aware of all "important" things in the universe. If you have had a vision of God, for example, you may not feel like you can express the true depth of the experience in words or adequately explain how or why it affected you. ... But this doesn't mean that an explanation in language is not possible - just that the explanation will not have the same impact on another person as the experience itself had on you. What if God purposely effected you in such a way so as to make an explanation in language impossible? What if He did this a lot? Surely He would be capable of that? I have to agree with you here, of course. Who am I to say what God can or can't do? No-one can prove, of course, that we aren't all God's Big Dream, but this is not an idea of any practical use (I would say that the idea of God is of no practical use.) But yeah, whether we are dream or reality makes no difference - as long as we can't tell the difference between the two. If it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck... then who cares whether it is or isn't a duck? I agree with this, too, except for the part in brackets. :) [I]s there a difference between believing something, and choosing to believe something? No. I don't think you can choose to believe or not believe something. Either you believe it or you don't. The process of belief is not ultimately an intellectual one. For example, I believe the world is round. Why? Well, I could try talking about the evidence, from the shadows cast by sticks to the photographs taken from space, to the words of authority figures. But the information that I have regarding the roundness of the world is not the same as my belief.. My belief is based on how the statement fits in with all the other relevant knowledge and beliefs that I have. I don't choose to believe that the world is round. Rather, I am forced to draw that conclusion given everything else I know and believe. There is no way I could possibly choose to believe that the world is flat and still remain the same person. Note also that there must be a point at which the buck stops and I believe things not on the basis of any fact, but on faith alone - usually faith that what others tell me is true, sometimes faith in a "gut feeling" or emotional instinct. Your girlfriend scenario regarding love is inventive, but I find it hard to believe that you actually think this way when it comes to the crunch. In fact, I don't think it is possible to think this way, and love provides as good an example as anything else. If you believe that your girlfriend loves you, you will act differently than if you don't believe this. You can't sit outside yourself and make a decision as to whether to believe based on some type of logic. You look at how she acts and listen to what she says. You combine this with all other relevant information. You toss in your own preheld beliefs concerning whether anyone could love you, how long it takes people to come to love someone else and so on. At the end of the process (which incidentally isn't usually sequential), either you believe she loves you, or you don't. There's no choosing involved. JR From: James Richmond (Avatar) 20/02/00 18:40:50 Subject: re: evolution post id: 40381 Robert, you're missing something here. *To discover something, you need to have attained relevant knowledge about it *To attain knowledge, you need a consistent and self-critical method to avoid errors Ok so far... *The best way we have of getting knowledge is science This is the weak point, I think. The scientific method is the best way of getting scientific knowledge. But, as Rapunzel and I (amongst others) have been saying, it is not necessarily the best way of getting other types of knowledge. Arguably, there are certain things which are true that are not susceptible to scientific investigation at all. God may be one of these things. Where God is concerned, science is definitely not the best way of getting knowledge. *Superior methods should take precedence over inferior methods Yes, but what if we have have two or more methods for gaining knowledge which are mutually exclusive in the types of information they allow us to gather? Then there can be no argument over which method is "better", since they can't be compared to one another. All this to me implies that the only way we can discover something is through science (or something better) - and it is here I suppose you disagree. Yes. I disagree, and I think Rapunzel does too, though she can speak for herself. JR From: James Richmond (Avatar) 20/02/00 18:42:48 Subject: re: evolution post id: 40382 Damn HTML! The colours are a bit wrong in the above post, but I'm sure you'll work it out... From: Rapunzel 20/02/00 20:57:23 Subject: re: evolution post id: 40412 Hi JR Just a question to you: Could you explain to me why you have to believe that the world isn’t flat, rather than being able know it? Are you being strict here because you haven’t been up in space yourself? If so, then a lot of what we call scientific knowledge reverts to belief status via lack of first-hand observation alone. And here I am thinking I know the world isn’t flat! :-) But, as Rapunzel and I (amongst others) have been saying, it (science) is not necessarily the best way of getting other types of knowledge. Arguably, there are certain things which are true that are not susceptible to scientific investigation at all. God may be one of these things. Where God is concerned, science is definitely not the best way of getting knowledge. I agree here, except I probably wouldn’t use the term knowledge for something that wasn’t scientifically verifiable. On the other hand, don’t people use that very term when they talk about things like love (e.g. knowledge of it in themselves), which are not subject to scientific verification? All this to me implies that the only way we can discover something is through science (or something better) - and it is here I suppose you disagree. Yes. I disagree, and I think Rapunzel does too, though she can speak for herself. I can? :-) Spot on, JR. Regardless of the question of God, I think discovery is not limited to science. There is plenty of scope for discovery in art, to give an obvious example. Also, the other animal species obviously discover things, and probably aren’t using the scientific method to do it! :-) :-) Rapunzel From: Rapunzel 20/02/00 21:02:18 Subject: re: evolution post id: 40415 PS: I trust that our (extensible) senses allow us to be aware of all "important" things in the universe. I disagree - but I already discussed that earlier in the thread, so I won't repeat myself! From: Rapunzel 20/02/00 21:08:14 Subject: re: evolution post id: 40420 Hi Graeme! Very poetic Rapunzel, and no doubt right because that is what a lot of us experience. Oooohh - here we have an attempted verification on the grounds of mass experience! Isn't that dangerous ground? But perhaps Love is also the biologically necessary glue for forming a pair-bond relationship necessary for the reproduction of our genetic species... You're not telling me anything new here, my specialty area is biology! :-) As I said before, what we call love could well be a trick of the brain... a biologically convenient hallucination... :-) Rapunzel From: Graeme 20/02/00 21:09:28 Subject: re: evolution post id: 40422 I believe the earth is round because I've been told it by books / people etc. that I regard as being knowledgeable. I know this is a bit shakey, so I could go into space for a better view, so as to prove it to myself - but afterwards I would be relying on the truth of my memory - also a bit shakey. So what do we do? If each of us have to constantly re-invent the wheel, we won't ever emerge from the cave. From: Gus 20/02/00 21:09:53 Subject: re: evolution post id: 40423 speaking of biologically convenient hallucinations, check ur email Ms Dragon. Gus. From: Graeme 20/02/00 22:45:22 Subject: re: evolution post id: 40453 Sorry Rapunzel,- didn't mean to preach to Granma about sucking eggs. But intellectual theories about LOVE do not go over very well with the female gender, especially talks about pair-bonding. Probably because it is too mechanical and mechanistic. From: James Richmond (Avatar) 20/02/00 23:18:48 Subject: re: evolution post id: 40476 Rapunzel: Just a question to you: Could you explain to me why you have to believe that the world isn’t flat, rather than being able know it? Are you being strict here because you haven’t been up in space yourself? If so, then a lot of what we call scientific knowledge reverts to belief status via lack of first-hand observation alone. And here I am thinking I know the world isn’t flat! :-) I'm trying to make a distinction between knowing something and believing it. I think both are quite separate, and each can exist without the other. I know that the world is round because people have told me that it is, I've seen the photos and so on. This information is available to everyone, but that doesn't mean that everyone believes the world is round. Beliefs, like knowledge, don't require first hand evidence, but they are subjective. Personal factors are always involved in beliefs. Knowledge is more impersonal and objective. ... I probably wouldn’t use the term knowledge for something that wasn’t scientifically verifiable. On the other hand, don’t people use that very term when they talk about things like love (e.g. knowledge of it in themselves), which are not subject to scientific verification? This is a semantic point. People aren't very precise, and tend to use the terms "knowledge" and "belief" interchangeably. I probably do it myself. My definitions of these things may not be the same as anybody else's, but I hope I've made clear what I'm trying to get at here. JR From: Robert 20/02/00 23:47:11 Subject: re: evolution post id: 40508 The evolution thread rolls on................ This is the weak point, I think. .... Where God is concerned, science is definitely not the best way of getting knowledge All knowledge requires information (it's inherent in the definition). I put it to you that you need objective information to get knowledge; and subjective information is markedly inferior as a tool for knowledge. Where the realm of subjective information (eg. non-analytic appreciation of art, music, people) lies is in opinions. Unless, you are going to overthrow the homogenous Universe axiom, then the weakness of subjective information is highlighted by the fact that everyone has different opinons about many things, and all equally (un)informed opinions have the same credence. Of course, any slightly informed opinions will have some objectivity thrown in - by definition. Like Rapunzel says, people these days never know when they are in love. I don't even know what love feels like - for all I know everybody could be lying through their teeth, the effect perpetuated by romantic movies and pressure from others! When someone is completely honest with themselves (or others) the common response/thought is "I think I am in love" or "I believe I am in love". They usually won't go to the educated guess stage until they start to see some actual evidence in support (or to the contrary) of their "love hypothesis" - namely changes in their own behaviour (response to chemical changes?) and feelings they have never felt before. I am definitely out of my depth on the love topic :-), and, as such, have obviously made some assumptions. Objective information is the basis of science in its purest form Subjective information cannot lead to knowledge, but at best a "I reckon ..." proposition. This is not a consistent and self-critical method! If there are indeed other types of knowledge I have left in my dichotomy here, then science will modify itself to gain that knowledge anyway! :-) Science has its Greek(?) roots in the word knowledge. Such is the nature of science, even if the scientific method was found to be inadequate, it would have the necessary modifications made to allow it to retain its current knowledge and gain that of the other realm! (Isn't science beautiful) Yes, but what if we have have two or more methods for gaining knowledge which are mutually exclusive in the types of information they allow us to gather? Then there can be no argument over which method is "better", since they can't be compared to one another. If mutually exclusive - use both (as long as they are the best in their fields of knowledge). If one of those methods is science, then science will 'merge' with the other and work at improving itself in the new area. (see above) Where God is concerned, science is definitely not the best way of getting knowledge. I could say something here, but I think we should minimise the number of discussion streams. :-) Most of what I just worte above is summarised in two lovely sentences courtesy of Rapunzel: I agree here, except I probably wouldn’t use the term knowledge for something that wasn’t scientifically verifiable. On the other hand, don’t people use that very term when they talk about things like love (e.g. knowledge of it in themselves), which are not subject to scientific verification? Purely out of curiosity, what term would you use? I can? :-) Spot on, JR. Regardless of the question of God, I think discovery is not limited to science. There is plenty of scope for discovery in art, to give an obvious example. Also, the other animal species obviously discover things, and probably aren’t using the scientific method to do it! From personal experience - art consists of both objective analysis and subjective weightings/aesthetics/etc. The objective part is quite scientific, and the subjective part is merely opinion. And animals do use some science - whether they realise it or not! The scientific method is really quite simple - seeing biology is your speciality I won't patronise you with a checklist of what animals are capable of - but I will give you a lovely story! Take for example a one-and-a-half-year-old female macaque named Imo who lived on the Island of Koshima. The natural food supply was inadequate, so the monkeys had to be provisioned - wtih sweet potatoes and wheat dumed on the shore by primatologists who were observing them. Now, this food was pretty gritty. Imo discovered that she could sand off her sweet potatoes by dunking them in a nearby brook. Later on she discovered that when it was dropped on the water, the sand sank and the floating wheat could be skimmed off the top, now clean again. This last paragaph was paraphrased from Sagan, who showed that there were geniuses among animals, and he went on to describe how the From: Robert 20/02/00 23:50:55 Subject: re: evolution post id: 40510 This last paragaph was paraphrased from Sagan, who showed that there were geniuses among animals, and he went on to describe how the technology gained was passed on throughout the islands. Anyway, the point of that was this: look what was done - a hypothesis made, an experiment done, and the results gathered. That's all you need and there you have it - animal science! Yet another artifical barrier between animals and humans gets torn down. There is another story elsewhere in the book I pulled that from which describes a scientist who went to live with some gorillas to see if he could do all their tricks. There was one trick in particular - where the gorrila is trying to retrieve ants from an anthill, and it uses a blade of grass to get them out. There is more detail to this story - but the moral is this - the scientist wasn't able to do the trick! Through lots of analysis and refinement (quite scientific), the gorrilas weren't just picking any blades of grass, but blades of a very specific type of thickness, length variety, strength, etc. More animal technology here at work, through science - just they don't wear white coats! That's enough babble for the moment, I think. :-) From: Robert 20/02/00 23:57:07 Subject: re: evolution post id: 40514 Sorry JR. In the time I wrote my response, you posted another response which appears to be agreeing with you - at least to an extent. I would be interested to see what you think anyway. Damn. :-) From: Robert 20/02/00 23:59:15 Subject: re: evolution post id: 40515 ...appears to be agreeing with you... should read: ... appears to be agreeing with me.. :-) From: Chris (Avatar) 21/02/00 11:45:51 Subject: re: evolution post id: 40593 Rapunzel-> If it’s a mere hallucination induced biochemically on the brain, what objective worth does it have? Robert-> Perhaps the worth would lie in what caused the biochemical effect to be triggered? Hehe... and, despite themselves (or in spite of themselves?) the protagonists agree on something! :o) A thought for both of you: perhaps the worth has nothing to do with cause or explanation, but instead lies in what people get out of it. A person thinking in the way demostrated above would naturally miss the worth in concepts such as love, or God. :o) Chris From: Kothos 21/02/00 11:57:55 Subject: re: evolution post id: 40599 Rapunzel said, Love to me is like a storm, wild and glorious, and it blows you away! Love to me is wanting to break down the wall between yourself and another person, in full consciousness that you both have faults as well as wonders inside of you. Love to me is about fighting the boundaries that have all of us essentially alone, however we are surrounded by people. Love to me is about feeling the other person in the blood running through your veins. Love to me is about taking joy in the flight of the other and not wanting to clip their wings. Love is a celebration of being alive. I agree with all that, except I'd replace every instance of love is with love feels like. I'd still maintain that what love is is what I've described... Love is unconditional. My definition didn't preclude this bit either (-: PS And yes, very poetic too. I'd hesitate to suggest that you missed your calling as a science teacher, because science could do with some poets as well. JR, I see where you're coming from in your answer to whether there is a difference between believing and choosing to believe. I'm afraid the debate has been refined a little beyond my crude linguistic abilities to put my case when it is only a few shades of subtlety removed from yours and others. I await greater levels of communication in generations to come (-: Hope I live that long... From: Chris (Avatar) 21/02/00 11:58:31 Subject: re: evolution post id: 40600 Oooohh - here we have an attempted verification on the grounds of mass experience! Isn't that dangerous ground? I'd call it reproducable experimental evidence, wouldn't you?? If I contend X, suggest a way for you to experience X, and you and several other people do, then doesn't that constitute an independently verified result? Isn't that science?? Or are you suggesting that we can exclude experience from verification?? From: Min-Zhao Lee 21/02/00 12:18:23 Subject: re: evolution post id: 40607 We've changed the title to "Philosophy". If you wish to continue posting as "evolution", reply to threads entitled "evolution". If you wish to begin posting as "Philosophy", reply to threads entitled "Philosophy". From: Min-Zhao Lee 21/02/00 12:24:28 Subject: re: Philosophy post id: 40617 Need a change in Subject in the "evolution" thread? Use "REPLY" here! From: Min-Zhao Lee 21/02/00 12:25:49 Subject: re: Philosophy post id: 40618 Need a change in Subject in the "evolution" thread? Use "REPLY" here! From: Robert 21/02/00 14:36:56 Subject: re: Philosophy post id: 40690 the protagonists agree on something! No, we can't have that!!! Wait, isn't objective worth a contradiction in terms? I'd expect that worth is pretty subjective. From: Rapunzel 21/02/00 21:10:15 Subject: re: evolution post id: 40781 Hello Chris! :-) Re: Rapunzel: If it’s a mere hallucination induced biochemically on the brain, what objective worth does it have? Robert: Perhaps the worth would lie in what caused the biochemical effect to be triggered? Hehe... and, despite themselves (or in spite of themselves?) the protagonists agree on something! :o) You haven't understood me... not every question I pose equates with my personal opinion. A thought for both of you: perhaps the worth has nothing to do with cause or explanation, but instead lies in what people get out of it. A person thinking in the way demostrated above would naturally miss the worth in concepts such as love, or God. Yes, that is what I was trying to get people to think about by posing those questions on love. And Kothos, for example, showed himself much more uninhibited about taking a leap when it came to an invitation to be irrational about love, than he is with the idea of being irrational about God. ;-) Whether I've missed the worth of love and of God you can decide for yourself from some of the things I have said in this thread - may I refer you to the most recent example, post 40322. :-) Rapunzel From: Kothos 21/02/00 22:06:28 Subject: re: evolution post id: 40788 JR said, I don't think you can choose to believe or not believe something. Either you believe it or you don't. The process of belief is not ultimately an intellectual one. For example, I believe the world is round. Hmm, I've thought some more about this (nasty habit that) and I've come up with an analogy. Let's say you have a friend, more an aquaintance, whose trustworthiness is suspect, based on past experiences. He needs to borrow some money off you. He knows he's been lax on the issue in the past, and promises to pay you back. He seems sincere, but then, he's seemed sincere before too. You mull it over, and figure that you just can't tell whether he's telling the truth or not. So you think about it... and you decide to believe him one more time. Then, you act on the belief just as if it was real. You lend him the money, and treat it like it was only the first time you ever lent him anything. End result: he doesn't pay you back and you never believe him again. Now, the first 1700 times you lent him money, one could say, you believed he would pay it back. The following 1700 times he asked for it, one could say you believed he wouldn't. But the one in the middle - didn't you choose to believe (one way or the other - in my scenario I chose the one that I would rather believe)? The transition between the two, when you had no idea what to believe, you still had to make the choice of whether to lend or not, where's the fault in choosing one simply because it holds more potential rewards than the other? That's kinda sorta what I was getting at in my little love post. (By the way, I'm totally exluding considerations of just how deep the friendship is, or how much effort a good smaritan should be putting into this guys rehab etc...) Rapunzel said, Kothos, for example, showed himself much more uninhibited about taking a leap when it came to an invitation to be irrational about love, than he is with the idea of being irrational about God. ;-) I'll pay that. Coz love is pretty cool overall, whereas God, or rather God's little elves, just plain annoy the crap outta me. Fancy telling an 8 year old kid that humans are not part of the animal kingdom, because we are mammals, and other animals aren't? That one confused the bejeezus out of me for a year and a half... From: Robert 22/02/00 0:01:50 Subject: re: evolution post id: 40835 I'll pay that. Coz love is pretty cool overall, whereas God, or rather God's little elves, just plain annoy the crap outta me. :-) From: Rapunzel 22/02/00 0:13:17 Subject: re: evolution post id: 40841 I empathise with the feeling about the elves, they can be so annoying. But God was not necessarily created in the elves' image! ;-) Heeheehee... I wonder what God thinks of elves.... *ROFL* From: Rapunzel 22/02/00 0:16:03 Subject: re: evolution post id: 40842 ...maybe those elves are really sheep... *Sounds of further late-night merriment stream forth in profusion from the glass tower...* From: god 22/02/00 0:37:27 Subject: re: evolution post id: 40849 Heeheehee... I wonder what God thinks of elves.... *ROFL* I hate em! god From: Rapunzel 22/02/00 20:16:55 Subject: re: evolution post id: 41100 Hello. Not a lot of time but... Like Rapunzel says, people these days never know when they are in love. I didn't say that!!! I said that whether or not another person loves you cannot be scientifically verified. (etc) Greetings to all Rapunzel From: Robert 22/02/00 21:52:50 Subject: re: evolution post id: 41139 Rapunzel, Sorry. I meant scientifically verified all throughout that paragraph instead of know. This is where it is obvious that I am out of depth when it comes to love, because I have yet to know I am in love. (Knew I should have stayed away from that one) I have yet to experience any knowledge outside of scientific verification, so I (for lack of better words) have no idea what you are talking about. At the moment, I couldn't possibly envisage ever knowing I am at all, perhaps at best making a few inferences. Mind you, I am being very strict on the definition of what qualifies as knowing here - axiomatic science qualifies, but 'gut feelings' don't. :-) From: helen 23/02/00 1:59:35 Subject: re: evolution post id: 41208 hey, what an amazing thread! Sorry to wander in all belatedly and all, but I wanted to read the thread through before posting, and I haven’t had the time until now (can't sleep). Advance warning: Helen has read bugger all philosophy, and is hoping to atone for her sins in a future incarnation involving a good bit more free time :-) Some miscellaneous thoughts in no particular order: Rapunzel, much as I’d love to fan the flames a little more :-), I’ve agreed with just about everything you’ve said... except those bits about Sagan and Tolkien... ok I admit it, I’m a terrible, terrible geek. Never mind :-) James, I sympathise with your pragmatism, but aren’t you reducing “useful” and “important” knowledge to that which has causal implications (is a cause or an effect)? Perhaps I’ve misunderstood, but isn’t this the crux of what’s being argued here? Robert: "Transcends scientific proof implies immune to discovery" The statement I have just made is only false if (and only if) you can find a better tool for knowledge than science. At the moment, science is the best we have got. I think Rapunzel and JR have covered this pretty extensively, but I’m going to stick my 2c in anyway: Why, when we have several ways of knowing things open to us, would you limit yourself to just one? I think it’s unnecessary to make quantitative comparisons like this one. In fact, your statement above is false unless you can give a good reason why you think “discovery” should be defined in terms of scientific proof. You say that science is limited by our senses and reason ... here I beg to differ then I must also differ with your difference :-)! Science is limited particularly by our reason (which is in large part affected by our senses, but we’ll leave that for now), in at least two ways. First, adult humans use schemas to understand the world - a kind of knowledge shortcut, if you like, a couple of which Rapunzel has referred to. Schemas are based on patterns taken from past experience and learning, and they not only organise information for us, but also influence what information we take in. While these shortcuts work very well for us in everyday life, they can and do restrict what we go looking for, and what we’re able to see when it’s staring us in the face: Even Einstein was violently opposed to the idea of an expanding universe at first. While that and many other discoveries have been made despite the blinkers (tinted glasses?) of our schemas, the time to be smug about it is not now (because hindsight is dead easy), but when we’ve successfully shed the next layer of such blinkers to participate in the next paradigm shift, should we be so lucky! What I’m trying to say is that it’s not justified to be complacent about our scientific knowledge of the world, or the way we think about it - if we’re not questioning, we’re not going to discover anything really new, scientific or otherwise :-). Second, as I think Chris has hinted at, there may well be things which make so very little sense to our reasoning, rational brains that we will never be able to apply science (or anything else!) in understanding them. If the weirdnesses of quantum theories are so hard to get our heads around, is it so far-fetched to imagine that there may be even weirder weirdnesses out there which our poor brians are so ill-equipped to handle as to make them beyond our reach? Although I’d like to imagine there’s nothing which is ultimately beyond our understanding, I can’t get rid of the little doubt that that’s just my human hubris coming out again. Certainly there’s an ongoing debate in philosophy and neuroscience about whether we will ever be able to understand our own cosciousness, so I’m not alone in my doubts :-) Einstein had a bit of trouble with this one, as would anyone else who took a commonsense approach to this. Commonsense is our in-built reason, but it is wrong sometimes, particularly at the quantum level! This is why quantum physics is such an achievement - because it is so counter-intuitive. What we have done is improve our initial reason - what is stopping it from being improved furthermore? If our brain starts to hurt, then technology can again step in, giving the answer in a human-friendly form. I think you’re making my point for me here, but I’ll emphasise again that if we were all to leave it up to technology, or to someone else, this improvement will never come. Don’t be so sure that it will happen on its own, and don’t be so quick to take credit for the counter-intuitive leaps of a few radical thinkers on behalf of “us”. Apply your hindsight in advance, if you can ;-). From: helen 23/02/00 2:05:49 Subject: re: evolution post id: 41209 well, that's an ugly cut-and-paste if ever i saw one :-) Chris: There's a problem with the perspectives of the philosophers given above - and that is that they think they can stand aside from the world and observe and comment on it. Nowadays science teaches us that at its most fundamental levels the universe is wholly interactive. There is no such thing as the objective observer, every experimenter affects the outcome of his/her experiment. hmmm, mixing philosophy and science, eh? I could argue that applying the currently fashionable view of science to philosophical thinking is as relevant as applying it to God, but dammit, I agree with you, mostly. So, a question for Rapunzel: Amongst these wearers of tinted glasses and inhabitants of the dreams of God, do any of them discuss our impact on “reality” by our observations/actions? Or is reality assumed to be impervious to our petty peregrinations? I wouldn’t mind betting that even if we don’t find Wittgenstein discussing this, someone more recent will have picked up the Heisenberg line and made something interesting (and useful?) of it. In fact I think as big a problem with many of the philosophers mentioned is not only that they treat the universe as impervious, but that they imagine we are impervious, living in isolation, hermits with spyglasses observing the natural and social world: the gap is not only in their discussion of our effect on the observed, but also in how the knowledge we gain affects us. Philosophers and scientists often treat humans as non-reactive and unchanging, which is manifestly rubbish. Not only do we affect the world via our observations and actions, it affects us. Is there an evolutionary advantage conferred by subscribing to a God concept? Yes, there is, and not just because of a biblical aversion to contraception :-). Darwin discussed the advantages of social groups whose members had codified rules for helping each other out, pointing out that when it came to competition between two groups of the same social species, the one whose members could work together and trust each other would eventually come out on top. Group selection is terribly unfashionable in biology at the moment for some very good reasons, but I think the logic is probably pretty sound in this case: Religion is a really good way of setting out certain rules about the way you treat people close to you. That’s not to excuse the atrocities perpetrated in its name, nor to argue that good social relations can’t exist without it, nor even to validate its role in oppressing people low down on the social scale. But I think in many societies (past and present), a god or two is a handy thing for scaring the f&*k out of (potential?) wrong-doers, as well as providing a good source of social bonding and group identification. If I contend X, suggest a way for you to experience X, and you and several other people do, then doesn't that constitute an independently verified result? Isn't that science?? careful there - any minute now someone’s going to accuse you of endorsing psychology as a science :-) From: helen 23/02/00 2:16:41 Subject: re: evolution post id: 41210 Kothos: Romanticism seems to be simply a regression into our primitive intuitive brain, whereas I think we'll eventually find scientific formulae to describe art (our modern conscious brain will catch up to the old one). Careful with that casual use of the word “simply”, my friend :-). You’re dealing in the falsest of false dichotomies here: There is no “old” brain and “new” brain, there’s just the one brain, and if you were to get rid of all that “primitive” stuff, you’d be very, very sorry (I realise you weren’t suggesting that we do anything of the sort, but bear with me :-)).... or rather, you wouldn’t be sorry: You wouldn’t even know enough to realise what you’d lost. Your logical, rational brain would still be ticking along nicely, you’d cope easily with syllogisms and probability puzzles, navigational challenges and crosswords, but you would totally fail at normal social life. Damasio covers this in more detail, but the basic message is that we can’t separate the old from the new: in order to apply any of our wonderful “higher” reasoning to real life, we need all the great “old” stuff it was built on. God as people who are members of the worlds religions believe in Him is not some abstract force/entity/conglomeration of information/inexplicable coming together of all our unknowns. He is essentially a superhuman man with the same fallibilities and motivations, and as such, I maintain that since this is self-inconsistent with the religions' other purported characteristics of God of omniscience and omnipotence, His existence can be disproved. I feel the need to add my little call of dissent to the chorus here: This doesn’t seem to match what I’ve seen of many people’s experience of God and/or religion. In fact I received a beautiful e-mail this morning from a friend who is quite involved in her local church. She was marvelling at how lucky she was to have her husband, who had spent a day on the phone organising some flights for her. She happened to mention that Sunday’s sermon was about feeling gratitude for abundance, and that she was incredibly grateful for this amazing person who is her husband. Now, I’m not in the slightest bit religious, you can take the bible and burn it a thousand times and it wouldn’t bug me, but call me a loony of this woman doesn’t seem to you to be getting something a bit more than a beard-toting old superhuman out of her religion. To emphasise: I’m not saying god/religion is the only way to focus a) on the amazing things we have in our lives and b) the way we should ideally behave towards others. I’m not even saying it serves these purposes for every follower. I am saying that it serves this purpose for many people. ... but I still think eventually we will be able to write some sort of computer program that will write great poetry IMHO). maybe, but who’s to say it’s great poetry? Do you think software could be developed that would do the job of appreciating it for us, as well :-)? IMHO, the real task is not in the writing (although that’s a huge one!), it’s in the experiencing. Man would wake up one day with the brain power to realise that everything had an origin. For every action there was a cause, for every creature there was a parent. He would see the order in the universe and realise that behind order must be intelligence. He would postulate an ultimate cause and call it God. His simple consciousness would leave it at that for a while. Unwittingly using Occam's Razor, because his simple brain has only progressed far enough to formulate the simplest idea, he would be satisifed with the simple idea that there existed an ultimate creator. now, see there you go with that “simple” word again :-)! I’m a bit disturbed by this recurring theme in your posts and Robert’s: why do you assume the concept of god/s came from a simple brain? That progress towards a more complex understanding of the natural world necessarily entails leaving god/s behind? In fact I think if you check your science, you’ll find that prehistoric humans are thought to have been as intelligent, in the sense of ability to learn, as we are today: bring a stone age kid forward a few millennia and she’d have no trouble with quantum weirdnesses... well, no more trouble than you or me :-). While I agree that the need for god/s as an explanation for natural phenomena has largely passed, I don’t think that precludes our recognising people’s personal experiences of god/s as legitimate. and finally.... On love: I think Rapunzel’s example is an excellent one, for a couple of reasons. I’m going to leave aside the difference between belief and knowledge for now, because I’m tired and can’t do it justice, but I think the example also has something to teach us about different forms of knowledge. Let’s take From: helen 23/02/00 2:18:18 Subject: re: evolution post id: 41211 bugger... and again: Let’s take a couple of aliens who’ve come to visit Earth. They’re consummate scientists, the very pinnacle of rational, verifiable, objective observation. They’ve observed humans over the millennia, they’ve taken neurochemical samples and blood samples, they’ve interviewed thousands of people who’ve experienced love. In short, every rational, verifiable, objective thing there is to know about love, they know. But here’s the catch: our aliens aren’t capable of love - not possible, can’t happen. Now, who knows more about love - our aliens, or our very passionate Rapunzel :-)? There’s no answer to the question: Both kinds of knowledge are valuable and amazing, but you can’t put one before the other. yawns and exits, stage bed From: Dr. Ed G (Avatar) 23/02/00 6:10:32 Subject: re: evolution post id: 41212 Except that I've read just recently mention of some studies which show very resoundingly that if you lose your subjective urges (for example, through damage to specific areas of the brain) then life becomes almost totally unmanageable, and even the most trivial of decisions become virtually impossible. When choices are freed of subjective influence they become logically equivalent, since ultimately values such as "good" or "bad" are fundamentally subjective notions, and so and decision must be by definition arbitrary. Therefore, logically, any purely logical beings must effectively be little more than random number/decision generators. Soupie twist, Ed G. p.s. when I track down the reference to those studies I'll post it. From: Dr. Ed G (Avatar) 23/02/00 6:18:13 Subject: re: evolution post id: 41213 p.p.s. I suggest that scientists (alien or otherwise) will be incapable of insights and therefore incapable of scientific process without intuition. And furthermore, I put it that intuition is simply subjective experience which is merely informed by, not manifest from, human logic (whatever that may be). From: helen 23/02/00 10:35:31 Subject: re: evolution post id: 41234 Hey Dr Ed, if you read my post to Kothos, you'll see I agree with you entirely; I'd also bet money that you're talking about the somatic marker hypothesis, and that your reference will contain Damasio's name; the most recent paper I'm aware of is Bechara, A., Damasio, H., Damasio, A.R. & Lee, G.P. (1999). Different contributions of the human amygdala and ventromedial prefrontal cortex to decision-making. Journal of Neuroscience, 19(13), 5473-5481. Probably more accessible is his 1994 book Descartes' Error, or last year's The feeling of what happens (Heinemann), which I haven't read and had forgotten about until just now :-). More recently he's been concerned with the development of conscience/moral behaviour in relation to emotions, which is also fascinating stuff. That said, I reserve the right to invent aliens incapable of love for the purpose of making a point. Aliens may well be capable of love (now there's a nice tangent: can intelligent life evolve without love? Without any emotions at all? Just because we didn't doesn't make it impossible ;-)); I'm sure Rapunzel knows a lot about love that doesn't involve personal experience, so both players in my comparison are artificially simple. However, the question remains - if we haven't experienced something, can we be satisfied that scientific knowledge is sufficient to fully understand it? From: helen 23/02/00 10:46:18 Subject: re: evolution post id: 41236 ... also, my apologies for the copious brain-dump, and that heinous blue. Can someone tell me why that happens? The first post should have had the quotes in aqua, the rest in gold (I was trying improve matters, but apparently failed :-P ). From: michael c 23/02/00 11:08:29 Subject: re: evolution post id: 41241 Hi Helen, What key did you use to do the inverted commas? When I did a "view by source" they came out as little solid squares which might have stuffed up the HTML. You can also get away without putting them in at all. Michael C J From: helen 23/02/00 11:23:10 Subject: re: evolution post id: 41242 weird! Thanks, Michael - I'll remember that next time I'm using IE :-) From: James Richmond (Avatar) 23/02/00 11:26:09 Subject: re: evolution post id: 41243 helen, Michael is right. There's definitely something wierd going on with your quotation marks. Are you using something like MS Word to compose your posts? If so, you should turn off the option "Replace straight quotes with smart quotes" (I think it's called something like that). Word makes nice 66 and 99 quote marks, but these aren't recognised by browsers as true quote marks. You can get away with leaving quotes out of HTML tags, but the HTML specification does require them. In other words, Netscape and IE will work fine without them, but this is not guaranteed for all browsers. JR From: helen 23/02/00 11:34:17 Subject: re: evolution post id: 41246 Hi JR, nope - I've used Word before and not had problems; these posts were written in the dreaded Works (yuk, peuw), which is all I had access to last night. I should just have used Notepad, but didn't realise it would make such a difference. Thanks for the info, though :-). From: Gigboy 23/02/00 11:43:49 Subject: re: evolution post id: 41249 Netscape and IE will work fine without them, but this is not guaranteed for all browsers. What other browsers are there???? Tony. xxx From: MichaelT 23/02/00 11:49:40 Subject: re: evolution post id: 41254 Those funny boxes were just your text viewer not having an character assigned to that asci value. If you use a different font, you may find you will end up displaying it. Even still, I do think it is not nice of Works to use non-standard characters. Gigboy, there are plenty of other browsers - some are old legacy browsers, and some are designed for other platforms, and some are designed to just work correctly with a minimum of fuss. (Opera, for instance) From: Robert 23/02/00 19:11:44 Subject: re: evolution post id: 41381 Sorry to wander in all belatedly and all, but I wanted to read the thread through before posting, and I haven’t had the time until now (can't sleep). Welcome! Why, when we have several ways of knowing things open to us, would you limit yourself to just one? I think it’s unnecessary to make quantitative comparisons like this one. In fact, your statement above is false unless you can give a good reason why you think “discovery” should be defined in terms of scientific proof. Science is knowledge. Science is the only way we can know things about the outside world. All other psuedoscientific methods simply don't work - time and time again they are shown to be fallacious ways of acquiring knowledge. But, notice above how I limited science to the outside world - the feeling love is not an example from the outside world. The question you should be asking now is, 'Why are you limiting discovery to the outside world?'. To the best of my knowledge, we have a lot to learn about consciousness in scientific terms. Here we enter new philosophical territory: the mind/body debate. I really don't think it is neccessary to go here - but if you really want, we could take the discussion in this direction. Personally, I believe the mind is really just a function of the physical makeup of the brain. However, since I am trying to skirt around this issue, let's assume I am wrong. If the mind really is a separate entity to the body, then you would be right in saying there are other types of knowledge and discovery. But, what can it really offer us? If it can't be objective, then at best it is subjective. Sure, it is impossible to live a life without relying on inferences or subjective opinions now and then - just look at anyone with autism. But let's look at this different 'type of knowledge' that is spoken of - call it mind knowledge, say. Now, mind knowledge, is at best subjective as mentioned above. Subjective knowledge isn't very good. I am not saying we should eliminate it completely or we would become indecisive messes. But you cannot rely on it - and this is the central problem to the 'but it is a different type of knowledge' argument. We should be able to rely on knowledge - it should be consistent. Knowledge should increase understanding - but love can add confusion and can hardly be said to be consistent! Science is always right (if the axioms are true, of course). If science gets something wrong, it means what was done was not in fact science - but an inferior imitator - and this is rectified by itself (science). Now, I should make an amendment to what I mean by knowledge. Instead of having to be 100% sure, I will now accept accuracies within a 'reasonable' level of confidence - perhaps, 95%? This allows science to qualify - since science can't achieve 100% certainty - but still doesn't allow subjective 'knowledge' to qualify as knowledge. What does this mean? This means that knowledge from the inside world can't be trusted as being in fact knowledge. But what if there is no inside world - that love is only a result neuron activity and changes in chemical equilibria, etc. But it appears that I have approached the problem of the aliens you spoke of, and know I face your quiestion - Now, who knows more about love - our aliens, or our very passionate Rapunzel :-)? The aliens know more about love. But, Rapunzel here would know more about what love feels like. *Surely feeling and knowing are two separate things entirely, and one shouldn't be considered a type of the other?* (by their strict definitions, of course) The aliens probably couldn't feel at all, or if they did, their feelings would be completely different. If the aliens are really intelligent, perhaps they could devise a human brain signal -> alien brain signal converter (through heavy experimentation) and then induce the appropriate signals in their brain? I think you’re making my point for me here, but I’ll emphasise again that if we were all to leave it up to technology, or to someone else, this improvement will never come. Don’t be so sure that it will happen on its own, and don’t be so quick to take credit for the counter-intuitive leaps of a few radical thinkers on behalf of “us”. Why not? Radical thinkers are humans too, don't be so discriminatory :-) And look at how much technology has advanced science in the twentieth century. Why won't the improvement come? What about artificial intelligence? Advances will continue into the future, as there will always be people uniquely suited to certain problems produced. Another factor - average human reasoning power is not constant over long periods of time! All you need is either artifical or natural selection and the conditions change :-) Anyhow, quantum mechanics is quite a rational explanation - it's just From: Robert 23/02/00 19:14:38 Subject: re: evolution post id: 41385 Anyhow, quantum mechanics is quite a rational explanation - it's just not commonsense. When I smack my hand against the computer becuase this message won't submit - I feel as if my hand touches the computer. But, this is another where feelings are wrong and inferior to scientific knowledge :-) Because my hand won't actually touch the computer, because the nuclei will repel. To emphasise: I’m not saying god/religion is the only way to focus a) on the amazing things we have in our lives and b) the way we should ideally behave towards others. I’m not even saying it serves these purposes for every follower. I am saying that it serves this purpose for many people. But Kothos was arguing about the existence of God. Whether you can get some benefits out of being blissfully ignorant is another matter. I’m a bit disturbed by this recurring theme in your posts and Robert’s: why do you assume the concept of god/s came from a simple brain? I don't - I just think that the knowledge base at the time was simple - the reasoning power was there, but it had hardly been exploited. Perhaps they were embarassed at having to reply "I don't know" when their kids asked questions :-) While I agree that the need for god/s as an explanation for natural phenomena has largely passed, I don’t think that precludes our recognising people’s personal experiences of god/s as legitimate It does if they hang on to the type that was devised for explanation of natural phenomena, morality control etc. - which is what Kothos was suggesting. The God concept wasn't born out of observation, nor genuinely seeking answers to questions without answer, it was born out of (at best) metaphor and symbolism. From: Dr. Ed G (Avatar) 23/02/00 22:52:49 Subject: re: evolution post id: 41451 Helen, Cheers! From: Kothos 23/02/00 23:03:13 Subject: re: evolution post id: 41454 Helen said, Your logical, rational brain would still be ticking along nicely, you’d cope easily with syllogisms and probability puzzles, navigational challenges and crosswords, but you would totally fail at normal social life. I realise all that. Damasio covers this in more detail, but the basic message is that we can’t separate the old from the new: in order to apply any of our wonderful 'higher' reasoning to real life, we need all the great 'old' stuff it was built on. I didn't quite know that (though I had an inkling). Is Damasio a book? Can I read it (I mean, it's not a really advanced textbook is it?)? Anyway, I was only seperating the 'brains' on a conceptual level, I know in practice they're entwined and inseperable. I mean, there are mechanisms in the brain which have evolved inflexible solutions to human problems (and function as instinct, feeling and intuition) and mechanisms that allow us to think new and original logical thoughts (aren't there?) ...but call me a loony of this woman doesn’t seem to you to be getting something a bit more than a beard-toting old superhuman out of her religion. Mmm, what she's getting from the people in her religion is lots of good advice on how to feel good, and appreciate that which deserves appreciation (she's lucky, lots of religions give bad advice). This doesn't have anything to do with God. If she's not getting a beard-toting old superhuman out of her religion, then it's obviously advanced beyond that in social terms. They don't need God to push goodness... Or maybe they do or no one would listen? That would suck. who’s to say it’s great poetry? Do you think software could be developed that would do the job of appreciating it for us, as well :-)? IMHO, the real task is not in the writing (although that’s a huge one!), it’s in the experiencing. Well, I guess it would be judged in the same way we judge current poetry. I do think we could write programs that would replace the job of the art critic (hell we could probably do that now ;-) And us humans would still be around to subjectively experience all this stuff... why do you assume the concept of god/s came from a simple brain? Coz it's a simple concept! C'mon how simple can you get? "Hey dad, who made everything?" "Superman did." "Really? Cool." *shrug* Descarte reasoned that we as humans were imperfect, but could imagine an ideal version of ourselves. He called this ideal version God and postulated that we would not be able to imagine this ideal if it didn't exist (he was wrong, but the imagining of ideals I think is very simple). Fair enough, this is just my way of thinking, but it seems to me a lot more simple than considerations of spontaneous mathematical singularities bursting forth universes (: ...prehistoric humans are thought to have been as intelligent, in the sense of ability to learn, as we are today: bring a stone age kid forward a few millennia and she’d have no trouble with quantum weirdnesses... well, no more trouble than you or me :-) Sure, I'd agree with that. But, preconceptions aside, a completely ignorant mind must necessarily start from simple ideas and work from there (look at me, that's the way I've learned stuff on this thread and others). Besides which, hasn't there been some archeology that shows the idea of God's and afterlives predate the stone age? I can't remember exactly, but it may have begun to happen quite a long time ago, prior to the emergence of H. Sapiens. I don’t think that precludes our recognising people’s personal experiences of god/s as legitimate. Um, why aren't people's personal experiences of channelling primeval spirits, or out-of-body experiences, also legitimate? And I agree totally with what Robert already said - your aliens would know much more about love than Rapunzel, but they would still not be able feel it like she could, just as they probably wouldn't be able to directly appreciate the aesthetic beauty of a bunch of roses, the taste of vanilla ice cream or the smell of a rainforest after a downpour - these are all human subjective sensory data of the kind understood by our 'primitive brain'. The aliens would presumably have an altogether different primitive brain, according to their own evolution. Anyway, thanks for adding a whole bunch of new dimensions to the thread - too bad your playing for the other side! ;-p (Joke by the way, I realise the range of opinions here doesn't represent 2 'sides'.) From: Kothos 23/02/00 23:22:25 Subject: re: evolution post id: 41458 Helen: I’m a bit disturbed by this recurring theme in your posts and Robert’s: why do you assume the concept of god/s came from a simple brain? Robert: I don't - I just think that the knowledge base at the time was simple - the reasoning power was there, but it had hardly been exploited. Perhaps they were embarassed at having to reply "I don't know" when their kids asked questions :-) I only just read this bit - apologies for repeating the reply in my own, slightly more convoluted and verbose, submission. From: Rapunzel 24/02/00 0:33:21 Subject: re: evolution post id: 41504 To Helen It's great to see you back on this thread. I've read your posts, but I can't be involved right now - perhaps I'll get a chance later this week? *bloodshot eyes* Cheers, have a great week :-) Rapunzel From: Dr. Ed G (Avatar) 24/02/00 1:07:13 Subject: re: evolution post id: 41510 Science is always right (if the axioms are true, of course). If science gets something wrong, it means what was done was not in fact science - but an inferior imitator - and this is rectified by itself (science). Ooooooohhhhh... the philosphical/logical ramifications, and cognitive dissonance of this sentence are making my head spin... Firstly, this statement is entirely circular, therefore unfalsifiable (except in its circularity), therefore according to Popper, can have no claim to scientific/logical validity. So we have a statement asserting the flawlessness of science, which is itself logically flawed. Secondly, science is not carried out by automata, its carried out by humans. Therefore it is impossible to free it of subjective bias, even if one wanted to. Thirdly, it is a matter of past historical fact and present and future statistical probability, that science has gotten, is getting, and will get things wrong. The fact that these errors will likely be corrected at some future stage does not negate the fact that scienctific "facts" at any given point in time will in part be wrong. Now, having said all that, I understand that you almost certainly also accept the limitations of humans doing science, however it should be remembered that as far as we are currently aware, science is only ever done by humans. I guess my main disagreement is the implication by your use of the word science, that there actually exists somewhere in the Universe an entity of perfect science (this science that you say is always right) - an idea which is both fanciful as we have no evidence of this "perfect science", and meaningless as we can almost certainly never attain such perfection. To my mind the most honest, useful, reasonable, and indeed most scientific means of relating to and regarding science is not to exhalt it as something which is pure and perfect, but to acknowledge the reality of flaws and limitations of its knowledge at any given point in time (even if this sort of knowledge does indeed happen to be the best available to hand) - to take scientific proclaimations (which like religious proclaimations have in the past been (and in some sense continue to be) used to support everything from social injustice to mass genocide) always with a grain of salt. Soupie twist, Ed G. From: Robert 24/02/00 10:00:35 Subject: re: evolution post id: 41555 Dr. Ed G, I realise I was being a bit circular then but my point was that science is ruthlessly self-correcting. "It is the job of the scientist to recognise our weakness, to examine the widest range of opinions, to be ruthlessly self critical. Science is a collective enterprise with the error-correcting machinery often running smoothly. ' The claim is sometimes made that science is as arbitrary or irrational as all other claims to knowledge, or that reason itself is an illlusion...... "Those who invalidate reason ought seriously to consider whether they argue against reason with or without reason; .... [the paradox is then highlighted here]" ' While I accept that we may be wrong about a few things yet, we can't be too far off because the explanation fits the observations so well! Newton may have been wrong, but he wasn't to far off - his laws of universal gravitation held under most conditions that humans experience - Einstein just made an extension. As we observe more, question more, and discover more - we will get less things wrong. Except for one notable exception - those things that we don't get a 'second chance' at observing, spinning alternate hypotheses, etc. I would like to write more but I have to go to Uni now. :-) (Quotes are from C.S.) From: Dr. Ed G (Avatar) 24/02/00 23:43:03 Subject: re: evolution post id: 41831 Yes, but I still think you're putting it on a higher philosophical plane than it actually is. Science does indeed have the potential for self-correction, and even the strong likelyhood of such eventually, but to say that it is ruthlessly self-correcting is making the assumption that the scientists and the scientific community are not as prone to stuborness and intellectual intertia as the rest of humanity. Sure, we like to think and claim that we are, but in my experience (and I think much of history bears this out), the majority of scientists fall somewhat short of this ideal. I guess all I'm saying is just a version of one of the fundamental tenets of Judeo-Christianity applied to the scientific method. Just as Christians must be constantly aware of their own sin, and the fact that human nature is a perpetual state of sin (for which forgiveness must constantly be sought), I think scientists must constantly remind themselves of the danger of taken one's beliefs/theories too seriously for fear of (i) biased research directions, (ii) biased data collection, (iii) biased interpretation, (iv) simply being wrong. Sure, it could be argued that the process of peer-review protects against this. However, this is no protection at all if the majority of that community believes the same falsehoods, as was the case with Eugenics. Soupie twist, Ed G. From: Robert 24/02/00 23:43:38 Subject: re: evolution post id: 41832 To my mind the most honest, useful, reasonable, and indeed most scientific means of relating to and regarding science is not to exhalt it as something which is pure and perfect, but to acknowledge the reality of flaws and limitations of its knowledge at any given point in time (even if this sort of knowledge does indeed happen to be the best available to hand) - to take scientific proclaimations (which like religious proclaimations have in the past been (and in some sense continue to be) used to support everything from social injustice to mass genocide) always with a grain of salt Agreed So if Newton realised that his physics only applied in the circumstances he had encountered in his life (he didn't have access to near-light-speed spacecraft), then in fact he would be right, wouldn't he? :-) [Perfect Science] I agree it can't be carried out by humans [at least in current form :-) ], but it is the goal that our science works at to achieve. Most of the times science gets things wrong, though, it is because of speculation. As long as new ideas are testable and scientists are not overly dogmatic, no harm is done; indeed, considerable progress can be made. Just look at Fred Hoyle - sometimes he succeeded by being wrong. By being so provocative, by suggesting such outrageous alternatives that the observers and experimentalists feel obliged to check it out. The impassioned and concerted effort to 'prove Fred wrong' has sometimes failed and sometimes succeeded. In almost every case, it has pushed forward our frontiers of knowledge. It is interesting you bring up Popper, who says that things which are unfalsifiable and/or untestable can have no claim 'scientific/logical validity'. (It was actually discussed at one of my lectures today!) This fits nicely into the discussion of God. But the question remains: Is that which is untestable worthy of consideration; - suppose there is something to which cause-and-effect doesn't apply - if it has no observable effects, is it worthy of discussion? It is analagous to the huge turtle Chris mentioned in another thread, swallowing galaxies a million million light-years away, but has only been doing so for the last twenty years, isn't it? (quotes and paraphrasing from CS again in some parts) From: Robert 24/02/00 23:45:39 Subject: re: evolution post id: 41834 You beat me! Perhaps you could read my part two - and then see what you think - I made some clarifications. From: Dr. Ed G (Avatar) 25/02/00 0:27:36 Subject: re: evolution post id: 41837 Agreed, right back back atchya. Yes, the unfalsifiablility issue can be a sticky one, and particularly apt in an evolution thread, as it could be argued that indeed the Theory of Evolution is pretty much unfalsifiable. It does make very good rough predictions, but this only serves for it to be consistent with, not proven by, observation. And yet I would not assert that Evolution isn't science... hmmm... From: Robert 25/02/00 10:25:08 Subject: re: evolution post id: 41900 It does make very good rough predictions, but this only serves for it to be consistent with, not proven by, observation. Well, I am not sure this is strictly true, since evolution was inspired by Mr. Darwin's trip to the Galapagos Islands wasnt' it? Not borne out of pure imagination, like God :-) You really should look at this: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolphil/tautology.html Is natural selection a tautology? For anyone with some doubts about evolution (like the guy from the "Evolution again" thread), then I really recommend http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-qa.html this faq. From: Kothos 25/02/00 10:42:00 Subject: re: evolution post id: 41905 It does make very good rough predictions, but this only serves for it to be consistent with, not proven by, observation. I'm not quite sure I understand this bit either. Isn't it conceivable that evolutionary theory could make predictions, which might be backed up by new observations made in the present? From: Dr. Ed G (Avatar) 25/02/00 23:05:12 Subject: re: evolution post id: 42095 Yes, kinda... but because evolution is not strictly directed, and can't make very specific predictions, not like say physics. It does loosely predict intermediate forms between organisms found in the fossil record - the idea that "missing links" pose a fundamental problem for evolution is bunk, intermediate fossils are found all the time, but there will always be space in between for a missing link, regardless of the reality of the evolutionary process. However, you can't really say, when change A happens in this or that environment then change B will result in this or that organism that lives in that environment. All you can say is change A appeared to happen in this environment, and the suggestion of change B which appears to have resulted in this organism appears to be adaptive to that change, and is therefore consistent with the process of evolution. More importantly, you can't say, if change A happens in an environment and change B doesn't happen in an organism or change C does, then evolutionary theory must be incorrect. In other words, it is effectively unfalsifiable. Indeed the only result that would falsify evolution is first hand evidence of the simultaneous creation of all organisms in their current form - and this is impossible according to our current understanding of space-time. That is not to saying that it is not based on evidence, which it absolutely unequivocally is. It is just that it doesn't strictly meet one of the criteria set down by Popper for a scientific theory. Soupie twist, Ed G. From: Robert 26/02/00 19:40:00 Subject: re: evolution post id: 42174 You know Popper himself argued evolution wasn't a theory? This is taken from the link I gave earlier: Darwinian theory rules out quite a lot. It rules out the existence of inefficient organisms when more efficient organisms are about. It rules out change that is theoretically impossible (according to the laws of genetics, ontogeny, and molecular biology) to achieve in gradual and adaptive steps (see Dawkins [1996]). It rules out new species being established without ancestral species. All of these hypotheses are more or less testable, and conform to the standards of science. The answer to this version of the argument is the same as to the simplistic version - adaptation is not just defined in terms of what survives. There needs to be a causal story available to make sense of adaptation (which is why mimicry in butterflies was such a focal debate in the teens and twenties). Adaptation is a functional notion, not a logical or semantic a priori definition, despite what Popper thought. So, what if there is no change (relatively speaking) to the environment and detrimental change A occurs and spreads - through 'survival of the worst' perhaps? You don't have to neccessarily apply a 'Creationist Entropy Fallacy' model (where species are spontaneously (sp?) created and then entropy sets in) ; instead perhaps adaptation might reach some limit and then actually decrease in time for reasons which evolution theory couldn't hope to explain. (Of course, this won't happen, because evolution is either right on the money or at least 'pretty close' - very scientific, I know) :-) From: helen 1/03/00 21:36:27 Subject: re: evolution post id: 43120 Hi again, Sorry to wander in all belatedly and all…. Welcome! thanks for adding a whole bunch of new dimensions to the thread - too bad your playing for the other side! Goodness, you boys are just so polite, it almost hurts me to disagree with you :-) Hi Robert: Science is knowledge. Science is the only way we can know things about the outside world Science is not knowledge, science is a way of obtaining knowledge. I know how to speak English, but I did not acquire that knowledge scientifically; science can certainly explain how I gained that knowledge, but it didn't allow me to gain it. Personally, I believe the mind is really just a function of the physical makeup of the brain. However, since I am trying to skirt around this issue, let's assume I am wrong. If the mind really is a separate entity to the body, then you would be right in saying there are other types of knowledge and discovery. Actually, regardless of whether the mind is "a separate entity" from the body, I am right in stating there are other kinds of knowledge and discovery :-). There's no need for this predicate. But, what can it really offer us? If it can't be objective, then at best it is subjective. Sure, it is impossible to live a life without relying on inferences or subjective opinions now and then - just look at anyone with autism. I think you'll find autism has very little to do with the argument; I'm more concerned with the limbic system, and the fact that it would be impossible for us to have your vaunted science without inferences and subjective opinions :-). But let's look at this different 'type of knowledge' that is spoken of - call it mind knowledge, say. Now, mind knowledge, is at best subjective as mentioned above. "mind knowledge" :-)? So what you want to argue is that the prototype for knowledge is that gained via the scientific method, and everything else must carry a modifier? I call on the speaker to justify this claim! Subjective knowledge isn't very good. I am not saying we should eliminate it completely or we would become indecisive messes. … I don't think you've really taken this on board - you can't just acknowledge that we need the subjective and then move on as though it doesn't matter. I'm afraid it does :-)… But you cannot rely on it - and this is the central problem to the 'but it is a different type of knowledge' argument. We should be able to rely on knowledge - it should be consistent. Knowledge should increase understanding - but love can add confusion and can hardly be said to be consistent! Now you're further defining your view of what knowledge "should be", again without any justification. No-one's suggesting we build bridges or design satellites based on what we know about love :-). Science is always right (if the axioms are true, of course). If science gets something wrong, it means what was done was not in fact science - but an inferior imitator - and this is rectified by itself (science). Now, I should make an amendment to what I mean by knowledge. Instead of having to be 100% sure, I will now accept accuracies within a 'reasonable' level of confidence - perhaps, 95%? This allows science to qualify - since science can't achieve 100% certainty - but still doesn't allow subjective 'knowledge' to qualify as knowledge. teehee - what Dr Ed said! I would also add that your definition of knowledge is circular: "Knowledge is what sciences gives us; science is what gives us knowledge". The aliens know more about love. But, Rapunzel here would know more about what love feels like. there goes that pesky other kind of knowledge again :-)! The aliens just know more facts about love. *Surely feeling and knowing are two separate things entirely, and one shouldn't be considered a type of the other?* (by their strict definitions, of course) no, indeed they are not "two separate things entirely", - and you haven't given a "strict definition" of either, in any case. From: helen 1/03/00 21:38:02 Subject: re: evolution post id: 43122 I think you're making my point for me here, but I'll emphasise again that if we were all to leave it up to technology, or to someone else, this improvement will never come. Don't be so sure that it will happen on its own, and don't be so quick to take credit for the counter-intuitive leaps of a few radical thinkers on behalf of "us". Why not? Radical thinkers are humans too, don't be so discriminatory :-) And look at how much technology has advanced science in the twentieth century. Why won't the improvement come? What about artificial intelligence? Advances will continue into the future, as there will always be people uniquely suited to certain problems produced. I never disputed that we've discovered a bunch of really exciting things, in the last century and the ones previous to it. The point I'm attempting to flog to death here is that the really exciting discoveries were made by people who were willing to question what current approaches to knowledge had to offer them, which I think is exactly what you're not doing :-). Anyhow, quantum mechanics is quite a rational explanation - it's just not commonsense. I didn't say it wasn't rational, you silly boy, I said it's hard for us to get our heads around :-). Or are you saying you find that stuff easy? To emphasise: I'm not saying god/religion is the only way to focus a) on the amazing things we have in our lives and b) the way we should ideally behave towards others. I'm not even saying it serves these purposes for every follower. I am saying that it serves this purpose for many people. But Kothos was arguing about the existence of God. Whether you can get some benefits out of being blissfully ignorant is another matter. I'm well aware of that, but you've taken the comment out of context: In the process of arguing about the existence of god/s, Kothos made an assertion about what God means for "most people" in mainstream religions, and I was rejecting that assertion. However, I think in re-reading my posts I may have over-emphasised the "purpose" of god/s for many people, which is not the really important thing (and I wouldn't want to be taken for one of Dawkins' "know-alls", now would I? Let the poor people have their God if it makes them happy). The important thing, for this argument, is to do with their personal experiences of God. I'm a bit disturbed by this recurring theme in your posts and Robert's: why do you assume the concept of god/s came from a simple brain? I don't - I just think that the knowledge base at the time was simple - the reasoning power was there, but it had hardly been exploited. Perhaps they were embarassed at having to reply "I don't know" when their kids asked questions :-) well, I'm glad we cleared that up. I'm still not convinced that an entity which was somehow able to suddenly appear with a full scientific understanding of natural phenomena wouldn't also invent a god or two for itself, though. Guess we'll never know :-) While I agree that the need for god/s as an explanation for natural phenomena has largely passed, I don't think that precludes our recognising people's personal experiences of god/s as legitimate It does if they hang on to the type that was devised for explanation of natural phenomena, morality control etc. - which is what Kothos was suggesting. Ah, now here we may partially agree - I have no time for "creation science" or the mis/use of the bible to pass judgement on the "morality" of others; however, I still don't see that the unpleasant proclivities of a vocal few are evidence for the non-existence of God. The God concept wasn't born out of observation, nor genuinely seeking answers to questions without answer, it was born out of (at best) metaphor and symbolism gasp! Not [dramatic pause] metaphor and symbolism! Whatever next? Poetry? Sculpture? Bellydancing? Fingerpainting? :-) From: helen 1/03/00 21:40:16 Subject: re: evolution post id: 43123 Hey again Kothos, Your logical, rational brain would still be ticking along nicely, you'd cope easily with syllogisms and probability puzzles, navigational challenges and crosswords, but you would totally fail at normal social life. I realise all that. Hmmm, are you sure :-)? Is Damasio a book? Can I read it (I mean, it's not a really advanced textbook is it?)? yes, and yes (and no) - check out the post to Dr Ed for details. Anyway, I was only seperating the 'brains' on a conceptual level, I know in practice they're entwined and inseperable. I mean, there are mechanisms in the brain which have evolved inflexible solutions to human problems (and function as instinct, feeling and intuition) and mechanisms that allow us to think new and original logical thoughts (aren't there?) Errrm, that depends on how you're thinking about these two "mechanisms", which is why I asked that nasty patronising question above :-). The crux of the work on emotions for this discussion is that you can't separate the two sets of functions… I mean you really can't sensibly isolate them: the subjective is part of the objective, the new, original and logical can't happen without, and is totally pervaded by, the old and intuitive. Mmm, what she's getting from the people in her religion is lots of good advice on how to feel good, and appreciate that which deserves appreciation (she's lucky, lots of religions give bad advice). This doesn't have anything to do with God. see my comments above on purpose vs. experience. I have unintentionally emphasised the first at the expense of the second, which is what she herself would have told you about (I don't have that experience myself, so it's easy for me to forget about it :-)); sure the people around her reinforce it, but that doesn't mean the experience isn't important. who's to say it's great poetry? Do you think software could be developed that would do the job of appreciating it for us, as well :-)? IMHO, the real task is not in the writing (although that's a huge one!), it's in the experiencing. Well, I guess it would be judged in the same way we judge current poetry. I do think we could write programs that would replace the job of the art critic (hell we could probably do that now ;-) And us humans would still be around to subjectively experience all this stuff... Ah, but I'm not talking about judging (a la Rapunzel's example from Dead Poet's), I'm talking about the fact that any such software for judging would ultimately have to be based on how we experience the stuff to begin with: the appreciation part will always have to come first :-)! why do you assume the concept of god/s came from a simple brain? Coz it's a simple concept! C'mon how simple can you get? "Hey dad, who made everything?" "Superman did." "Really? Cool." *shrug* Here again you're limiting the concept of god/s to an explanatory role. I don't think people's spiritual experiences can be said to be simple at all. From: helen 1/03/00 21:46:42 Subject: re: evolution post id: 43125 last one for the night, I promise :-) I don't think that precludes our recognising people's personal experiences of god/s as legitimate. Um, why aren't people's personal experiences of channelling primeval spirits, or out-of-body experiences, also legitimate? Did I say they weren't ;-)? Their occasional attempts to call them scientific certainly aren't, but that's exactly what proponents of god/s concepts don't do, at least not if they have any sense :-) And I agree totally with what Robert already said - your aliens would know much more about love than Rapunzel, but they would still not be able feel it like she could, just as they probably wouldn't be able to directly appreciate the aesthetic beauty of a bunch of roses, the taste of vanilla ice cream or the smell of a rainforest after a downpour - these are all human subjective sensory data of the kind understood by our 'primitive brain'. The aliens would presumably have an altogether different primitive brain, according to their own evolution. This also makes me think you haven't quite taken on board the lack of a neat emotion/sensation/rationality divide, or you wouldn't be so quick to write off our appreciation of rainforests and vanilla icecream as primitive :-) Kothos: Descarte reasoned that we as humans were imperfect, but could imagine an ideal version of ourselves. He called this ideal version God and postulated that we would not be able to imagine this ideal if it didn't exist (he was wrong, but the imagining of ideals I think is very simple). Robert: [Perfect Science] I agree it can't be carried out by humans [at least in current form :-) ], but it is the goal that our science works at to achieve. I'm sorry, I just couldn't help but compare these two :-) and lastly some thoughts on evolution, or at least the idea of natural selection, as a science: First, Popper eventually retracted his argument, which was specifically to do with the idea of "survival of the fittest". This fact is conveniently ignored by the people (usually creation scientists, I think) who quote this statement of his. Second, evolutionary theory does make predictions, although it doesn't necessarily lend itself to experimentation. An example which springs to mind is research on cholera done by some American researchers last year. They figured that if a pathogen has to rely on close contact between people, it will probably be less virulent: strains of the pathogen which allow people to be out and about infecting others will be more successful. However, if the pathogen can get away with spreading itself via dirty water, it can be as nasty as it likes: it'll get into the water any old how. So the prediction was that in countries where the water quality is high, preventing that route of infection, local strains of cholera would be fairly benign, whereas in those countries where the water quality is poor, they would be much nastier. Hey presto, that's exactly what they found, even in adjacent countries. The discovery of a bacterial agent related to gingivitis which seems to be related to family histories of heart disease was also predicted by evolutionary medicine. A useful book on this and related topics is Steve Jones' Almost like a whale. From: Alan™ 1/03/00 22:32:19 Subject: re: evolution post id: 43127 The point I'm attempting to flog to death here is that... Thanks for a great quote Helen, I hope you don't mind me plagiarizing it / you in the future. I just need somewhere to use it, maybe it's time to go back to Uni. From: Robert 2/03/00 0:09:18 Subject: re: evolution post id: 43135 Goodness, you boys are just so polite, it almost hurts me to disagree with you :-) What do you mean almost?? :-) Science is knowledge... Science is not knowledge, science is a way of obtaining knowledge. I know how to speak English, but I did not acquire that knowledge scientifically; science can certainly explain how I gained that knowledge, but it didn't allow me to gain it. (This part is related to the circular def. stuff) Science originally was literally knowledge. But as my physics textbook points out, science is now described as method for attaining knowledge of the natural world. Also, the young mind tends to be very good at analysing languages, deducting rules (arguably scientifically) and then inducing further words, etc. based on those rules whether you realise it or not. Eg. A common mistake of young children who are not aware of mice say mouses. It is the logical thing to do, they are just extrapolating from the data (logical induction is weak, that is why they are wrong - but it good for working hypotheses) , they learn the exception, and make appropriate amendments to the rule. I am right in stating there are other kinds of knowledge and discovery :-). There's no need for this predicate. You don't want the predicate? It was a way out! Now you are only left with material entities, and love just becomes an occasional hit of endorphins, some neural activity, etc. ...and the fact that it would be impossible for us to have your vaunted science without inferences and subjective opinions :-). But science only uses subjectivity and inferences for hypotheses, not conclusions. Although the conclusions can never be completely certain, there are objective ways to determine the uncertainty [it involves lots of rules and formulae - damn Ph144 basic skills prac :-( ]. Through quantitative measurements, there is no subjectivity. and everything else must carry a modifier? I call on the speaker to justify this claim! Fairs fair - if you want to sneak in metaphors and things outside the natural world into our body of knowledge, I think it is only fair you use a modifier. you can't just acknowledge that we need the subjective and then move on as though it doesn't matter Watch me :-) While we need the subjective (to gamble on decisions, etc), it cannot be used for knowledge - so it get thrown away. If you want knowledge, you throw subjectivity away; it is just that we are not always concerned with attaining knowledge in everyday life. Now you're further defining your view of what knowledge "should be", again without any justification. No-one's suggesting we build bridges or design satellites based on what we know about love :-). Justification? I thought it would be pretty self-evident. When you want knowledge, you seek the truth of the appropriate proposition(s). Propositions, by definition, are either true or false but not both. And, unless you add a time predicate, that knowledge should be true at any time of the day, in any place in the universe. x*(x-3)=0 will always have solutions x=0 and x=3 no matter what. But if someone 'knows' that they are in love, they may not necessarily feel that way the next morning (or after they find out they have been cheated on etc.) They become dissillusioned and an emotional wreck, especially if they were convinced that they 'knew' they were in love or had discovered it. Knowledge has to be consistent, or it is no better than a stab in the dark. teehee - what Dr Ed said! I would also add that your definition of knowledge is circular: "Knowledge is what sciences gives us; science is what gives us knowledge". Well, as you will have noticed, I later retracted that and made a correction there goes that pesky other kind of knowledge again :-)! The aliens just know more facts about love. But facts are knowledge - the words are synonymous to the best of my semantics. (Actually more specifically, knowledge is derived from facts) no, indeed they are not "two separate things entirely", - and you haven't given a "strict definition" of either, in any case They aren't???? Although I feel matrices are the work of the devil, I know that they are in fact useful for CDs, models of the atom, etc and there is no proof that Kramer (of Kramer's theorem fame, not Seinfeld) is a satan worshipper. Or: Although I feel as if I could drive home after some drinking, I know that in actuality I would be weaving all over the road. Or Although I feel there is no God (using standard interpretation), I don't actually know that. There is a big difference. < From: Robert 2/03/00 0:11:13 Subject: re: evolution post id: 43136 The point I'm attempting to flog to death here is that the really exciting discoveries were made by people who were willing to question what current approaches to knowledge had to offer them, which I think is exactly what you're not doing :-). No, approaches to knowledge weren't questioned, the scientific approach was constant. What happened was science questioned science to produce better science. It sounds circular, but it was just part of the error-checking process of science - and spinning alternate hypotheses. Einstein questioned an exclusively wave model of light with his piece on the photoelectric effect - he did this scientifically - and we got a new theory, wave-particle duality, which is still open to question scientifically. I didn't say it wasn't rational, you silly boy, I said it's hard for us to get our heads around :-). Or are you saying you find that stuff easy? Ok, we agree here then. Niels Bohr said something along the lines of "If you look at a quantum mechanics problem without feeling a little giddy, then you have not understood it" however, I still don't see that the unpleasant proclivities of a vocal few are evidence for the non-existence of God. You are right there, but my point still stands - if someone hallucinates/experience something Godly (like an apocalypse/Virgin Mary vision or something), but that the God they experience is an old one (ie. used for natural phenomena etc.) then it is invalid. I am not aware of any experiences of a God that could exist, just ones of old leftover Gods from the natural phenomena days. gasp! Not [dramatic pause] metaphor and symbolism! Whatever next? Poetry? Sculpture? Bellydancing? Fingerpainting? :-) Lets see: Metaphor - there is a reason why we separate the metaphorical from the literal Symbolism - ditto above Poetry/Sculpture - They certainly exist, and some objective knowledge can be gleamed Bellydancing/Fingerpainting - They exist too, but have little to give the world (I always hated fingerpainting - why not use a brush? And why do they give me big brushes? I want a fine tip! No wonder my paintings looked like crap "Draw stick figures, they're easier" - damn kindergarden teachers) :-) From: Dr. Ed G (Avatar) 2/03/00 0:25:26 Subject: re: evolution post id: 43139 Through quantitative measurements, there is no subjectivity. I don't quite agree with that. Through quantitative measurements subjectivity may be reduced, perhaps. However, the decisions of what measurements are made, how they are collected, how they are analysed, and finally how they are interpreted, are all subjective steps on the road to human truth. Soupie twist, Ed G. From: James Richmond (Avatar) 2/03/00 0:34:40 Subject: re: evolution post id: 43141 No doubt I'll have more to say later, but for now I'll settle for looking at one statement: Knowledge has to be consistent, or it is no better than a stab in the dark. Kurt Godel had a few interesting things to say about this in the context of logical systems. I am presuming here that you (Robert) consider science to be a logical system. A logical system has (among others) two desirable properties: 1. Completeness - the system can prove true or false any statement it knows how to address. 2. Consistency - the system does not regard any statement as both true and false. Godel proved that no logical system can be both complete and consistent. Applying this to science, if science is consistent (as you say it must be to be better than "a stab in the dark") then it is necessarily incomplete. Therefore, there must be questions to which science has no answers. There must be statements which are true that science can never prove. On the other hand, if science is a complete system of knowledge, it cannot be consistent. JR From: Robert 2/03/00 9:44:36 Subject: re: evolution post id: 43166 JR, Yes, this shook the mathematics world when Gödel released his two theorems. Four years earlier Warner Hiesenberg released his paper on the uncertainty principle. Determinism was dead, annoying Einstein who made the infamous statement "God does not play dice" (actually that was to do with quantum entanglement, wasn't it? Anyway, the point is still the same). (JR and Dr Ed G), I accept that we cannot have zero uncertainty nor zero subjectivity nor zero consistency. But we can get close. Just because we cannot achieve the ideal does not mean we should give up completely and give purely subjective data the same validity of that which is only partially subjective and mostly objective. If you are specific enough with your conclusions, you can objectively identify the uncertainties/subjectivities most of the time. Maths and science can never know that they are 100% right, but at least you can get a really good approximation. 1+1 may not equal 2, but we are about 99.99999recurring% sure. The more objective you are, the surer you can be of your conclusions. Really, the only problems arise when people say stuff like, "I am a liar!" and then you try to determine the truth of that proposition. (Incidentally, that is not actually a logical proposition since it is not exclusively true or false) Or when you take things to extremes - Newton wouldn't have been wrong if added the qualifier that he could only be sure his Newtonian Physics worked for everyday situations! Just because we cannot kill subjectivity completely does not mean we should accept it as a different form of knowledge when something is purely subjective. The validity of knowledge should be proportional to the ratio of the objectivity over the subjectivity involved. Unless, of course, there is an acceptance of the subjectivity involved - you could probably write a page for most scientific experiments - but that is nit-picking. When you make wild subjective statements, then you could fill several encyclopædia with the subjectivity involved just so you can qualify it as knowledge. There will always be a really really little bit of uncertainty courtesy Mr. Gödel - but this is really quite negligible. In summary: *While science/logic/maths may all have varying degrees of subjectivity and uncertainty, this only highlights the imperfection of science/logic/maths, not the strength of subjectivity. *If you can objectively identify the subjectivity, then your statement is more objective, since you are saying you could be wrong, due to x amount of uncertainty. From: helen 2/03/00 19:23:28 Subject: re: evolution post id: 43333 Alan, my throw-away line is your throw-away line. I probably stole it from someone else and don't remember doing it. Use it in good health :-)! Rapunzel, hope you can spare some time from marking the little people to join us again soon :-) Hello again Robert! Science originally was literally knowledge. But as my physics textbook points out, science is now described as method for attaining knowledge of the natural world. Of course science is a method for attaining knowledge. No argument there; in fact I think it's a particularly good one. I just don't think it's the only good one, or the best one for every purpose, which is what you appear to be claiming in the rest of the thread. Or have I misunderstood? on learning a first language: Also, the young mind tends to be very good at analysing languages, deducting rules (arguably scientifically) and then inducing further words, etc. based on those rules whether you realise it or not. Eg. A common mistake of young children who are not aware of mice say mouses. It is the logical thing to do, they are just extrapolating from the data (logical induction is weak, that is why they are wrong - but it good for working hypotheses) , they learn the exception, and make appropriate amendments to the rule. Two points here: One, children most emphatically do not go about learning their first language in a scientific fashion. They don't make systematic observations of its use, they don't formulate hypotheses or theories about the way it's spoken, they don't test them deliberately (at least not early on), and they don't learn from mistakes in the way you'd expect if they were hypothesis-testing. For example, a very good way to delay a child's language acquisition is to spend time deliberately correcting them on grammar and syntax; it's much better for them just to "absorb" it by continual exposure. The process is not at all deliberate, and it's a major stretch to call it scientific… … unless of course one is in the business of extending one's circular definition of knowledge in order to defend it :-) - "if it's objective, it's knowledge, and if it's knowledge it must be scientific, and since it's scientific, it's objective". Two, can I show you a nice example of the effects of cognitive dissonance? You have a particular view of what knowledge is all about. You want to reject language-learning as a counter-example, because accepting it would mean you'd have to adjust your definition of knowledge and how it's acquired. Instead of checking your facts in order to refute my statement, though, you've used a very questionable interpretation of a well-known observation about mistakes kids make when they learn grammar. Are you being objective with your use of science, do you think :-)? … oh, and here's your egg back ;-) You don't want the predicate? It was a way out! Now you are only left with material entities, and love just becomes an occasional hit of endorphins, some neural activity, etc. I'm not in need of a "way out", but thank you for your very gracious offer :-). Also, I am quite at home with being left with material entities. Can you tell me why you think this precludes valuing experience as highly as facts? But science only uses subjectivity and inferences for hypotheses, not conclusions. Although the conclusions can never be completely certain, there are objective ways to determine the uncertainty you talk about science as though it were an autonomous entity, rather than an activity performed by people. Subjectivity is a part of everything we do, not just formulating hypotheses. I'm sorry that makes you so uncomfortable. We can (and should) certainly be wary of it having an undue impact on what we do in science and how we choose to do it, and most especially on how we interpret what we find and how we choose to use it, but to write it off as something to be rejected completely is not only unjustified, it's neither possible nor desirable. And to maintain it doesn't exist in science is just plain dangerous. From: helen 2/03/00 19:28:35 Subject: re: evolution post id: 43335 Through quantitative measurements, there is no subjectivity. quite apart from the issues raised by JR and Dr Ed, you're also assuming these measurements exist in isolation. What do they mean? How can they be used? Science isn't just about measuring stuff. and everything else must carry a modifier? I call on the speaker to justify this claim! Fairs fair - if you want to sneak in metaphors and things outside the natural world into our body of knowledge, I think it is only fair you use a modifier. *raises eyebrow* but I didn't sneak them in - they were already there! Really, now I'm going to have to insist that you defend your definition of knowledge. My trusty pocket Macq is vehemently disputing it :-). you can't just acknowledge that we need the subjective and then move on as though it doesn't matter Watch me :-) I have been. Perhaps I should have added "…and still remain credible" :-). Here I can only assume you haven't understood the point. While we need the subjective (to gamble on decisions, etc), it cannot be used for knowledge - so it get thrown away. If you want knowledge, you throw subjectivity away; it is just that we are not always concerned with attaining knowledge in everyday life. I'm afraid this is unmitigated codswallop :-). I'm a bit reluctant to spend any more time debating knowledge and subjectivity with you until you have a) given me a good reason for your definition of knowledge, and b) given me some indication that you've thought at least a little bit about what I've said, and what Dr Ed's said, concerning the importance of emotion/subjectivity/instinct/whatever in conducting normal, "rational" (scientific!) life. If you don't understand, or would like a clarification, please ask. no, indeed they are not "two separate things entirely", - and you haven't given a "strict definition" of either, in any case They aren't???? Although I feel matrices are the work of the devil, I know that they are in fact useful for CDs, models of the atom, etc and there is no proof that Kramer (of Kramer's theorem fame, not Seinfeld) is a satan worshipper. *grins* I want you to notice two things about this list you've given me to demonstrate the difference between feelings and "knowledge" (quite apart from the fact that I didn't say they were the same thing, just that they weren't completely separable). The first is that you're dead certain you know the difference between the two things. Why? Because you've experienced them. How odd. The second is that an awful lot of research would tend to dispute the neat delineation you've just drawn. Who's right about your experience - you or science :-)? Although I feel there is no God (using standard interpretation), I don't actually know that. erm, now I'm confused. You seemed pretty sure before :-). The point I'm attempting to flog to death here is that the really exciting discoveries were made by people who were willing to question what current approaches to knowledge had to offer them, which I think is exactly what you're not doing :-). No, approaches to knowledge weren't questioned, the scientific approach was constant. yes, that was badly put - my apologies. However, if you think about it, someone had to question the authority of the church and all those fusty old Greek bods to come up with what we call science in the first place (thank you, Mr Gallileo and friends!). Who's to say some other great leap mightn't be made, if we're open to it. And no, of course I can't imagine what it might be, or I would have leapt already :-). What happened was science questioned science to produce better science. It sounds circular, but it was just part of the error-checking process of science - and spinning alternate hypotheses. Einstein questioned an exclusively wave model of light with his piece on the photoelectric effect - he did this scientifically - and we got a new theory, wave-particle duality, which is still open to question scientifically. Absolutely! But let's look at relativity instead for a sec: to come up with this particular piece of wild craziness ;-), he had to make a leap qualitatively similar to Galileo's: he had to explicitly question what generations of physicists had assumed implicitly. In contrast, it's that comfortable faith in "the way I think things are" which makes me uncomfortable about your arguments :-). From: helen 2/03/00 19:32:40 Subject: re: evolution post id: 43339 if someone hallucinates/experience something Godly (like an apocalypse/Virgin Mary vision or something), but that the God they experience is an old one (ie. used for natural phenomena etc.) then it is invalid. why? and here I think we reach the heart of this beautiful web of ironies you've woven :-). - Metaphor - there is a reason why we separate the metaphorical from the literal Symbolism - ditto above Poetry/Sculpture - They certainly exist, and some objective knowledge can be gleamed Bellydancing/Fingerpainting - They exist too, but have little to give the world What's this I see? A little value judgment creeping into this very rational discussion? No sir, no subjectivity here, just one very objective scientist who isn't keen on bellydancing… ... or perhaps you'd like to offer an objective reason for your dislike of fingerpainting? Pfffft! "little to give the world", indeed :-)! From: steve(primus) 2/03/00 19:38:49 Subject: re: evolution post id: 43340 Metaphor - there is a reason why we separate the metaphorical from the literal For the most part we do not separate the metaphorical from the literal. It is metaphor that gives language its vitality. Your use of the word "gleaned" and Helen's use of "web" are both metaphors - and I bet you didn't notice. From: Rapunzel 2/03/00 19:43:39 Subject: re: evolution post id: 43341 Hi Helen I'm reading, but I can't see a burning reason for me to be posting in this thread just now! :-) Interesting discussion! The only comment I'd like to make at this stage is that if I confined my life, or even just my intellectual life, to the scientific method alone, it would be a pretty narrow life. Which is what you've indicated in your discussions anyway. :-) Rapunzel From: steve(primus) 2/03/00 19:45:11 Subject: re: evolution post id: 43342 I couldn't agree more, Rapunzel. From: Rapunzel 2/03/00 19:46:16 Subject: re: evolution post id: 43343 :-) From: James Richmond (Avatar) 2/03/00 20:04:17 Subject: re: evolution post id: 43344 ditto From: Rapunzel 2/03/00 20:08:31 Subject: re: evolution post id: 43345 Is this the Happy Club? ;-) From: James Richmond (Avatar) 2/03/00 20:13:07 Subject: re: evolution post id: 43346 Group hug! From: Grant¹ 2/03/00 20:19:11 Subject: re: evolution post id: 43347 Group hug! Pass. From: Rapunzel 2/03/00 20:21:43 Subject: re: evolution post id: 43348 Oooooooh, Grant's a grumpy sausage! :-) From: steve(primus) 2/03/00 20:25:02 Subject: re: evolution post id: 43349 Grant's all hot and sweaty - he is in Darwin and its the wet season. From: Rapunzel 2/03/00 20:29:27 Subject: re: evolution post id: 43350 Heat and humidity would turn me into a grumpy sausage almost immediately. I love living in the most temperate place in WA - and I live in the group of houses which is the closest to the Antarctic on mainland WA. :-) I look at Perth's weather forecasts every night and laugh!!! From: Grant¹ 2/03/00 20:35:52 Subject: re: evolution post id: 43352 Grant's all hot and sweaty Afraid not. Latest forecast according to the paper is we should get over ½ this month's average rainfall in the next 24-48 hrs- due to the remians of a cyclone that i won't name. Grumpy yes- Just had a trip to Adelaide for a funeral, get back to find nothing was done while at work, so it's all piled up. Been raining since i left & not expecting any sun for the next 3-5 days- so everything is very wet & damp & going mouldy. Came back to find my monitor had died, so now i'm using my old one (gone from 21" down to 14"- really painfull). Just found termintes in the house, pest mob will give us a quote in a few days- to give us a chance to prepare for the shock. Going to have to have a chat with the nighbors as i've had enough of the smell of chook crap- their coop is under my kitchen window. It would also appear the termintes are coming from their tree. All this in the last 24 hours & still got Friday to come. Oh joy! From: Rapunzel 2/03/00 20:38:01 Subject: re: evolution post id: 43353 You know that saying: And I said to myself, "Things can't possibly get any worse." And they did.... From: Grant¹ 2/03/00 20:42:00 Subject: re: evolution post id: 43354 Trouble always comes in groups of three. The third in a group is the first of the next. From: Robert 2/03/00 21:36:54 Subject: re: evolution post id: 43372 (Sorry for my lazy HTML work, you might find the context confusing at times - if so then please just look at where I took the quote in aqua from) Hello again Robert! And hello again to you! Or have I misunderstood? Yep. We agree, what I am questioning is, are the areas that science is weak at areas of knowledge at all? And then we enter the definition of knowledge problem. [On learning a language] Ok, it is not scientific per se, but logical (which is a subset of science, anyway, isn't it?). The interpretation I used was from a documentary on humans from birth to death, and they were talking about the deceptive logical nature in which they [babies] learn their language (and so quickly). They said that they identified rules and then applied them, eg. learning to put "es" on the end for plurals. This would lead to the mistake, then they would learn the exception, and continue on. So, that is not just my personal interpretation on a well-known observation, but I did make an effort to check my facts (so there) :-) There is no need for me to adjust my definition of knowledge, since logic can handle languages quite easily - they are just words, rules and exceptions. Then, on top of that, there is commonsense to stop nonsensical statements that are otherwise gramatically and syntaxically correct (we are not talking about the quantum world here, this is an area where commonsense is perfect(or at least close) by its very definition). But I have cheated - commonsense can lead to errors when talking about our everyday experience, but it is quite nice for everyday experience - and I have used commonsense as a method for using language. So here I am flexible on my definition of knowledge - you can include commonsense as legitimate non-science knowledge. (No the non-science modifier isn't necessary) But, only for everyday experience! Elsewhere, it fails quite miserably. I could write a little more, but I think I should move on for the moment :-) Can you tell me why you think this precludes valuing experience as highly as facts? The study of experiences is a psychological paradigm known as Humanism. But, it is one of the paradigms that are not scientific. The methods used consist solely of case studies - like that used by Freud. And, like Freud's psychodynamic paradigm, the methodology is quite weak. As my lecturer pointed out today, every case study can quite easily (or at least potentially) be contradicted by another case study. Subjectivity is a part of everything we do, not just formulating hypotheses. I'm sorry that makes you so uncomfortable. We can (and should) certainly be wary of it having an undue impact on what we do in science and how we choose to do it, and most especially on how we interpret what we find and how we choose to use it, but to write it off as something to be rejected completely is not only unjustified, it's neither possible nor desirable. And to maintain it doesn't exist in science is just plain dangerous. I'm not uncomfortable with subjectivity in everyday life. But in the pursuit of knowledge, it is unavoidable but undesirable. Science can quite effectively minimise subjectivity, albeit not completely. What do they mean? How can they be used? Science isn't just about measuring stuff. Try telling that to any experimental scientist :-) You can make qualitative observations which are handy, just as a rough guide as to what is happening so you can make more hypotheses which will be tested objectively on the next cycle of the scientific method. And when you do measure, stuff, what do you do next? Mostly, you draw a few graphs, use some regression, determine the uncertainty, do some maths, and then reach a conclusion. And maths is about as close as you can get to consistency. *raises eyebrow* but I didn't sneak them in - they were already there! Really, now I'm going to have to insist that you defend your definition of knowledge. My trusty pocket Macq is vehemently disputing it :-) Basically, knowledge is that which is known. What can be known? You can know with science with impressive degrees of certainly, but what else? Can emotions give you knowledge (love, hate etc.)? I would be interested in a clear description or examples of other ways of knowing? Or are you just claiming they might exist - which is fair enough - ? I'm afraid this is unmitigated codswallop :-). I'm a bit reluctant to spend any more time debating knowledge and subjectivity with you until you have a) given me a good reason for your definition of knowledge, and b) given me some indication that you've thought at least a little bit about what I've said, and what Dr Ed's said, concerning the importance of emotion/subjectivity/instinct/whatever in conducting normal, "rational" (scientific!) life. If From: Robert 2/03/00 21:38:53 Subject: re: evolution post id: 43374 (hope this doesn't double post, oh well here goes) (Sorry for my lazy HTML work, you might find the context confusing at times - if so then please just look at where I took the quote in aqua from) Hello again Robert! And hello again to you! Or have I misunderstood? Yep. We agree, what I am questioning is, are the areas that science is weak at areas of knowledge at all? And then we enter the definition of knowledge problem. [On learning a language] Ok, it is not scientific per se, but logical (which is a subset of science, anyway, isn't it?). The interpretation I used was from a documentary on humans from birth to death, and they were talking about the deceptive logical nature in which they [babies] learn their language (and so quickly). They said that they identified rules and then applied them, eg. learning to put "es" on the end for plurals. This would lead to the mistake, then they would learn the exception, and continue on. So, that is not just my personal interpretation on a well-known observation, but I did make an effort to check my facts (so there) :-) There is no need for me to adjust my definition of knowledge, since logic can handle languages quite easily - they are just words, rules and exceptions. Then, on top of that, there is commonsense to stop nonsensical statements that are otherwise gramatically and syntaxically correct (we are not talking about the quantum world here, this is an area where commonsense is perfect(or at least close) by its very definition). But I have cheated - commonsense can lead to errors when talking about our everyday experience, but it is quite nice for everyday experience - and I have used commonsense as a method for using language. So here I am flexible on my definition of knowledge - you can include commonsense as legitimate non-science knowledge. (No the non-science modifier isn't necessary) But, only for everyday experience! Elsewhere, it fails quite miserably. I could write a little more, but I think I should move on for the moment :-) Can you tell me why you think this precludes valuing experience as highly as facts? The study of experiences is a psychological paradigm known as Humanism. But, it is one of the paradigms that are not scientific. The methods used consist solely of case studies - like that used by Freud. And, like Freud's psychodynamic paradigm, the methodology is quite weak. As my lecturer pointed out today, every case study can quite easily (or at least potentially) be contradicted by another case study. Subjectivity is a part of everything we do, not just formulating hypotheses. I'm sorry that makes you so uncomfortable. We can (and should) certainly be wary of it having an undue impact on what we do in science and how we choose to do it, and most especially on how we interpret what we find and how we choose to use it, but to write it off as something to be rejected completely is not only unjustified, it's neither possible nor desirable. And to maintain it doesn't exist in science is just plain dangerous. I'm not uncomfortable with subjectivity in everyday life. But in the pursuit of knowledge, it is unavoidable but undesirable. Science can quite effectively minimise subjectivity, albeit not completely. What do they mean? How can they be used? Science isn't just about measuring stuff. Try telling that to any experimental scientist :-) You can make qualitative observations which are handy, just as a rough guide as to what is happening so you can make more hypotheses which will be tested objectively on the next cycle of the scientific method. And when you do measure, stuff, what do you do next? Mostly, you draw a few graphs, use some regression, determine the uncertainty, do some maths, and then reach a conclusion. And maths is about as close as you can get to consistency. *raises eyebrow* but I didn't sneak them in - they were already there! Really, now I'm going to have to insist that you defend your definition of knowledge. My trusty pocket Macq is vehemently disputing it :-) Basically, knowledge is that which is known. What can be known? You can know with science with impressive degrees of certainly, but what else? Can emotions give you knowledge (love, hate etc.)? I would be interested in a clear description or examples of other ways of knowing? Or are you just claiming they might exist - which is fair enough - ? I'm afraid this is unmitigated codswallop :-). I'm a bit reluctant to spend any more time debating knowledge and subjectivity with you until you have a) given me a good reason for your definition of knowledge, and b) given me some indication that you've thought at least a little bit about what I've said, and what Dr Ed's said, concerning the importance of emotion/subjectivity/instinct/whatever in From: Robert 2/03/00 21:41:42 Subject: re: evolution post id: 43377 I'm afraid this is unmitigated codswallop :-). I'm a bit reluctant to spend any more time debating knowledge and subjectivity with you until you have a) given me a good reason for your definition of knowledge, and b) given me some indication that you've thought at least a little bit about what I've said, and what Dr Ed's said, concerning the importance of emotion/subjectivity/instinct/whatever in conducting normal, "rational" (scientific!) life. If you don't understand, or would like a clarification, please ask What is '"rational" (scientific!) life' exactly? I would describe my life as far from rational (let alone scientific) at times - you just don't have the time nor the lab equipment necessary when faced with problems in everyday life to judge it as objectively as possible. But if I want to send a rocket to Neptune, if I use some 'subjective knowledge' or rely on previous experience with throwing stuff into the air, I would most probably be spectacularly unsuccessful. But if I sit down and do the maths, I could be successful, as the physics I will have used would give me the necessary knowledge. Anyhow: a) The more objective the information used to get the knowledge is, the more likely it is right (isn't this self-evident???) Of course, no human knowledge can be completely objective strictly speaking (1+1 might not actually equal 2 etc.) but why not minimise subjectivity? That is why my definition of knowledge relies on objectivity - because objectiveness is unbiased and reliable - do you really want unreliable, biased knowledge? Is this what you are really after, at all? b) I am all for subjectivity in normal life, but why value it for knowledge? Can't you see (or doesn't it exist) the boundary between everyday life and the pursuit of knowledge?? *grins* I want you to notice two things about this list you've given me to demonstrate the difference between feelings and "knowledge" (quite apart from the fact that I didn't say they were the same thing, just that they weren't completely separable). The first is that you're dead certain you know the difference between the two things. Why? Because you've experienced them. How odd. Hmmm... are feeling and knowing mutually exclusive... well, I used experiences because I thought it would be easier to get my point across by using them - but now I have to resort to semantics. Feeling - basically awareness, sensation and/or emotion. Knowing - being sure of a fact within a 'good' degree of certainty (since it is impossible to be completely certain)*. Now, can you simultaneously be feeling something and knowing something? I will very hesitantly say no, but you are more than welcome to point out a counter-example. Absolutely! But let's look at relativity instead for a sec: to come up with this particular piece of wild craziness ;-), he had to make a leap qualitatively similar to Galileo's: he had to explicitly question what generations of physicists had assumed implicitly. In contrast, it's that comfortable faith in "the way I think things are" which makes me uncomfortable about your arguments :-). Every time someone makes a really good theory and it is accepted by the scientific community as the best theory to date, that scientist has to live with the fact that they may one day be disproved. That is the beauty of science - because we can't be absolutely sure - everything is open to question - even the scientific method itself! As long as it can be replaced using sound reasoning. if someone hallucinates/experience something Godly (like an apocalypse/Virgin Mary vision or something), but that the God they experience is an old one (ie. used for natural phenomena etc.) then it is invalid. why? Well, you have already accepted that the time to use God(s) to explain natural phenomena has passed so they [the God(s)] are invalid. In turn, any experience relating to such a God is invalid as evidence (you cannot have evidence for an accepted invalid entity). What's this I see? A little value judgment creeping into this very rational discussion? No sir, no subjectivity here, just one very objective scientist who isn't keen on bellydancing… ... or perhaps you'd like to offer an objective reason for your dislike of fingerpainting? It was the last thing, I was tired, ok? Hmm... I wouldn't call myself a scientist ... anyhow, I already hinted at my objective dislike of fingerpainting. Paint on fingers is really a terrible medium. It is so imprecise, you can never convey what is in your mind onto the paper (at least I couldn't when I was four - maybe someone with artistic talent could do some effective fingerpainting) but the are much better media out there for children. (Adults doing fingerpainting is a different story). I know next-to From: Robert 2/03/00 21:51:45 Subject: re: evolution post id: 43382 I know next-to-nothing about belly dancing, so I am in fact in no position to give an objective opinion. Anyhow, subjectivity wasn't the context of the discussion. You implied that a metaphorical God is just as important as an actual God, in terms of existence. If God is only a metaphor, then it doesn't actually exist - it is just a metaphor. *Where the actual cut-off for a 'good' degree of certainty is debatable (sorry about the double-post folks, hit stop and didn't think it had gone) And: why? should read: why? From: The messenger 3/03/00 2:15:08 Subject: re: evolution post id: 43451 We are all continually confronted with dogmatic statements that science has "proved" that the earth is millions of years old. If this is true, then the plain historical statements of the bible must indeed be "interpreted away". However, a little searching reveals that science has not proved this great age. IN fact,the scientific experimental method can never prove or disprove any past event. The best way to find out about the past is to listen to a reliable eyewitness-in this case, God himself. Those who say the earth is millions of years old have chosen to twist or ignore the plain statements of a trustworthy eyewitness. What indirect evidence do they base their guess on? Radiometric dating of rocks is the most important. Substance A decays to substance B at a constant rate,so if scientist measure the proportions of both substances present in a rock,they can then calculate how long it has been decaying, and that is its age. But what if God created some of both to start with? And how do we know that the rates measured for less than a hundred years have remained constant for millions? And what if some of either substances has been added or removed,perhaps during a catastrophic world wide flood? these are all unknowns ,beyond the reach of present scientific calculation. The other important dating method uses index fossils. But this assumes that macro-evolution is a fact. And anyone who believes in a creator God knows that macro-evolution did not occur. Modern molecular biology has shown that genetic mutations (mistakes) never produce new improved genetic imformation to enable upward evolution. so if your stance on this is for the scientific side then Gods spirit of truth has left you and gone to work through other people,who are "foolish" enough to believe what God has plainly said. THE MESSENGER From: Graeme 3/03/00 2:55:19 Subject: re: evolution post id: 43452 Hi Messenger, That is why science, especially modern science, has been so very successful. It doesn't say that it is always right and correct. Science is always tentative. It's right for now, until more evidence comes around to modify its thoeries. Very fair, very democratic. Religion never is - it's just blind faith and dogma. If you don't believe that modern science has been very successful, then look around - aviation, medicine, electronic technology etc, etc. Religion is being backed further and further into the corner with nowhere to go. Hopefully as we move into the third millenium we will do so with reliance on our own abilities to survive, or otherwise, without the need of a paternal overseer. In other words we will be growing up. From: michael c 3/03/00 9:40:33 Subject: re: evolution post id: 43466 Modern molecular biology has shown that genetic mutations (mistakes) never produce new improved genetic imformation to enable upward evolution. I would suggest you don't use a scientific principle you don't understand to make a blanket statement that the same scientific principle is in reality proving wrong. It has been said many times before, by a lot of people here and elsewhere that you can't use science or religion to prove the other wrong. So you (like myself now probably!) are really just wasting your time. Michael C J From: Rapunzel 3/03/00 10:29:23 Subject: re: evolution post id: 43474 ...so if your stance on this is for the scientific side then Gods spirit of truth has left you Oh, reeeeeaaaally??? From: Robert 3/03/00 10:46:26 Subject: re: evolution post id: 43477 However, a little searching reveals that science has not proved this great age. IN fact,the scientific experimental method can never prove or disprove any past event .... Substance A decays to substance B at a constant rate,so if scientist measure the proportions of both substances present in a rock,they can then calculate how long it has been decaying, and that is its age. Are you really serious? If so, then I really suggest you take a look at http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-age-of-earth.html this. The great thing about isochron dating is that you can account for contamination. But this assumes that macro-evolution is a fact. And anyone who believes in a creator God knows that macro-evolution did not occur. Modern molecular biology has shown that genetic mutations (mistakes) never produce new improved genetic imformation to enable upward evolution. Wrong and wrong. Some of my best friends believe in a creator God but accept evolution. Many people of Christian and other faiths accept evolution as a scientific explanation for biodiversity. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-god.html This should answer all your questions on this topic. And mutations are very important to 'enable upward evolution' - all asexually reproducing organisms rely on this to adapt to environmental changes. A favourable mutation in humans is sickle-cell anemia. I use the word favourable only tentatively, because it causes a lot of problems for people who have it. But it does have one bonus - those people cannot get malaria. So, in areas with a big malaria problem, it is in fact favourable for some of the population to carry it. From: steve(primus) 3/03/00 10:53:39 Subject: re: evolution post id: 43479 The best way to find out about the past is to listen to a reliable eyewitness-in this case, God himself. Where do we get these eye-witness acounts? - The bible. Who says the bible is the word of god? - the bible's writers Who says the writers were inspired by god? - They do Who says the koran is the word of god?- Mohammed Who says Mohammed was inspired by god? - he does Who says the book of mormon is the word of god? - Joseph Smith Who says Joseph Smith was inspired by god? - he does Who says the thoughts of steve(primus) are the word of god? - steve(primus) Who says steve(primus) was inspired by god? - he does I think you will need a better eye-witness. From: Martin B 3/03/00 11:07:24 Subject: re: evolution post id: 43481 Who says the thoughts of steve(primus) are the word of god? - steve(primus) Believe it or not, there is such a thing as a half empty packet of Tim Tams. I believe! I believe! From: Rapunzel 3/03/00 11:16:34 Subject: re: evolution post id: 43485 Please stop talking about food. The mere thought of it makes me sick. I've got a disgusting virus which has done all sorts of awful things related to my digestive tract in the last 24 hours in particular, and I'm at home today because I'm not safe to be in public with said things happening. I'm on the Net to divert my brain from conjuring up images of food and of buckets and of little boats rolling on big waves... you know what it's like; the Murphy's Law of Mental Imagery... :-( From: Martin B 3/03/00 11:17:46 Subject: re: evolution post id: 43488 More divine inspiration: Also the type of person who would ruin good beer by drinking it through a straw is probably a two-pot-screamer. I think we could be witnessing the birth of a new world religion! Sorry, couldn't resist. I'll stop now. From: The messenger 3/03/00 11:27:03 Subject: re: evolution post id: 43493 I think you will need a better eye-witness. God is the best as his word is true,his predictions past and pending are witness to it,unlike any earthly person that you named here's a primus example. It would be nice to think that a TC was named after me but it is not the case, although as it is only a category 1, I wouldn't want to claim it anyway. Who wants to be famous as a load of piss and wind? S why take mans word for it when it is so often flawed. THE MESSENGER From: God (Avatar) 3/03/00 11:31:23 Subject: re: evolution post id: 43497 Who says the thoughts of steve(primus) are the word of god? Who says steve(primus) was inspired by god? I do! Furthermore I proclaim Martin his prophet and charge him with the collecting of the various wisdoms of Steve who has been inspired by Me. For the record, I am the Lord your God, and I am a lazy God. I kick started things but then I let it take its course while I watched the Rugby on Cable. So evolution, expansion, cosmology, etc, they're all true and I had nothing to do with them, I just set some initial conditions that made them a non-zero probability (which is still a pretty funky achievement which none of you lot could manage so I still think I'm pretty hot stuff. And you should think so too). You will find the imprint of my laziness in the second law of thermodynamics, and I'm buggered as to why you all struggle against it. You should see my front yard! (Except for american mid west rednecks - even I can't make a disorderly front yard like theirs!) Sorry if I offended anyone in the religion clubs. Well actually I'm not really sorry cause I haven't seen a dime from the offering plates yet. So anyway go in peace, all of you, and remember to listen to Steve. He's the man (for the moment). GOD From: God (Avatar) 3/03/00 11:33:06 Subject: re: evolution post id: 43500 Who says the thoughts of steve(primus) are the word of god? Who says steve(primus) was inspired by god? I do! Furthermore I proclaim Martin his prophet and charge him with the collecting of the various wisdoms of Steve who has been inspired by Me. For the record, I am the Lord your God, and I am a lazy God. I kick started things but then I let it take its course while I watched the Rugby on Cable. So evolution, expansion, cosmology, etc, they're all true and I had nothing to do with them, I just set some initial conditions that made them a non-zero probability (which is still a pretty funky achievement which none of you lot could manage so I still think I'm pretty hot stuff. And you should think so too). You will find the imprint of my laziness in the second law of thermodynamics, and I'm buggered as to why you all struggle against it. You should see my front yard! (Except for american mid west rednecks - even I can't make a disorderly front yard like theirs!) Sorry if I offended anyone in the religion clubs. Well actually I'm not really sorry cause I haven't seen a dime from the offering plates yet. So anyway go in peace, all of you, and remember to listen to Steve. He's the man (for the moment). GOD From: Rapunzel 3/03/00 11:36:21 Subject: re: evolution post id: 43502 So why take mans word for it when it is so often flawed. Which is exactly the point people like Steve are trying to make to you! Did you actually read some of the web links Robert was kind enough to post for you? From: Rapunzel 3/03/00 11:37:55 Subject: re: evolution post id: 43504 Heeheehee, God just double posted! :-) From: Di 3/03/00 11:39:35 Subject: re: evolution post id: 43505 Even God double posts! From: God (Avatar) 3/03/00 11:40:43 Subject: re: evolution post id: 43506 Jesus! I double posted! Whew, lucky I'm not falsifiable, or that little boo-boo would have cost me my infallibility or my existance! Maybe I'll just blame someone else... From: sam 3/03/00 11:42:49 Subject: re: evolution post id: 43507 :) From: Rapunzel 3/03/00 11:45:50 Subject: re: evolution post id: 43508 Most Honoured Deity: You could actually justify the double posting by saying that some things have to be run past some people multiple times in the hope that they will accidentally read what they do not with to know just once. :-) From: Tim H(Numpty) 3/03/00 11:45:55 Subject: re: evolution post id: 43509 *Chuckling quietly to himself* :-) From: Rapunzel 3/03/00 12:00:52 Subject: re: evolution post id: 43511 Here's a few jokes for all: On a Sunday morning, an elf of God preaches: "Do not swear, do not drink, do not smoke." (etc.) The same night in a pub, the elf is heard to exclaim: "Shit!!! My cigarette has fallen into my beer again!!!" A man is walking down the street in Belfast when he feels a gun pressed into the back of his neck, and hears an ominous voice hissing, "Are you a Catholic or a Protestant?" The man breathes a sigh of relief and says, "Well actually, I'm Jewish!" "Well, I must be the luckiest Palestinian in all of Belfast!" A man has depated from the earthly life and ends up at the Pearly Gates. He has a good look around heaven for a while. A week after his arrival, he bumps into St Peter, who asks him how he likes the place. "It's great," says the man. "But tell me, why is there a big wall up here, with the muffled sound of voices coming from behind it?" "Oh," says St Peter. "That's just where we keeep the fundamentalists (/insert any other brand of religion). They like to imagine they're alone up here." I think these were from Dave Allen! :-) From: Jesus 3/03/00 12:08:32 Subject: re: evolution post id: 43515 Jesus! I double posted! Sort your own problems out God, I've got enough of my own! From: Kothos 3/03/00 12:11:36 Subject: re: evolution post id: 43520 Where do we set up our church? Buddhist monks seem to have bagsed the colour Orange - maybe we could patent it and force them not to use it? I still can't get past the lines that go: "Science admits that all it can do is make guesses about what's going on - but what I'm telling you is 100% true, so believe me instead!!" If I applied this to the rest of my life, I would have to believe every infomercial in favour of my best friends most thoughtful advice... I wonder how many poor misguided people actually do that? From: helen 3/03/00 12:12:16 Subject: re: evolution post id: 43522 Hey God, if you take your own name in vain, do you still go to hell? Rapunzel, add my ditto to the other dittos. I think my head is becoming a little sore from its repeated unverifiable attempts to connect with this deceptively solid brick wall, but I'm not sure because I haven't checked with anyone ;-) Robert, if you are attempting to create a caricature of the rational actor, you're doing a very beautiful job, and I thank you for the amusement you've provided :-). If on the other hand you're really serious, I can only point out that you are mired in a contradiction: you cannot value the objective and verifiable over the subjective and experiential without making a subjective judgment in doing so. I have to confess I find your shifting definitions of knowledge and science rather similar to some descriptions of God I've heard :-) From: steve(primus) 3/03/00 12:50:52 Subject: re: evolution post id: 43549 My thanks and blessings to you all :-) God is the best as his word is true,his predictions past and pending are witness to it,unlike any earthly person that you named here's a primus example. It would be nice to think that a TC was named after me but it is not the case, although as it is only a category 1, I wouldn't want to claim it anyway. Who wants to be famous as a load of piss and wind? I don't understand your choice of quotations. Are you saying this is untrue? Was TC Steve named after me? Was it more than a category 1 when I wrote that? Do I want to claim it? Do I want to be famous as a load of piss and wind? How do you know more about me and my area of expertise than I do? Don't tell me - god told you! From: steve(primus) 3/03/00 12:52:44 Subject: re: evolution post id: 43551 My thanks and blessings to you all :-) God is the best as his word is true,his predictions past and pending are witness to it,unlike any earthly person that you named here's a primus example. It would be nice to think that a TC was named after me but it is not the case, although as it is only a category 1, I wouldn't want to claim it anyway. Who wants to be famous as a load of piss and wind? I don't understand your choice of quotations. Are you saying this is untrue? Was TC Steve named after me? Was it more than a category 1 when I wrote that? Do I want to claim it? Do I want to be famous as a load of piss and wind? How do you know more about me and my area of expertise than I do? Don't tell me - god told you! From: Rapunzel 3/03/00 12:54:46 Subject: re: evolution post id: 43553 My thanks and blessings to you all :-) *bows reverently* (and why not, good rabbit recipe!!!) From: Rapunzel 3/03/00 12:56:54 Subject: re: evolution post id: 43555 Oh look, more double posting! The prophet is emulating his deity! ;-) From: steve(primus) 3/03/00 12:58:43 Subject: re: evolution post id: 43557 AAAAAGGHHHH a double post and a post in the wrong thread - it must be the afflatus! From: Chris (Avatar) 3/03/00 15:39:37 Subject: re: evolution post id: 43620 After Martin’s lead (and God’s reaffirming posts) I’d like to pledge my life to following the ministry of Steve and chronicling his Gospel. Here’s a start: Logic… If there is nothing in the universe then there is nothing in the universe. "What I tell you three times is true" - Lewis Carroll The Universe… The earth picks up about 20 tonnes of matter from space every year - meteorites etc. (The Universe said so last night) Yes, I know he meant the show, but it looks good like that, doesn’t it? :o) Reassurance… A whirling psychrometer is an easy instrument to use. Telling it like it is… What a load of patronising twaddle. If you think I am suddenly going to be swayed by a bible-bashing god botherer you can think again…. this is not the place for proselytising. If I attacked you by calling you a mealy-mouthed god botherer, I don't apologise. After all, you called me a heretic. Everyday Advice… I use soap for shaving and shave in the shower. Always use a sharp blade. Disposables are fine but when one gets blunt or starts tugging, get a new one. If you can't shave without getting the Norman Gunston look, use an electric shaver. Career Advice… You can make a good living too if you can sing. All those castrato pieces by Handel and others are just waiting for someone to sing them. Look out Ethel Chop! Public Interest… What is a "healthy" apricot slice compared with an "unhealthy" one? Does the unhealthy one have the flu or leprosy or something? Perhaps we should set up a special ward in the hospitals for unhealthy food items. The Ether… Logic, by this time, should tell you it probably doesn't exist, but if you want to spend the rest of your life chasing magic chickens, that's up toyou. The weather… At the start of summer, everyone was whingeing about the lack of hot weather, now you've got some so you're whingeing again. Don't question it, enjoy it. Pest Control… My simple rule for determining whether the cockies are introduced or native is this : If they are inside the house they are introduced, if they are not, they are not. I only kill the ones inside. And this is the word of Steve. :o))) From: Kothos 3/03/00 15:40:47 Subject: re: evolution post id: 43622 I haven't had the time to compose a measured response to anything lately, but briefly: Helen, It seems your posts are making two main points; 1. Because objective logical conscious thought relies on that which preceded it, it can never really know if it is objective logical concsious thought... am I warm? Also that non-scientific methods of attaining knowledge may still be valid paths toward true results? 2. God is not necessarily an attempt at explaining the unknown, but an attempt at explaining the spiritual feeling that your mind has linked on some level with something outside of yourself. In effect, you're saying some people feel God, and that's enough proof for them. (The same way I feel longing, or frustration, or general happy contendedness?) With the first one, you brought up the point of how children learn speech. Yes they do not learn it according to the scientific method. Yes the scientific method, if forced on them, causes thier progress to slow. That does not mean that their progress and conclusions are not scientifically sound. Their brains have just been pre-programmed to learn in a certain way, making this way the fastest for them. I guess this has to do with how we define 'science' as Robert has been trying to do (I haven't read everything lately, only your first response in full and a couple of random bits). Nevertheless, just because children learn speech through (what may be) trial and error, or some other method which is not the scientific method, doesn't mean their conclusions are not scientifically sound. I suppose we do need to define science. To my mind science and the scientific method are not one and the same. Science is just knowledge for which there are strong indications that it is true (at least in part, if not in full). As such the scientific method can lead to science, but science is not necessarily the sum total of the knowledge gained from the scientific method. Some definitions here might help me understand this... These are from dictionary.com. 1. a. The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena. 1. b. Such activities restricted to a class of natural phenomena. 1. c. Such activities applied to an object of inquiry or study. 2. Methodological activity, discipline, or study: I've got packing a suitcase down to a science. 3. An activity that appears to require study and method: the science of purchasing. 4. Knowledge, especially that gained through experience. And... 1. Knowledge; knowledge of principles and causes; ascertained truth of facts. 2. Accumulated and established knowledge, which has been systematized and formulated with reference to the discovery of general truths or the operation of general laws; knowledge classified and made available in work, life, or the search for truth; comprehensive, profound, or philosophical knowledge. 3. Especially, such knowledge when it relates to the physical world and its phenomena, the nature, constitution, and forces of matter, the qualities and functions of living tissues, etc.; -- called also natural science, and physical science. 4. Any branch or department of systematized knowledge considered as a distinct field of investigation or object of study; as, the science of astronomy, of chemistry, or of mind. I found the quote associated with the second Sense 2. above pretty enlightening. Science is . . . a complement of cognitions, having, in point of form, the character of logical perfection, and in point of matter, the character of real truth. --Sir W. Hamilton. Some of this suggests to me that science need not necessarily be arrived at scientifically. But, there seems the strong suggestion that it must be possible to arrive at it scientifically. I would suggest, that anything that can be known to be true, can also be scientifically shown to be true. I would further suggest that as such, everything we know and the processes by which we know it, can be broken down mechanistically (this includes the exact processes by which we use feeling, intuition, etc...). Does all that sound pretty vague? It does to me, I'm still trying to get things straight in my head. Having said all that, I suppose I have to concede that there really is no way of actually knowing if we really are ever being objective and logical in that which we think we understand. But in that case, can you tell me one thing? Going back to the dragon-under-my-bed idea, if I fervently believed in the dragon, I bet you would think me insane, and if not, you would think me normal (up to a point :-) Why? By your posts you seem to be advocating that belief in the dragon is a viable alternative... As to the second point. Wow, I've never thought about that before, that the feeling God exists might have come From: Kothos 3/03/00 15:48:23 Subject: re: evolution post id: 43624 As to the second point. Wow, I've never thought about that before, that the feeling God exists might have come before His explanatory role. That's freaky. If I had such a feeling I would be inclined not to trust it. To paraphrase what Chris once said in another thread, "I'd have to sit myself down for a long talk and say 'Self, what is this feeling that is causing you to believe in a supernatural being, and why might you have it?'" One last thing; Kothos: Descarte reasoned that we as humans were imperfect, but could imagine an ideal version of ourselves. He called this ideal version God and postulated that we would not be able to imagine this ideal if it didn't exist (he was wrong, but the imagining of ideals I think is very simple). Robert: [Perfect Science] I agree it can't be carried out by humans [at least in current form :-) ], but it is the goal that our science works at to achieve. I'm sorry, I just couldn't help but compare these two :-) Um, I don't see that they are all that contradictory. Neither me nor Robert are presenting science as perfect - merely as the only method of gaining knowledge that strives to be self-correcting and standardised, and therefore the most trustworthy. If God really is the Ideal Man, then there's no sin in aiming for that, even though we'll never actually achieve it. Wow that was long, and I'm being muddled. Sorry for any weirdness or badly thought out ideas, my net access is topsy turvy and I can't sit down and consistently do anything for the next few weeks. From: steve(primus) 3/03/00 16:14:00 Subject: re: evolution post id: 43628 I think a quotation from Richard Feynman might be appropriate in here "I don't have to know an answer, I don't feel frightened by not knowing things, by being lost in a mysterious universe without any purpose, which is the way it really is as far as I can tell. It doesn't frighten me." From: steve(primus) 3/03/00 16:16:16 Subject: re: evolution post id: 43629 Thanks Chris, it's nice to know someone reads some of the stuff I write in here :-) From: Rapunzel 3/03/00 16:49:29 Subject: re: evolution post id: 43645 Hi Kothos That's freaky. If I had such a feeling I would be inclined not to trust it. To paraphrase what Chris once said in another thread, "I'd have to sit myself down for a long talk and say 'Self, what is this feeling that is causing you to believe in a supernatural being, and why might you have it?'" It wasn’t Chris who said that, it was actually Daryn Voss, and it was a good point (though I wasn’t sure what he meant by ethereal carrier of the personality): I myself don't have that kind of feeling (of the spirit), but if I did one day, I would have to sit myself down and say, "Self, what is it that makes you so sure you can interpret that particular sensation as the presence of an ethereal carrier of your personality?" (21/12/99, "Who Made God" thread) Rapunzel From: Kothos 3/03/00 16:59:46 Subject: re: evolution post id: 43647 Hey Chris that was pretty cool. Is this how these things start - are we seeing the evolution of a church right before our eyes? (-: First a group of like minded people form a community. Second some traditions begin as inside jokes. Third these traditions become entrenched. Fourth they rally around a universally admired member. ... Fifth this rallying becomes a tradition. Sixth, it is hundreds of years later, and the origins of the traditions are lost in the mire of history. Devotees within the community have taken on the guise of religious elders, and Steve really has become God's messenger... Hmm... what the hell, I'll be a part of that ;-p From: Robert 3/03/00 18:46:48 Subject: re: evolution post id: 43671 Helen, I am glad you find this amusing :-) I can objectively say that objective beats subjective and so is desirable! (It's easy, do an experiment) Mind you though, you could also subjectively say that subjective wins over objective. However, if you let subjectivity have equal or more deisrability in the pursuit of knowledge then you would never attain knowledge Why? For the reasons I mention below. I am not using a shifting defintion of knowledge (subjectively speaking, I hate such descriptions, they are rehetorically useless in my opinion - if you can't define in any way something that you suppose exists, then what is the point?). I do, however, have some strict criteria for knowledge (feel free to disagree and state why): (1) It is consistent as possible - less consistent information is replaced by more consistent information until you reach some practicable/human limit. If you say that the speed of light in a vacuum is (3.0 +/- 0.1)x10^8 m/s (Or, even better define it in terms of Maxwell's equations) and that it is constant, then it should not be only 1 m/s a couple of weeks later. If you say 1+1=2 always (perhaps with a Gödel qualifier - ie. with a *large* but not perfect certainty) then it shouldn't be 1+1=3 in twenty years, or 1+1=5 if you are upside-down or 1+1=0 on Tuesdays. Subjective data is lacking in consistency. I might have subjective information that all Volvo drivers are terrible (that is, without even seeing any, let alone a decent enough number to be a fair sample size) but then a couple of days later that knowledge could be threatened by some different subjective information. As much as I loathe statistics, you could still use it to objectively determine if there is or isn't a correlation between bad driving and Volvos. This problem can be avoided (for subjective information) by accepting the large amount of uncertainty inherent in subjective information. Which leads to the next point. (2)It is as certain as possible If you can get more certain information, then accept it over the more uncertain information to conclude your knowledge. Hopefully you agree subjectivity is proportional to uncertainty. If not, then you will see that the 'certain subjective knowledge' is in fact inconsistent and so fails criterion (1). If you want subjective information to be consistent, it will be uncertain. If you say it is certain then it can easily be shown to be inconsistent by a multitude of experiments and examples. Surely I am not being unreasonable here by saying that knowledge should strive to be as consistent and certain as is possible? Am I? From: huey 4/03/00 0:47:42 Subject: re: evolution post id: 43786 Steve He's not the only one! Oh BTW i got Mount Improb, and my book club had a few others, so i'm waiting for the post, by the time i finish my current books ('Guns Germs & Steel' , 'Mutiny on the Amistad' & 'W98 Registry'), they should be in the letter box. Thanks for the tips. From: Martin B 6/03/00 17:41:30 Subject: re: evolution post id: 44316 Hi Robert Unlike some, I have no hesitation about jumping into a debate half-way :-) I really don't think that you are getting Helen's point. (Or at least what I perceive her point to be.) If I want to go to Mars, then sure, I want some reliable, tested, experiments to go by. But why would I want to go to Mars??? Most people spend most of their lives worrying about questions like "What should I wear to the party tonight?" That example may sound flippant, but it is not meant to be. Those kinds of questions are important. And while the answers to them are based on observation, experience and testing, they are not scientific. Your optimism in the power of science is touching, but it has no way of convincing me why I should consider the measurement of the speed of light intrinsically more desirable than figuring out a recipe for that really great tofu dish I had last week. As far as definitions go, I think you are shifting around. You want on the one hand to be able to sharply distinguish between "real" science and all of that "pseudoscientific" piffle, yet on the other hand you want to accept any of the good points of these frameworks as "really" being a form of science, deep down. That just doesn't work. You can't have it both ways. Either everything is science, which is just silly, or there must be non-scientific frameworks that are better for answering some questions than science is. You seem to be trying to define these questions as not being about knowledge. That's a nice debating strategy, but it ultimately means that 99.9% of the understanding of 99.9% of the world's population are not 'knowledge' and that doesn't wash with me. ciao for now From: Daryn Voss (Avatar) 6/03/00 18:41:00 Subject: re: evolution post id: 44321 Response to various things: Any attempt to describe objectively the universe will be based on scientific principles. Objectivism and science are interrelated concepts. If I want to know what is in the fridge, I go over and open it and look inside. This is science. There are many subjective decisions made by humans in their everyday lives, and I won't pointless argue about their relative importance, but when such decisions are made, no contribution is made to knowledge. If I decide to wear a certain suit, nothing is actually learned. The decision was probably meaningless, sensitively dependent on the gunk in my head. If something happens as a result I learn something about the world around me (eg, I decide to wear a pink suit with a clear plastic seat, and wind up getting fired, and I thus learn about the relationship between attire and career prospects), then I am using science. If I add too much paprika and don't like the meal, and remember not to add so much next time, I'm using science. If I make a callous joke about war, and my mother doesn't like it, and I remember not to do that again, I'm using science. "I like strawberry icecream" is either true or untrue: My investigations have lead me to suspect it is true. Hardly anything directly impacts on human senses, but if there are aspects, items, properties that cannot possibly do anything to affect the world we observe (with our senses) directly or indirectly, then they are effectively not part of our universe. If ghosts exist (as described in popular literature and folklore), (and for now I will not opine on whether they do, as my opinion is not relevant here), then they are definitely part of the universe we perceive with our senses. They make noise and are occasionally seen, they do damage etc. The argument about whether ghosts exists is therefore merely an argument about sensory evidence. If the spirit exists in the universe of humanity (as defined above) then they must impact upon the world preceivable by our senses. (If they don't, they aren't part of our universe.) The arguments put forward in favour of the spririt generally do rely on this physical evidence. (How could we create civilisation, language etc without a spirit? How do you explain the spiritual feeling I have?) The arguments about the spirit, then, are arguments about interpretation of sensory evidence. Why would anyone believe in something that had (by their lights) no means of touching their sensory world? We could make up all kinds of nonsensical things which may or may not exist in some way that doesn't touch our sensory world. We can't believe in all of these strange concepts because some of them are mutually contradictory. (Some of them are self-contradictory). People believe in spirits not as something that may exist ecen though it has no impact on the world they observe, but because spirits make up part of the expanation for the world they observe. Many scientists regard the evidence in favour of spirits to be weak, but the arguments between the two camps are based on interpretation of the evidence. People who believe in God don't do so because he might exist in some way that doesn't impact the sensory world (ie that we inhabit), but because of the sensory evidence. (The world exists and is wonderful and complex: it must have been designed.) I might argue with them about their conclusion, but we would still be arguing about the sensory world. If I met someone who did not draw conclusions from that we perceive, there would be nothing to talking about. Nutter="I believe in a being that in no way impacts upon the things I see, feel, hear, taste smell etc." Daryn="Why?" Nutter="Why not?" End of story. My real life arguments with theists tend to be more about the complexity of life on earth, the bible, the evidence for evolution, the feelings they get from religion...all of which give scope to a very wide selection of ideas, but all of which are ultimately based on evidence received by the senses. IN short, and to repeat, it is possible to conceive of a kind of thing which in no way affects the world we perceive, but necessarily such things lie outside the universe inhabited by us. From: Robert 6/03/00 18:51:09 Subject: re: evolution post id: 44325 Most people spend most of their lives worrying about questions like "What should I wear to the party tonight?" That example may sound flippant, but it is not meant to be. Those kinds of questions are important. And while the answers to them are based on observation, experience and testing, they are not scientific. Couldn't agree more. However, those questions aren't quite up there with "Is there a God?" are they? You cannot get good answers to those questions, you just have to do a bit of educated guessing (call it a non-scientific framework if you like, but it does have some objectivity, logic and reason built in). As your last sentence indicates, however, you do not think this is scientific. But if it isn't science, the question then is, "Is it any good?". You say that this framework is better at answering these type of questions than science would be, but is that really true? Perhaps I have crap frameworks, but I can't get an answer anywhere near the certainty of science. Imagine this. What if you did approach that question a little more scientifically? Perhaps a bit of statistics (as unscientific as it is) would be best - run a survey of people who are going on what they think you should wear (if that is what you are concerned about) the night before. Then you might have to have the questioner drug the respondents so they don't remember :-) This is a very dodgy example, it would probably be better to use your own imagination. :-) I think the scientific approach would fare as well, if not better. As far-fetched as it is, it is the principle of the thing. Anyway, while I still think you are cheating by using experience, testing, and observation (sounds a bit like the scientific method to me), Helen was talking about subjective judgements versus objective ones. Just because you didn't do any maths, and there are no lab coats involved, you can try not to call it science - but the fact is you used objective evidence, and as much sound reasoning as possible. And I put it to you, the more objectivity, reasoning, observation, testing, and results of previous experiments you store in your framework the better it is. And the more it becomes science From: steve(primus) 6/03/00 18:54:08 Subject: re: evolution post id: 44327 that really great tofu dish Isn't that an oxymoron? :-) From: THE MESSENGER 7/03/00 2:09:15 Subject: re: evolution post id: 44417 My real life arguments with theists tend to be more about the complexity of life on earth, the bible, the evidence for evolution, the feelings they get from religion...all of which give scope to a very wide selection of ideas, but all of which are ultimately based on evidence received by the senses. I,m surprised to hear that Daryn,the evidence for evolution is based on evidence recieved by the senses. and i thought it was preached as scientific. at first i curious as to why this believe was held and now you have gone and totally confused me. and sure your right God is based on evidence recieved by the sense but God is also based on the physical as well ie:son of man,God incarnate,Jesus Christ. And our physical link with him is prayer. Ask and you shall recieve, and what you recieve will be tangible. THE MESSENGER From: Daryn Voss (Avatar) 7/03/00 5:09:02 Subject: re: evolution post id: 44419 I've confused you?? I,m surprised to hear that Daryn,the evidence for evolution is based on evidence recieved by the senses. and i thought it was preached as scientific. If you read my post carefully (or at all) you'll see that my point was that all of the data to which science is applied are ultimately sensual. We know fossils exist because we have seen them, felt them. Although we have not seen or felt black holes, we suspect they exist because of theories that arose because of things we can perceive with our senses. There is no dichotomy between sensual evidence and science. What are you talking about? God is also based on the physical as well ie:son of man,God incarnate,Jesus Christ. Nor is there a dichotomy between sensual evidence and physical evidence. I might argue that the physical evidence in favour of the hypothesis that Jesus was the son of God, but again, you and I would be arguing over the interpretation of sensual evidence, just as we would be if I argued that the feelings that you sense when you pray could be manifestations of your psychological state. (The part where I am arguing about whether all kinds of useful evidence are ultimately sensory ends.) (The part where I am arguing about prayer begins.) Although I will not attempt here to disprove the existance of God, I will show you (by a method known as reduction to the absurd) why the feelings you get about Jesus during prayer are not sufficient evidence that Jesus was the only son of God. You believe that Jesus was the Messiah because (among other things) of the feelings you get when you pray to him. Here are two statements. A. When some people pray to Jesus, they experience a feeling they attribute to his Godliness. B. Jesus is the Messiah. Statement A is indisputable. The link to B is given by the following hypothesis, which I'll call C. C. People experiencing a feeling they attribute to the Godliness of X when they pray to X is sufficient evidence of Messianic nature of X. You regard your feelings as proof that Jesus is the son of God. In other words you put forward C. I concede that, given that A is true (which I have already conceded), if C is true, then B is also true. Muslims, of course, pray in the name of Mohammed, and feel these feelings. Therefore, if C is true, Mohammed is the messiah. However, it is clear from Ezekial that there can only be one messiah. In other words, accepting hypothesis C has lead us to a contradiction: an absurdity. We are therefore forced to dismiss C. It cannot be true. Note that this is not proof that Jesus was not the messiah. It is merely proof that the spiritual feelings you have about Jesus do not amount to proof that he is the messiah. Have a pleasant Tuesday. And our physical link with him is prayer. Ask and you shall recieve, and what you recieve will be tangible. THE MESSENGER From: Kothos 7/03/00 9:42:39 Subject: re: evolution post id: 44430 Rapunzel, Thanks for pointing out my mistake (and finding the actual quote no less!). Apologies to both Daryn and Chris for the mix up (my memory is always faulty with regards to referencing - makes essay writing a killer). Um, and I think by ethereal carrier of the personaluty he meant "soul" (IMHO). Martin, Most people spend most of their lives worrying about questions like "What should I wear to the party tonight?" That example may sound flippant, but it is not meant to be. Those kinds of questions are important. And while the answers to them are based on observation, experience and testing, they are not scientific. Actually, I disagree with this. "What should I wear to the party tonight?" is just as much a scientific consideration as anything else. At least, that's what certain areas of biology, anthropology and evolutionary psychology are striving to discover and tell us, right? Maybe I'm misunderstanding, but how is it not scientific? I bet, given enough research (more than I could fit into my lifetime I bet), I could build a machine that could ask that question, and come to the same conclusions, for exactly the same reasons. That machine would be part of the universe, obey all of its laws, and the process of building it and running it would be scientific... Further, in doing the research for building the machine, I would probably find out exactly why and how the question came to be asked in the first place, what consequences the answer would have, and what is the best solution to the problem (according to criteria directly concerned with the evolution of the question in the first place). From: Martin B 7/03/00 13:30:08 Subject: re: evolution post id: 44456 Hi all Well we're right back to the circular form of the argument. Actually there are two distinct arguments being employed, both circular. Version A "Objective scientific knowledge is always best." "What about this kind of knowledge, this is pretty good?" "That's really science." Version B "Objective scientific knowledge is always best." "What about this kind of knowledge, this is pretty good?" "That's not knowledge." "Why not?" "Because it's not objective." Can't argue with either of these arguments, but if you can get any meaning out of them, you're a better person than I. Kothos, the point is the same as Helen made about children and language. You can scientifically study the reasons why people make decisions about clothing. But that is not what people do when deciding what to wear. When people study scientifically the goal is to produce reliable data of the kind that you are all so attached to. When people decide what to wear the goal is to feel good about their attire. These are different goals and they involve the researcher in very different in the sources of data used, how conflicts between differing data are resolved, how new data is acquired and criteria for evaluating claims. Sure, you can twist your definition of science to ensure that it includes this kind of behaviour, but then everything is science and we're in Version A of the circular and meaningless argument. The same for your machine argument. If I could scientifically build an AI machine that acted just like you, does that mean that everything it did would be scientific? Does that mean that everything you now do is scientific, because surely actually building the machine is irrelevant? What is the point of all this? Robert, the reason I am emphasising the 'objective' components of subjective decisions is the flip side to Helen's point. Her, and Ed's, argument was that objective information is useless without subjective information. Similarly, I would argue that subjective feelings involve observation and reasoning. The point is that there is simply no easy and clear division between the objective exterior world of sensory data and the interior subjective world of personal values, such as you would like to make. From: Kothos 7/03/00 14:02:01 Subject: re: evolution post id: 44461 Does that mean that everything you now do is scientific... ...? Well, yeah. That's what I thought. Am I missing the point of the argument? The point of the argument always seemed to me that there's something parts of the human brain that don't obey the laws of the universe, that are somehow magic. This is includes subjectivity. Since science seeks to explain everything, then everything is scientific... Isn't it... ? From: Daryn Voss (Avatar) 7/03/00 14:16:49 Subject: re: evolution post id: 44469 The scientific method is an extension of the process used by sane people when making sensible decisions. It is a more rigid, codified form, but even if I'm not consciously aware of it, I use basically the same methods to work out who to invite to a party as we do in science. I rely on evidence, experience, observation. If I use less rigour when decidingg what shoes to wear than I would when deciding what materials to build a bridge with, it is because I know it really doesn't matter what shoes I wear. You can call it knowledge if you like, but it is fleeting, unimportant. Other times an important decision will be required, but there will be no data: I will be in a once-only situation that is unrepeatable. No doubt the decision I make will ultimately be random, sensitively dependent on the particular configuration of me noggin. I don't use rigour in this case not because it isn't preferable , but because it isn't possible. I guess you could call this a subjective decision: and a bullshit, valueless one at that. I don't know quite what K means when he says everything is scientific. Science is a method: its existence implies an investigator or observer. Perhaps you mean that everything is governed by scientific principles. Some relationships are complex, possibly too complex to be codified by humans. eg I don't think any here would argue that my behaviour is not a result of the neuronic states in my brain, but the relationship between the latter and the former may prove resistant to enquiry by us. Whether or not you would regard this "thing" which is me unscientific because of this, I don't know. From: Robert 7/03/00 16:15:31 Subject: re: evolution post id: 44499 Martin, The implication of you saying there is no distinction, is that all things are subjective and objective (with which I agree - except maybe there is some pure subjectivity somewhere, I don't know). Furthermore, I think it is obvious that there are different ratios of objectiveness vs. subjectiveness (all statements aren't equally subjective/objective). Now science in as pure as possible form would be mostly objective with a little bit of unavoidable subjectivity thrown in. Everyday stuff, that is partially objective (those things that most people wouldn't call science, but nevertheless relies on past results, observation and testing) would sit in the middle. And, finally, you would have 'stabs in the dark' at the subjective end of the spectrum. Reliability and likelihood of correctness would increase as you go towards the objective end of the spectrum. Now, obviously the subjective end will yeild no knowledge (feel free to offer a counter-example here). The stuff in the middle is a bit of a grey area, I wouldn't think it fair to call this knowledge because of the uncertainty involved, more 'educated guesses'. And then there is science at the objective end, which it has been agreed it is at least a subset of knowledge. I'll draw a pretty diagram if you want.... :-) From: Kothos 7/03/00 16:29:26 Subject: re: evolution post id: 44501 Perhaps you mean that everything is governed by scientific principles. Yep, that's what I mean. Some relationships are complex, possibly too complex to be codified by humans. eg I don't think any here would argue that my behaviour is not a result of the neuronic states in my brain, but the relationship between the latter and the former may prove resistant to enquiry by us. Maybe, I don't know. I'm inclined to think it isn't though... From: Dr Paul (Avatar) 7/03/00 16:56:27 Subject: re: evolution post id: 44527 Hi all, in my scientific learning development phase (I am always learning scientifically, it is the development of the scientific principle phase I am talking about), I was given the impression that the obtaining of the data and the manipulation of the data in terms of spectral features minus backgrounds, should be done without any bias from the person recording the data. In this manner, any one should be able to repeat the measurement and so science gathers knowledge without any emotional input. I will agree wholeheartedly that the discussion of said results may end in emotion, especially when another research group discusses the capabilities of the people recording the data. Science should be wholly objective in the collection of data. The discussion of whether there exists a God (or Gods) must lie in the realm of personal beleifs and so can not be argued objectively. I have also found that such arguments are not a sensible path to follow, as anyone who has strong beleifs will hold these beleifs much more strongly if someone tries to logic them out of the beleifs or alter in some small way how they hold their beleifs. Whether there are Gods or not, is there a need to prove or disprove their existence? In the debate over the "reality" of evolution, all parties must sit and look at the evidence that has been collected objectively and consider the theories arising wholly from the data. If one choses to beleive in evolution, it is not because of some personal requirement for it to exist to get by or to praise when things are good, it is because the OVERWHELMING amount of objectively gathered data all points to the variation within species populations, and the result that those with the ability within those populations to reach reproducing will donate their genes to the next generation. In those organisms whom are totally at the pressures of environment, those who do not reach reproduction age do not get to reproduce. Those who do pass on the abilities to their off spring. This leads to the unfurling of better adapted organisms within a species. Evolution. I hope I am not missing the point of the argument, it has been a difficult thread to read through. Possibly on par with the ...oh I had better not mention that thread Paul From: Daryn Voss (Avatar) 7/03/00 17:31:19 Subject: re: evolution post id: 44539 Hey there, Dr Paul. I agree that there is sometimes little point in arguing about God, and probably no-one would bother if it weren't for the fact that a belief in this otherworldly being has very tangible effects on this here world what we live in. Because of belief in God, some people let their children die rather than letting them have blood transfusions, fight wars that never end, harbour outrageous prejudices and double standards. (Of course, I'm highlighting the negatives. I'm aware that people do caring things in God's name as well.) As well as the social effects, various religious beliefs do affect areas that we scientists regard as "our turf". We may not be able to argue effectively about God, but we can certainly argue about whether or not the earth was made in six days etc. However, if someone interprets the universe in such a way that they believe in God, the other evidence becomes less important. This is quite reasonable. If I believed in God, I would have no firm reason at all to believe that the earth was older than 6000 years (or whatever). Any evidence of earth's ancient nature could have been planted by God, no doubt for some inscrutable, unknowable reason. If I can believe that a divine being can create the universe at will, I can easily believe that Jesus had no earthly father, that he walked on water, cured the sick with a touch: that stuff would be pretty easy compared to making a whole universe. It makes a nonsense of science. We can know nothing about the nature of the universe, if there is a japester changing the rules at will. [A few posts ago I stated that people's thoughts about God are generally rational. I still think that is generally true, but I have a counter-example against myself. The sister of a friend of my wife asked me what makes scientists think that the sun will only last a few more billion years. I gave her the evidence as well as I could on the spot. Her rebuttal was that scientific knowledge changes all the time, but that the word of God hasn't changed since it was written, and God will protect humanity always. I countered that Romeo and Juliet hadn't changed since it was written either, and it is utterly false. In a congenial mood, I thought I should just shut up and listen, so I said "Well, you've heard about the evidence that the sun has only a few billion years left. I concede that if your benevolent God exists, that the sun will not burn out. What is your evidence in favour of the existence of God?" She said, "Because God is all love." I couldn't argue with this, not because it was convincing or overwhelmingly sensible or intuitive, but because there was no logic behind it at all. She had killed the argument as effectively as if she'd said, "Because purple monkey dishwasher." "Is there beer in the fridge?" -"Yes." "How do you know?" -"Because beer is amber." I don't think most theists think like this, however. Anyway, back to my chain of thought. It is only because of these "knock-on" effects that I give a rats about whether there is a widespread belief in God. I mean, it is a little bewildering to me that people choose to have a firm belief in something for which there is (little?) evidence, but it isn't going to give me nightmares. 8^) From: helen 8/03/00 9:12:49 Subject: re: evolution post id: 44694 hey all - an interesting piece from yesterday's Boston Globe, to keep you entertained until I get a chance to produce a real post: SCIENCE MUSINGS Science fits nicely between art, reality By Chet Raymo, 3/7/2000 ''There's nothing creative about science,'' someone recently said to me. ''The world's out there and science tries to know it. Scientists create nothing; they merely describe.'' It is a common misconception that art is creative and science is not. There is something called the ''scientific method,'' so the story goes, that leads us with a kind of blind inevitability to a knowledge of nature's secrets. Gather facts, make hypotheses, test hypotheses. It is all rather mechanical; a machine could do it. And, in many of our science lab classes, especially in high school, we guide students through the drill. No wonder science is so widely imagined as an activity for white-coated drones. This ''Baconian'' idea of scientific method is closely allied to an ultra-realist view of the world. The world is out there waiting to be discovered, like dinosaur bones in the earth waiting to be dug up. By this account, scientists are mere excavators, and there is nothing particularly creative about wielding a shovel. These misconceptions about science are reinforced by the use of computers in data analysis. In areas of research such as genetics, high-energy particle physics, and observational astronomy, data is pouring in faster than anyone knows what to do with it. Increasingly, the solution is to pump the raw data into computers and let the computers look for patterns. If computers can do it, then where's the creativity? But of course computers can't do it. Computers are tools, like a microbalance or a Bunsen burner. Think of the human creativity implicit in the very idea of a programmable multipurpose digital computer. Or in the idea of the DNA double helix. Or quarks. Or quasars. It would take a book to elucidate all of the human inventions that are embodied in any one branch of science. In fact, there is no such thing as the automatic truth-generating machine so often attributed to Francis Bacon. As biologist Stephen Jay Gould pointed out in a recent essay in Science, Bacon himself understood that science is, in Gould's words, ''a quintessential human activity, inevitably emerging from the guts of our mental habits and social practices, and inexorably intertwined with foibles of human nature and contingencies of human history.'' Which is not to say that science is an arbitrary social fabrication. In Bacon's own words, scientific understanding ''is extracted ... not only out of the secret closets of the mind, but out of the very entrails of Nature.'' Science springs from a creative tension between the ''closets of the mind'' and ''the entrails of Nature.'' Yes, scientific theories are severely constrained by data dredged up from nature, but this does not disqualify science as a creative activity. Understanding empirical data means searching the closets of the mind for suitable metaphors, analogies and patterns of meaning, and what we find suitable is culturally (perhaps genetically) determined to a greater extent than the ultra-realists and champions of the so-called ''Baconian'' method are sometimes willing to admit. An acceptable scientific idea must be consistent with ever-more finely contrived observations of nature, but consistency with the data is not a guarantee of truth. Ptolemy's Earth-centered system of astronomy explained the data with exquisite accuracy; Copernicus's heliocentric system did no better with the data (at first), but it had a compelling elegance that swept all before it. If you want to look for the real origins of Copernican astronomy, look into the closets of Copernicus's mind, and not to any newly gathered evidence of the senses. The constraints of data might actually promote scientific creativity. Robert Frost famously said that writing free verse is like playing tennis with the net down. He understood that creativity in art is enhanced, rather than frustrated, by the requirement that the artist work within certain formal constraints. The best poets often impose complex structural restrictions upon their work - rhyme schemes, sound patterns, syllabication, and so on. We think no less of Robert Frost's creativity because he chose to write in rhyme, or of the poetry of a Marianne Moore, say, because her stanzas are contrived within elaborate patterns of order. Aspiring young poets sometimes believe that by merely emptying the closet of their mind onto paper in broken lines, they have created poetry. It's not poetry and it's not creativity. Poetry is language in resonant tension with the world. In the same way, scientific creativity is sharpened, not dulled, by continually rubbing against the whetstone of reality. Science works itself out somewhere between pure excavati From: helen 8/03/00 9:18:49 Subject: re: evolution post id: 44695 oops! Science works itself out somewhere between pure excavation and pure invention. Reality constrains our creativity but does not force our inventiveness along inevitable tracks. It is for us as it was for the singer in a poem by Wallace Stevens: ''Even if what she sang was what she heard ... There never was a world for her Except the one she sang, and singing made.'' Chet Raymo is a professor of physics at Stonehill College and the author of several books on science. This story ran on page E2 of the Boston Globe on 3/7/2000. From: Kothos 8/03/00 10:01:56 Subject: re: evolution post id: 44697 God I love The Simpsons. The freakiest thing just happened. We had a lecture at uni on "What is Science" as part of a risk management subject (timely) and the lecturer had some really interesting things to say. He didn't let on what he personally thought, but presented the case that everything we label with a name is human-centric and doesn't need to exist in order for some other intelligence to develop a coherent and accurate mathematical model to explain the universe. He used clouds as an example. Some other intelligence which couldn't see clouds (which are after all just the right density of water vapour to broadcast light in our visible spectrum) would still be able to collect data about relative water vapour densities etc and predict the weather. I'm still not quite sure what he was getting at but three quotes concerning subjectivity caught my attention. 1. Science obtains its objectivity through a requirement of intersubjective interpretations of statements. I think this has been stated lots already on this thread, but I only just understood it properly. 2. Any argument which is setup so as to be irrefutable is totally pointless. 3. An accurate assessment of risk is made up of both a subjective and an objective part. His version of risk basically went: Risk = (Subjective fear of negative event * Probability of negative event occurring) / Strength of need for positive event. For example for two people with similar fears of being taken by a shark, one of whom loves swimming and the other only likes it a bit, the risk will be less for the former, even though the probablity of being eaten remains the same, and the strength of their fear is the same, etc... Anyway, this is all probably nothing new to the forum / thread, but I found it rather insightful since I was discounting the value subjectivity altogether - and now I'm only discounting it mosttogether (-: From: Robert 8/03/00 11:34:05 Subject: re: evolution post id: 44709 2. Any argument which is setup so as to be irrefutable is totally pointless Die dragons die!!! :-) From: Chris (Avatar) 8/03/00 14:59:57 Subject: re: evolution post id: 44758 ...more words from the prophet: Nutrition... "that really great tofu dish" Isn't that an oxymoron? :-) From: Chris (Avatar) 8/03/00 15:05:27 Subject: re: evolution post id: 44764 Daryn V: If you read my post carefully (or at all) you'll see that my point was that all of the data to which science is applied are ultimately sensual. errr... lets try to keep this clean for the kiddies, please. (and what sort of research are you getting into?? And do you need an assistant??) From: Daryn Voss (Avatar) 8/03/00 16:34:27 Subject: re: evolution post id: 44803 Nice find, helen. Will you give me this?: that although the hypotheses of science are the products of creativity, they are whittled and culled by the attacks of nature. In the 26 Feb New Scientist there is a nice "Inside Science" about the truth and such. They include a quote from the philosopher Roger Scruton: "Those who tell you there is no absolute truth are asking you not to believe them. So don't." 8^) From: helen 9/03/00 12:08:06 Subject: re: evolution post id: 45023 Will you give me this?: that although the hypotheses of science are the products of creativity, they are whittled and culled by the attacks of nature. no I won't, on two counts: 1. creativity comes into making sense of the findings, as well, so you can't restrict it to the hypothesis stage; and then of course it's circular, so you want to test the "sense" you think you've made. You can't separate it so simply. 2. your metaphor makes it sound as though the "attacks of nature" will one day "whittle" creativity (or the need for it) down to nothing, which I think is neither possible, necessary, nor desirable. I suspect almost the converse is true: creativity will slowly excavate the things we need or want to know about nature, until everything's dug out, or we become extinct, whichever comes sooner :-) In the 26 Feb New Scientist there is a nice "Inside Science" about the truth and such. They include a quote from the philosopher Roger Scruton: "Those who tell you there is no absolute truth are asking you not to believe them. So don't." Ha - if you're accusing me of some kind of mostmodernist drivel, you've misread my posts entirely. If I jump off a tall building, to paraphrase Sokal, I'm going to go splat whether I think gravity is a social construction or not (not, actually... or rather, not completely ;-)). Of course there are things we know from observation which we can regard as "truths" if you like, but which I'd prefer to call facts. What I've been disputing, and will continue to dispute, is that the scientific method is the only way to gain useful, meaningful knowledge about the world. Of course it's the best way to get information which allows us to predict (and so sometimes control) what goes on in the natural world (of which we are a part, incidentally :-)). But such information isn't the alpha and omega of human endeavour, and frankly it makes me embarrassed to see bright people of a scientific bent come over all self-righteous about their way of viewing the world, as if it could and should be applied to everything. From: helen 9/03/00 12:36:06 Subject: re: evolution post id: 45051 tee hee - all hail Steve, the one true prophet of serious indulgence in the finer things in life (even if he doesn't appreciate tofu, poor dear :-)) Hi Kothos, sorry I don't have a lot of time to respond properly to your points at the moment. I think Martin has pretty much covered why I'm dissatisfied with the way you and Robert have defined science as a body of knowledge (although I think we mostly agree on science as a method, apart from a few important, practical points). I want to take some time to put together some of Damasio's research with some observations about the process of research in one branch of applied physics, but it might take me a little while. Two short points, though - One - The two statements of yours and Robert's which I put together weren't intended to imply a contradiction, but rather a nice symmetry - you were talking about Descartes' vision of the perfect kind of being, God, while Robert was talking about the perfect kind of knowledge, science. Two - If, as you say, the process of learning anything verifiable (such as children learning a first language) is by definition scientific, then I have a couple of friends doing PhD's in history, and one in philosophy, who will be very interested to know that they've been science students all along. If, on the other hand, you define what they've been studying as non-verifiable, necessarily involving more subjectivity than is expected in science, and therefore as not constituting knowledge, I'm sure they'll be equally intrigued to know that in all that time they haven't managed to learn anything at all :-). From: Daryn Voss (Avatar) 9/03/00 13:32:41 Subject: re: evolution post id: 45097 Hey, helen. Looking good today. 2. your metaphor makes it sound as though the "attacks of nature" will one day "whittle" creativity (or the need for it) down to nothing, which I think is neither possible, necessary, nor desirable. I suspect almost the converse is true: creativity will slowly excavate the things we need or want to know about nature, until everything's dug out, or we become extinct, whichever comes sooner :-) Well, that isn't what I intended my metaphor to mean, nor is this what I believe. I just meant that the natural evidence provides a harsh environment for hypotheses, in which only the toughest survive... From: Kothos 9/03/00 15:57:53 Subject: re: evolution post id: 45146 One - The two statements of yours and Robert's which I put together weren't intended to imply a contradiction, but rather a nice symmetry - you were talking about Descartes' vision of the perfect kind of being, God, while Robert was talking about the perfect kind of knowledge, science. Oh! Sorry, I'm used to debates where no one broke the rule that says you never say anything nice about the opposition... (I have to say though, I like these sorts of searches for truth better - non-adversarial discussions I mean). Two - If, as you say, the process of learning anything verifiable (such as children learning a first language) is by definition scientific, then I have a couple of friends doing PhD's in history, and one in philosophy, who will be very interested to know that they've been science students all along. If, on the other hand, you define what they've been studying as non-verifiable, necessarily involving more subjectivity than is expected in science, and therefore as not constituting knowledge, I'm sure they'll be equally intrigued to know that in all that time they haven't managed to learn anything at all :-). At the risk of opening the flood gates holding back all those feet from flying into my mouth; Yes, I think your friends have been science students all along - not natural (or physical or whatever) science students, but still science. In fact, I would hazard that art, design, music and literature students are also science students, altough I'd view their fields in relation to science more like the relationship between alchemy and chemistry (alchemy is chemistry in its infantile form after all). From: helen 9/03/00 16:05:38 Subject: re: evolution post id: 45149 Kothos, you're going to make me very, very cranky if you're implying that art, music, history and philosophy are all infantile in comparison with your beloved science >:-( Daryn, good to hear, and as far as I'm concerned that's a point you can certainly have (and any others like it to which you may have taken a fancy) :-) From: Kothos 9/03/00 16:22:27 Subject: re: evolution post id: 45157 Helen, I'm not trying to devalue the arts (I get too much out of them to belittle them). My use of the word infantile probably gave the wrong impression. What I meant is that the natural sciences are further along the scale of non-science - to - science than the arts are. Taking music for example, I fully expect it's secrets to be unlocked mathematically and then it won't be enough to be able to play, compose and study the history of music to get your degree from the Conservatorium - you'll have to get a maths and programming degree as well. Universities will start offering courses in Musical Engineering and the Top 40 will become computer generated. (I'm starting to scare myself.) My own feeling is that what we know as music is more complicated than say, all of classical physics, which is why our understanding of music is still mostly subjective and scientifically limited, whereas what we know of mechanics is only partially subjective and very scientific. PS Thanks for using the word "cranky" - I haven't heard that in ages (: From: Dr Paul (Avatar) 9/03/00 16:26:05 Subject: re: evolution post id: 45160 Hi Kothos, you will likely need to determine the neurophysiological pathways for the processing of appreciation of music before you could define "good music" in any language, digital or written. At the moment, each of us appreciates some music but how we interpret the music, how we define good music and how the brain deals with the complexity of sound patterns is too unknown to say that music could be written mathematically. Paul From: steve(primus) 9/03/00 16:27:17 Subject: re: evolution post id: 45162 I would hazard that art, design, music and literature students are also science students In exactly the same way that mathematics, physics and chemistry are Arts subjects. In fact maths is an arts subject - ask Adam Spencer. The ability to understand chemistry and physics is no different from the ability to understand history or poetry. There are objective as well as subjective sides to all subjects. The proof of a theorem may be long and drawn out or it may, as Fermat said, be elegant. This implies a subjective aesthetical view. Feynman thought along the lines that the objective was all important until he started drawing. (See "What do you care what other think") From: steve(primus) 9/03/00 16:31:57 Subject: re: evolution post id: 45164 and the Top 40 will become computer generated I thought it was already. From: Kothos 9/03/00 16:43:36 Subject: re: evolution post id: 45168 Dr. Paul, You're right, ultimately we'll have to reverse engineer the brain in order to define music absolutely (or as definitively as we can) because most of what defines music depends on who or what is listening. But I've already read of a computer program or two which take current music, which is thought to be good by the majority, searches for patterns and emulates the styles of those composers (badly, but the guy who wrote the program uses his own brain to weed out the loads of bad from the couple of good compositions). I don't know how far this can go without neuroscience lending a hand. But it indirectly reverse engineers the brain in some minor respects by analysing the product of one brain (say, Mozart) based on the subjective assessment of millions of others (Mozart fans). Steve, Mmm, you've got me there. It's not fair to label The Arts as science without labelling The Sciences as art. Now I have something else to think about. (Gee thanks! ;-) and the Top 40 will become computer generated I thought it was already. That's so horribly true. From: Daryn Voss (Avatar) 9/03/00 16:43:56 Subject: re: evolution post id: 45169 Hey again, helen. I know that a lot of this thread has been taken up by discussing terminology, but we do need to know what we are talking about. Art, music, dancing, lovemaking, winetasting... these are all wonderful valuable human activities that go towards making the complete person. However, the point of these activities is not to gain knowledge. Certainly, some knowledge is necessary in order to do these (or at least to do them well), but they are not about increasing the knowledge of humanity. Other activities are all about increasing knowledge. Anything you name can be studied with the purpose of increasing knowledge, rather than just having fun with it. Also, one can study that thing scientifically or unscientifically. Rocks, minerals and the earth's crust can be (and were) studied unscientifically for a long time. The results were mixed. Basically, there was a lot of reliance on "gut feeling" and anecdotal evidence: sometimes this was useful, sometimes misleading. Geology really took off as a field you could rely on (or at least, whose unreliability was well quantified) when scientific principles began to be applied. History is certainly a scientific study by anyone's standards. People have to defend themselves using arguments based on evidence. It is the scientific study of the past. It would be possible to study history in an unscientific way, but relying on something other than evidence and logic, but who would argue that this would provide better results? There is no kind of search for knowledge that is necessarily unscientific. Psychology certainly can be scientific, but there appear to be certain unscientific elements about the body of psychology. Freud's methods were very unscientific, and this is one of the factors that makes his work less valuable! A scientific psychological study is capable of demonstrating things more clearly and credibly than one that leans heavily on the predispositions of the investigator. In my earlier post I made a comment about the crying differences between various cultures. This is an impression that I would not dream of calling a fact, much less of publishing in a scholarly work, unless I had quantified the phenomenon in a way that left my own biases out. People associate the word science too much with the concept of "hard science", but there is no need to make this limitation. A few hundred years ago, medicine was just about as unscientific as it could be without being complete and utter claptrap. Certainly some things were "known" which have later be shown to be true, but there was an awful lot of damaging nonsense as well. Over the last hundred years, medicine has become more scientific. Is the knowledge that is now gained through scientific medical study intrinsically more valuable than the "knowledge" based on handed-down knowledge, anecdotal evidence and superstition? Too bloody right it is! Geology has undergone a similar increase in rigour. Psychology, from anything one gathers, is also "hardening". Any serious attempt to find stuff out can be improved by applying scientific principles. Just asking oneself, "how can I make sure that the facts I have uncovered are not sensitive to my own personality?", "can these results be reproduced?", are tantamount to saying "are these results useful in any way?". Of course, not all forms of human endeavour have anything to do with finding stuff out. Playing games and sports, making love, sculpting etc are not for increasing knowledge (although the application of scientific principles can aid any one of these). I would never dream of denigrating the Arts, which are a vital, irremovable part of humanity. However, the Arts are not for increasing knowledge. There is no need to apply scientific principles because the results of Art are not facts that need verification. However, if you do want to know something and have any good reason to suspect that thing is true-ish, science is the way to go. From: Dan B. 9/03/00 16:49:31 Subject: re: evolution post id: 45175 and the Top 40 will become computer generated No, it will always be driven by the record companies flogging the crap out of 'chart' singles in the 200 chart stores around Australia, and paying the FTA radio stations to give there recordings airplay. Of the current top 20, I know about 4 of them. Back on the topic of music as science, there was a recent study that found that different people appreciated different styles of music but to gain pleasure from listening, it had to be loud as to stimulate the right part of the ear/brain. Dan. From: Dan B. 9/03/00 16:52:24 Subject: re: evolution post id: 45178 I can't believe I used the wrong 'their'... d'oh! From: The messenger 10/03/00 1:04:26 Subject: re: evolution post id: 45464 Bravo sister helen you silenced a few tounges in deed,albeit a few whimpers,you won my vote !!so heres my quote proverbs 15 verse2 When wise people speak,they make knowledge attractive,but stupid people sprout nonsense. THE MESSENGER From: Daryn Voss (Avatar) 12/03/00 1:14:09 Subject: re: evolution post id: 45816 http://www.msnbc.com/comics/daily.asp?sType=8&sImage=td000311&nDate=0 I think we should let Tom the magic bug have the last word From: Daryn Voss (Avatar) 12/03/00 1:15:29 Subject: re: evolution post id: 45817 er, that's Dancing bug. This forum is un-moderated. The views and opinions expressed are those of the individual poster and not the ABC. The ABC reserves the right to remove offensive or inappropriate messages.