"Darwin Day" Topic

We made it. Well done chaps!

It would have been faster and more productive if we all chipped in and sent:

1) Doug to a college Physics course where he could ask all the questions to a professional physicist.

2) TJ to a high school Biology class.

Ralph

I had a realy great line to go with Ralphs list, but I think it would have qualifed as calling somenoe stupid so I won't

1000 post, this has to be some sort of record, I have only been on the forum for 2 years, but I can't remember seeing any thread with 1000 posts

That is because if you post something on, let's say a Napoleonic forum, you don't get 500 postings telling you that Napoleon didn't exist, and is a plot by certain historians. Or that newer, more educated historians are now doubting Napoleon's existence at a greater rate. In fact there is a "Napoleon doesn't Exist" petition signed by 1000 Nobel winning historians.

Oh and by the way, believing in Napoleon's existence undermines the Laws of Thermodynamics.

Ralph

Well, have they cleaned off all the guano and fired up the LHC yet? Even though I consider it a collosal waste of money, curious minds are wanting to know….

Even though I consider it a collosal waste of money, curious minds are wanting to know….

Well Doug, you are the one asking about the BB and what we don't know about it. Curious minds….and all that. Unfortunately, that costs $$. You are supporting space flight too right? That costs $$ too. Some consider that a waste, some don't.

Ralph

Well, have they cleaned off all the guano and fired up the LHC yet?

Should be working next month.

I think it is great that we can still do real big theoretical science like this.

The reason why I distinguish between space flights and the LHC is because space exploration technology has given us so many cool toys and other high tech upgrades in our daily lives. What is the LHC going to provide for us, besides a black hole?…

I can't restrain myself: THE GOD particle! See what I mean, about the impossibility of limiting science discussion to only science things? It was the theorists who coined that one: if I go to the DH I want Bill to put all the theorists in the slammer too….

Doug, I for one will ask Bill to be sent to the DH with you if you there for calling the Higgs boson was, by the same name as used by the popular press.

I'd also willingly accompany Ralph in support of his suggestions.

THE GOD particle!

After Higgs heard that the press had dubbed his hypothetical boson this he joked to his buddy, physicist Dr Leon Lederman, that it should have been the "g*d d**mned Particle".

Speaking of Lederman, Doug, take a look at his book, "The God Particle: If the Universe Is the Answer, What Is the Question?"

Here is an overview of it from WIKI:

link

Ralph

I'm in a descusion with another creationst, he is so retarded he makes TJ seem like Einstein.

His "BEST" evidence is that a parrot has the same colors as the rainbow.

It's the biggest face slap moment of my life,

His "BEST" evidence is that a parrot has the same colors as the rainbow.

Oh my God! I never thought of that before. That makes such sense! I now see where Darwin went wrong. Thanks Gunfreak! I'm saved!

Ralph

Actually that is no more stupid than what that Muslim cleric was saying that "everything was water" because that "shoehorns" reality into some some line from the Koran. If I remember, some members in this thread thought he made sense.

Ralph

Just the structure of water made sense, the way he was putting it: i.e. beginning with scripture and then looking at the atomic structure of everything. I don't remember the particulars very well, but I have certainly listened to much stoopider arguments for "God"….

"The God Particle: If the Universe Is the Answer, What Is the Question?"

(Looks like a great morning for a hangin')

Existence in the first place: why? That's the question.

If you go with Sagan, et al. cosmologists who say, "why not remove an extra step and say, 'the universe always existed'"?, then you have two choices: either leave that question unpursued, or work to understand everything that the eternal (never-caused) universe is; or what the part we can see is part of (the multiverse always existed).

I have a real problem with anyone who glibly says, "the universe always existed", then shuts off all further discussion of the implications.

On this thread alone, I have seen participants apparently "shut down" when it is suggested that the universe actually possesses intelligence and purpose. And the only reason why I can see that anyone would do that is a deep-seated antipathy for the concept of a greater, even directing intelligence, than their own: because the implications of the existence of such an ID to the multiverse means that their chief purpose ought to focus on facilitating contact with that ID: to ignore it would be the quintessence of sticking your head in the sand….

Hi

Or simply, that a lesser mind imputing a superior mind by speculation has nothing to really talk about.

R

Thanks for your condolences. It has been a difficult time indeed.

As said – our time is precious – very precious indeed.

So what has our time spent here actually achieved?
Has anyone changed their mind as a result of over a thousand discussions?

Don't waste your precious time – you just don't know how much you have left. Let's all say "Happy anniversary Darwin" and then go and tell someone that we love or care for that we do love them.

God bless.

John 3:16-18

Or simply, that a lesser mind imputing a superior mind by speculation has nothing to really talk about.

But is it speculation? Metaphysical contact is always to the individual and cannot be replicated for science; but to the recipient of a metaphysical contact it is not speculation at all….

Wow, TJ, that has to be some kind of coincidental timing.

And yes, we are always constantly changing our minds: it is a process over a usually extended period of time, and the things we learn from talking with others plays its part. Time spent exchanging ideas and defending them cannot be deducted from a person's life….

On the issue of this being the dialogue of the deaf you are correct TJ. You don't accept our science and we're not drinking your Kool-Aid. But it has been interesting to see some of the less hospitable parts of the TMP as a result of these discussions.

Existence in the first place: why? That's the question.

Why blue? Why green?

On this thread alone, I have seen participants apparently "shut down" when it is suggested that the universe actually possesses intelligence and purpose. And the only reason why I can see that anyone would do that is a deep-seated antipathy for the concept of a greater, even directing intelligence, than their own:….

No Doug, I tend to "shut down" when dumb pet theories and ideas are presented as "fact" with no support of any kind. I don't need to conjure up the concepts of supernatural entities to know your idea doesn't hold water.

….the implications of the existence of such an ID to the multiverse means……..

Here we have it again. What "multiverse"? This is a fact now? Because you like an idea, that gives it substance? The Universe is real, the multiverse is an idea, a concept, a mental construct, a supposition, etc., etc…….

Ralph

TJ,

So what has our time spent here actually achieved?
Has anyone changed their mind as a result of over a thousand discussions?

I'm not interested in proselytizing or preaching and I honestly don't care if you changed your mind. I am interested in intelligent discourse. Sadly I didn't get much at all from you, but then intelligent discourse wasn't ever your thing. And yes, minds do change, TJ. Otherwise we would still be living in a repressive theocratic medieval world. Minds open up and things change.

I was hoping for some insights or arguments that would assail and challenge my current understanding of biology and science. That didn't happen.

However, due to many of those on this thread, I got some insights and new facts that actually bolstered my understanding of biology and science. That is a positive thing. And, more importantly, that is NOT wasted time.

Ralph

Here we have it again. What "multiverse"?

It's all around you plain as day. Your universe does not overlap with mine on the metaphysical "plane"; and we actually do most of our living metaphysically, 24/7 you could say. In that sense there are over 6 billion universes on this planet alone.

Also the multiverse is a bigger concept than assuming that this puny, empirical universe is all that there is to infinity. And bigger concepts are more true than smaller ones….

That is not what is meant when people use "multiverse" in a scientific discussion, Doug. I think it is more accurate to say that their is one common physical Universe shared by 6 billion + people, each which have a different PERCEPTION of it. What you wrote about is your own fabrication. Speaking of which:

And bigger concepts are more true than smaller ones….

How is this even intellectually defensible as a concept? How about this? "Things that are painted red, go faster". I heard that one from one of my plastic Space Orks. He is also a famous meta-physicist.

Ralph

You didn't demonstrate "bigger" with red is faster; you simply made a claim; neither faster or red are "bigger"; and injecting imaginary conversations with plastic space orcs doesn't make any element included "bigger" (although the story is getting bigger and better, ergo more truly a whopper) as you spin it.

I knew you'd take some exception to "bigger concepts are more true than smaller". I knew you'd draw some false comparison to limited objects (like red and faster). That's why I didn't add on what follows at the time:

You are guilty of resisting the logic of the argument on the same basis that "Gaunilo's island" tried to refute the ontological argument. In his case there is no way to put a perfect limit on what a "perfect island" even is, nor is the concept of perfect islands at all comparable to proving the existence of (The Forbidden Word -- from now on spelled TFW) with the ontological argument.

But the concept of the multiverse (metaphysical AND empirical) being more true if the concept is bigger does have a necessary, infinite quality about it: whereas your spurious comparison to red is faster (a naturally limited concept) is facile to the max. No automatically limited concepts can be used to disprove the ONE case where the Ontological argument applies: and to the multiverse it definitely applies, proving that it derives from TFW. There is no greater concept possible….

Short history of the universe

13.72 billion years ago, the universe and space time started to expand, the universe were for sevral 100 000 years to hot for formed matter to contract, it was just quarks flying around at high speeds. As it cooled 2 elements formed, hydrogen and helium, about 70% hydrogen to 30% helium. Nothing els formed. The mater didn't form uniformly, it was clustard in some hot spots, these spots would become galaxies.

The hydrogen/heliom gasses started to lump to gether. as it did, it started to spin and get hotter, soon a exponential groth started with more and more gas contracting spinning faster and faster, getting hotter and hotter, untill the mass and heat became so strong fusion happend, hydrogen started to fuse into mostly helium, but also trace heavier elements. this is how the elements we know and need to survive got created, all up to iron, no heavier elements is formed in stars.

But these realy stars are nothing like our sun, they were HUGE and blue, and while our sun wil live for billions of years, these stars went from gass cloud to supernova in mabye 1-200 million years.
As the whent supernova the element factory starts up again, creating all the naturaly occuring elemetns up to uranium.

In the wake of these supernovas nabulas formed, but unlike the early hydrogen clouds these nabulas now have other elements, one of these nabulas started to contract about 5 billion years ago.

Around the star that formed dozen of plants also formed from the dust that was left over. these planets collied and got destoyed and reformed, in the end 8 planets were left, 4 rocky and 4 gass giants.

On the 3rd rocky planet from the sun, a planet now known as Earth AKA tellus formed, a short time later water formed on this planet, either it has always been there or commetns deliverd it.

About a billion years later, chemisitry became life and proto bacteria formed, for a long time not much happend, bacteria did it's thing but that was it. then about 1 billion years ago, evolution tok hold, and life branched out.

And about 700 million years ago, evolution started to happend faster and faster, while life was mostly bacteria for 2.5 billion years, the last 700 000 000 years saw the formation of all the forms of life we know.

350 million years ago life moved onto the land first by athorpods, then vertibrats, life continued to branch and by 100 million years ago we had all the major vertibrate groups on land.

And by 80 million years ago, the primate order had arived, it branched and moved forward, some groups died out, others evolved. 48ish million years ago, the lemur and simian liniages split, the simian became monkeys, monkeys stayed monkeys but some also became apes, 6 million years ago, the chimpanese and Homo liniages split, chips styaing in jungles, mostly eating plants. the homo genius split and branched, most died out some went back into the jungle other stayed in the savanah, by 200 000 years ago, only 2-3 homo species were left, then only 2 then only 1.

It was us, we created civilasion, religion, agriculture, husbundry ect.

About 200 years ago, we started to see back into the past as we looked further and further into space.
150 years ago, Evolution though natural selection became knowed to all and we started to understand how and who we are.

"…understand how and who we are."

-and I would add "why": while not as "metaphysical" and ego-satisfying as some would wish, the evidence points to the truth that "why we are" is answered in the same manner as "why I rolled a 17 last night while trying to extricate my thief character from the grips of the constable", ie: luck…pure, random chance governed by the laws of physics that define the parameters of the roll of the die. We are for the most part (to borrow/paraphrase Gould) drunks who have fallen into the gutter. Not as sexy as being "special" (the 17 was meant to be…), but as I said upthread, I'm thrilled/awed to be in the game at all: "why" the 17 occurred in so dull/random a fashion does nothing to diminish the joy I have playing…pass the dice!

Oh, I agree it is all a great "game" too. But what we perceive as random, stupid chance is actually the process by which evolution selects for life: and to a "being" outside of space-time, it doesn't take any time at all to see the process and the final outcome, the denoument and the replacement Existence, worlds and space-times without end, all contained within an infinitely expanding NOW….

"…what we perceive as random, stupid chance is actually the process by which evolution selects for life…"
no -the random, stupid chance is what creates the traits upon which evolution acts.

"…and to a "being" outside of space-time…"
..and if my grandmother had wheels, she'd be a wagon.(M.Scott, Chief Engineer, Enterprise)

Conclusion: imagining something means nothing without evidence outside one's own mind to support it. Any such statement is -as I recall Rocky stating previously- completely subjective and beyond the scope of debate.

There is no limit to those types of declarations --and their value is the inverse of their quantity.

Doug says,

I knew you'd take some exception to "bigger concepts are more true than smaller".

Ya, I take exceptions to dumb, unsupported declarations that we are meant to take as truth.

I knew you'd draw some false comparison to limited objects (like red and faster). That's why I didn't add on what follows at the time:

No, actually it is an excellent comparison. Both comments are devoid of merit.

You are guilty of resisting the logic of the argument on the same basis that "Gaunilo's island" tried to refute the ontological argument.

I actually studied St. Anselm's Proslogion when I decided to take some continuing education courses at U of Waterloo. It sounds like his argument that you are putting forward. What I am guilty of is recognizing that the ontological argument is devoid of any compelling logic. I won't bore you with Kant's, Hume's and Russell's excellent objections. You may look them up yourself.

But I will leave you with Australian philosopher Douglas Gaskin's parody of the ontological argument:

1. The creation of the universe is the most marvelous achievement imaginable.

2. The merit of an achievement is the product of (a) its intrinsic quality, and (b) the ability of its creator.

3. The greater the disability (or handicap) of the creator, the more impressive the achievement.

4. The most formidable handicap for a creator would be non-existence.

5. Therefore if we suppose that the universe is the product of an existent creator we can conceive a greater being — namely, one who created everything while not existing.

6. Therefore, God does not exist.

Like you said, "There is no greater concept possible…." It works both ways, Doug.

Ralph

…..stupid chance is actually the process by which evolution selects for life….

Stupid chance is NOT the mechanism by which evolution selects for life! Evolution does not select for life in any respect. I don't believe you really understand these concepts.

Ralph

I reread my post on the dialogue of the deaf and concluded that I misstated my case. I have actually improved my knowledge of biology and cosmology as a result of these post. So thank you gentlemen.

I have aslo learned that the pseuds are even more off the wall than I had realised. Thank you TJ.

Thanks for being the main spur to these posts Doug.

I don't believe you really understand these concepts.

You have always had difficulty with the way I express myself.

How would YOU express how/why evolution works? Simplicity evolving into complexity (in defiance of the laws of thermo dynamics for any closed system, thus showing that the universe is not a closed system -- or at least was not at the point of singularity: the universe could be likened to a candle inside a bubble of limited gases, doomed to be extinguished in process of time: or it could be likened to a constantly renewed bubble that endures indefinitely) must have a coherent explanation. I am only inserting "stupid" evolution: are you asserting that evolution is not stupid/mindless? You don't have trouble with random selection? That sounds synonomous with random chance to me. So earth for several billions of years has only bacterial life: and as gunfreak expresses it, "evolution to[o]k hold, and life branched out." That's how I read it all the time: the explanation is without understanding and assumed in a state of ignorance and belief. Until science can show/replicate the entire process of simplicity to complexity it remains no more viable than "TFW did it!"

I won't bore you with Kant's, Hume's and Russell's excellent objections. You may look them up yourself.

I've already reviewed them, and their rebuttals. I think the ontological argument stands on the basis of it only working in one instance: explaining the existence of the Infinite One: there is no other, ergo all comparisons of the form of the argument when applied to any lesser concept fail on the basis of the argument only applying to the Infinite One (the greatest concept possible to imagine).

1. The creation of the universe is the most marvelous achievement imaginable.

No it's not. But an infinitely varied and eternal multiverse might be (with his first step he trips).

4. The most formidable handicap for a creator would be non-existence.

I've seen this before and "Gaskin's fallacy" shows yet another specious application of nonsense masquerading as logic. Just because anything can be reworked into a parody does not make the original/genuine argument mistaken in its only possible application. There is, first of all, nothing great about imaginging existence (a "creator") and then countering/nullifying it in the very same breath. Such reasoning taken into every aspect of life would result in our extinction within a matter of days: assume the entire human race suddenly possessed the reality of "Gaskin's fallacy": upon waking this morning possessed with it, I would have countered every thought to survival with the exact opposite thought: "I shall get out of bed, but no I won't; I am hungry but no I am not; I need to go to the bathroom but no I don't (resulting in first of all damage to my bowels and poisoning my system, then an enormous mess): I shall get up and clean myself off but no I won't; I am thirsty but no I am not." And, reduced to inertness believed to be the most advanced kind of logic, the race of man dies out instantly in fetid, dehydrated squallor….

"…what we perceive as random, stupid chance is actually the process by which evolution selects for life…"

no -the random, stupid chance is what creates the traits upon which evolution acts.

And I recall recently reading, Rocky I believe, that it was a mutation in the foot that made standing erect more convenient and comfortable for the first homo erectus: and that there was once upon a time a bunch of these "experimental" man-apes. How is that different from random, stupid chance? A mutation isn't a random, stupid thing to occur?

Conclusion: imagining something means nothing without evidence outside one's own mind to support it. Any such statement is -as I recall Rocky stating previously- completely subjective and beyond the scope of debate.

The ontological argument includes the answer to that: "To exist in reality and in the understanding is greater than to exist in the understanding alone."

Ralph denigrates the concept of the multiverse as imaginary only. The scientific reality cannot be empirically tested for, that is true. But we ought to pursue the greatest concepts in all our exploring.

Before focusing on everything physical our ideas leading to study of the physical always need to be the biggest we can muster. Subjective reasoning is how we weed out the obvious contradictions (unless we succumb to our own vanity and actually believe in arguments as illogical as "Gaskin's fallacy"….) Subjective always preceeds the final objective reasoning….

re: "A mutation isn't a random, stupid thing to occur?"

Yes, it is random. My point was (attempting) to address your statement that the "random, stupid chance is actually the process by which evolution selects for life…" The process itself (Darwin proposed natural selection) is anything BUT random, much less stupid.

re: "Subjective always preceeds the final objective reasoning…"

Perhaps -no time to ponder now…off to work…but I would venture that the first iota of objective analysis/evidence (or lack thereof) far outweighs any substance-less amount of subjective thinking.

Like I always told/tell my kids: What you want (or think) and 50-cents will get you a cup of coffee. ; )

The process itself (Darwin proposed natural selection) is anything BUT random, much less stupid.

I see Ralph's difficulty with my choice of words now: I was addressing the over arching existence of evolution; he, and you here, are talking about the evolution within a species already up and running. But regardless, the species which mutates presents evolution with a "decision": adapt to the mutation -- even turn it into an advantage, although not selected for in the first place, since it is a mutation/abberation -- or else select for extinction….

Amazing- Gunfreak starts a thread saying "Hey Darwin's Birthday", TJ posts a load of anti science, ignores or twists our responses, and when continued arguing by those who deny the evidence pushes the thread to a 1000, comes back and sneers at us.

TJ- if you hadn't been underinformed and argued with the facts then this thread would have been forgotten before post 20.

"…the species which mutates presents evolution with a "decision": adapt to the mutation…or else select for extinction…."

I guess it's my turn to not understand… ; )

Although you placed the word "decision" in quotes to indicate it didn't mean what it says in the dictionary, you follow that with a statement that implies some sort of choice as opposed to the playing out of future success/failure of the mutation based on the ability of the lifeform to live, find a mate, and reproduce: nothing to decide/choose --just application of ability.

Evolution doesn't "decide" if a particular mutation (and, more to the point: the mutation's impact on the lifeform's ability to reproduce) is an advantage and worth saving or if it's garbage and deserves extinction: it just happens --no thought, no choosing, no effort, no plan. It just happens. period.

Evolution is like gravity. It is. We may not understand how it works, but that doesn't mean it isn't. In truth, we understand far less about how gravity works (or even what it is…) than we do evolution --yet few who reject evolution spend their days clinging desperately to whatever they can get a grip on for fear of flying off into space…

Yes, "decision" was metaphorically used. But in fact we know nothing of which we speak. When science has shown the existence of sub atomic action at work, it has demonstrated the existence of the theory but not anything we can actually look at. The same holds true on the cosmic level: we hear of theories but cannot see what is deduced to be really operating to define the universe. This leaves each individual to decide whether or not some intelligence is behind existence, or is it all mindless, random, stupid chance.

But once evolution demonstrates that sapience (not just intelligence) is a real quality, the question of whether the universe is intelligent and purposeful has become moot: we are, and we derive from the processes that operate as part of the universe, ergo our sapience proves both intelligence and purpose. If we don't allow for that reality we deny our own claims to define purpose for ourselves: we are deluding ourselves. There cannot be purpose in our existence if that trait does not exist leading up to our appearance on the scene….

"…leaves each individual to decide whether or not some intelligence is behind existence, or is it all mindless, random, stupid chance."

I don't think it's up to "each individual to decide" this anymore than the "intelligence" of gravity should be determined on a person-by-person basis. Subjective thought --while a valuable direction-finder or catalyst for thinking/ideas-- has no value…none at all…in the public arena of debate concerning the shared world/universe. Put simply: if it's only in someone's head, then it holds no weight in the discussion.

To have value within/for the group, some type of objective evidence must be found/presented that can be seen by all regardless of their own subjective ideas/conceptions on the matter (ie: whether you think its real or not gravity is there, and shared/common evidence/experience can be used to demonstrate its existence).

From what I understand of your position, you feel that "our sapience proves both intelligence and purpose" behind the universe by its mere existence.

For the first, I think your definition of sapience needs to be understood: using the dictionary I simply find "wisdom" which is defined (roughly) as "knowledge and experience and applying them practically or critically" --this is a trait humanity shares with other species and whose evolutionary background and value for survival can be seen in the same sort of dull (or if you prefer: stupid) light of the simple, almost mechanical nature of natural selection: so I don't see it as anything particulary special from the standpoint of "This is a uniquely marvelous and unexpected characteristic that deserves to be placed in its own special spot and have more than the usual allotment of importance assigned to it" (ie: It is not evidence for something "not-stupid" behind its existence.)

As to the second quality you use as evidence for a not-stupid something --purpose-- you need to first present some sort of evidence that such a quality exists in humanity. If you can establish its existence, then it can be debated whether it (like your proposed "sapience") is such a thing as to stand as evidence of the existence of something beyond the dull, stupid laws of the universe that can explain it without the need to inject metaphysics into the mix.

My impression is that the proposal/stipulation that a TFW (…that's the current one, correct?) is needed to fill a void in the explanation for our existence requires evidence of that void to be found/presented. So far, I've seen none, and the insertion of a TFW into the equation is somewhat like the addition of magic fairy dust to the understanding of how an internal combustion engine works. As with our existence, we may not know/understand everything about the goings-on under the hood -but there's no reason that I can see to make stuff up for no other reason than to give ourselves satisfaction.

Subjective thought --while a valuable direction-finder or catalyst for thinking/ideas-- has no value…none at all…in the public arena of debate concerning the shared world/universe.

That would be fine, if we could read minds, or link up and share emotions. But we are egocentric emotionally, in our thinking and imagining: we do not overlap. We are not Vulcans who "mind-meld"; there is no such thing demonstrated (easily done if it were true) as mind reading. Talk about a made-up metaphysical power!

Therefore, we are solitary, no matter how much we tap out words and read each other's literary creations.

Gravity, all empirical things, are limited and are literally "real" in the empirical, shared sense. But you say:

Put simply: if it's only in someone's head, then it holds no weight in the discussion.

When you put this in the context of imaginitive thought (where all our discoveries originate) it becomes fallacious. So, at what point do you judge a concept as expressed by an individual as not having any value for the group?

All of existence begins and remains in the head/mind. The body is merely a signaler to the brain/mind of a surrounding universe: and mine does not overlap with yours or anyone else's. We move about within an empirical environment; but ALL of our existing/experiencing is ultimately solitary and metaphysical: the mind decides what to keep and what to reject. (other animals do not do this)

sapience needs to be understood: using the dictionary I simply find "wisdom" which is defined (roughly) as "knowledge and experience and applying them practically or critically" --this is a trait humanity shares with other species…

Really! Please show this. What can easily be shown is that all other animals live moment by moment and do not imagine anything differently from their immediate surroundings. The level of their emotional expression is predictable and rudimentary. It isn't just a matter of degree: they are all together in a sub-human class mentally: homo sapiens is the only "animal" that thinks then does/creates. I will always maintain, unless SHOWN otherwise by empirical evidence, that our species is a manipulated one (a la Arthur C. Clarke, if you will).

My impression is that the proposal/stipulation that a TFW (…that's the current one, correct?) is needed to fill a void in the explanation for our existence requires evidence of that void to be found/presented.

(Yeah, "TFW" ought to get us by without visually offending the lurker who tattles to Bill.)

If you can arrive at a TFW-less "cause" that is itself uncaused (eternal/infinite), that is a concept so big that you can't come up with a bigger one, and present that concept without someone else coming up with a bigger one, then you may be getting somewhere.

The fact is, existence in the first place needs a cause (the NC). It is a kind of ex nihilo to assume that a finite, evolved brain, can think up concepts that are bigger than the Cause itself (that which created the evolutionary process by which our finite brains came to be).

I am not making anything up (not even facile analogies of finite concepts to explain away the infinite cause of existence in the first place). And I am far from satisfied with what I "know" so far. I don't know anything beyond accepting that a NC is implied by existence in the first place. That I prefer to call it "TFW" is my decision. But I do believe that any critically thinking person will eventually come to the same conclusion: that we are only explained ultimately by the existence of a NC, whatever that may be (and I further accept that no two concepts of what the NC "is" will necessarily agree in detail, ever, worlds without end….)

Hi

Being able to imagine greater doesn't demonstrate "greater" nor is is "proof" of greater except in your mind.

It is sort of like the various imagninings of "heaven" by various christian sects. Always makes me think of the line Kirk utters once "But it isn't MY idea of utopia".

The postulate that, somehow, evolution is complexity arising out of sjmplicity thus in violation of the laws of thermodynamics is a fallicy based on the basic premise.

It merely illustrates that the observer is seeing a simplicity that isn't there. I am not sure which references to go to here, I would start with Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle. Or I guess the basic idea of religion.

Why religion? Well, we have a book and it says words in plain Hebrew/aramaic/greek sometimes latin, gets translated in english. And I get told how simple this is. I only need to also read the thousands of commentary and explanation by religious scholars to understand…and they always end with the "unknowable".

The universe of the big bang was enormously complex. AND one way of seeing this is that the complexity morphed into another complexity.

The point with accident and mutation, is that most are meaningless changes. For instance, there seems to be no real advantage to being blue eyed over green eyes, but there is an advantage in SOME situations to being Blue but nor Brown or Brown but not blue. Blue probably started as a mutation thousands of times, but it was only limited environments where it proved to have an advantage.

A more dramatic "sometimes favorable" is "sickle" cell. What is IS is a genetic disease that leads to a weakness in the cell wall of red blood cells. A recessive, if gotten from one parent, you might never notice, from both, you die.

With one parent, your cells are a little weak and unless you find yourself at high altitude, you might not notice.

Upside? Simple, In the tropics, the protazoa that causes Malaria, enters the blood stream, attacks a red blood cell which collapsed around the protozoa keeping it from causing more trouble(very simplified). So, you get malaria, and while weak, you still have a chance of working and living and, most of all, reproducing.

In cold climate, if it arrises, you get dead babies with no advantage, thus no propagation. In tropics, the benefits outweigh the deficit. In fact, the syndrom is all over the planet, pops up now and again, but only works in the tropics.

This doesn't seem to accord with the intelligent design concept.

Rocky

"…at what point do you judge a concept as expressed by an individual as not having any value for the group?"

When it cannot be deomonstrated by any means that does not depend upon the subjective POV/attitude of the group. For example: gravity is a concept/idea that was created to answer the question of "why does this happen?" --the "this" that happens is a shared experience that can be shown to exist independent of a person's individual (or as you put it: solitary) experiencing of the "this". The idea that "the mind decides what to keep and what to reject" is simply not true when it comes to something like a rock falling on one's head. I forget which philosophy stipulates that "All of existence begins and remains in the head/mind" --but I don't see the truth in that: if it were correct, I could imagine my way out of a nasty bonk on the noggin', couldn't I? Never happens --and if one accepts the homogeneous quality of nature through time (at least for our paltry little blip of it) then it never did in the past as well (ie: sorry: no miracles, boys).

As to humanity sharing "sapience" with other species: I meant from the practical, thinking standpoint as found in the dictionary --they manipulate their environments for future use (tools and such) and, iirc, even keep/transport such for use beyond the immediate "moment to moment" function (that you dismiss/disparage as being somehow different in kind --instead of degree-- than what we do). Humanity's manipulations/behaviors cannot be separated easily from that of other species. To say so is to say that the falcon's flying is of a different kind than other birds because it can fly faster than them. The default position is that we are the same as everything else (being made of the same stuff -dna), and there needs to be demonstrated a quality of humanity that is distinct in order to support the contention that we are different. There is enough research/presentation in the database to refute the claim that "homo sapiens is the only "animal" that thinks then does/creates". Chimpanzees alone are enough to deflate that proposal.

Dunno, it could be that saying other species "…do not imagine anything differently from their immediate surroundings" is what you mean: imagination --is that the special quality?

"The fact is, existence in the first place needs a cause…"

Why? Based on what reasoning? So far all I've understood is that "I can imagine it, therefore it must be", and since that doesn't work for unicorns I don't see why it should work for something that serves absolutely no function in the workings of the universe. The NC doesn't appear to me to do anything but satisfy your own imaginings of purpose: an imaginary reason for an imaginary quality = fine for an entertaining moot, but hardly the be-all end-all of the structure of the universe, IMO.

ps- I wish to make plain the fact that this is just blather on my part (typed out in fits and starts while doing chores…), so I hope no one will read any more authority/seriousness into it than it deserves.

Being able to imagine greater doesn't demonstrate "greater" nor is is "proof" of greater except in your mind.

That's the point: and I don't see this as a problem. When I said: "we are only explained ultimately by the existence of a NC, whatever that may be (and I further accept that no two concepts of what the NC "is" will necessarily agree in detail, ever, worlds without end….)", I was emphasising the egocentric nature of our minds: there isn't and probably never will be any way to "link" my concept of the infinite NC to anyone else's concept, i.e. there will never be any way to prove one more true or accurate over another. To my mind the NC grows clearer the more I think about it. The same should hold true for everyone. And I believe that no two concepts of (or connections to) the NC are exactly alike: each one knows different things about existence, and "relays" that existential experience back to the NC of its existence….

The universe of the big bang was enormously complex. AND one way of seeing this is that the complexity morphed into another complexity.

Now that is one of the most sensible things I have read. It doesn't change anything when we are talking about what is going on, though. The NC existing transcends any details such as closed systems, thermodynamics or observed changes, evolutionary or otherwise (if there IS an otherwise: isn't everything evolving continuously? -- just "morphing", as you say).

This doesn't seem to accord with the intelligent design concept.

Oh, I quite agree. But then my "brand" of ID belief doesn't assert that creation is or ever will be perfect: perfection of the empirical/mortal, space-time world isn't what it's for….

I forget which philosophy stipulates that "All of existence begins and remains in the head/mind" --but I don't see the truth in that: if it were correct, I could imagine my way out of a nasty bonk on the noggin', couldn't I?

That's not what I believe or said: I said that all of existence is only perceived by the brain/mind. The body only signals the brain. That's quite a different concept to asserting that the mind is somehow transcendent of the empirical world while "strapped" to the brain.

… there needs to be demonstrated a quality of humanity that is distinct in order to support the contention that we are different.

I believe we have demonstrated that sufficiently. No other animal species possesses remotely similar imaginative, abstract reasoning; not even in a recognizable form when the animal intelligence isn't that far below human. There evidently isn't any intermediate brain evolution similar to ours: Rocky, et al. say that's because the only brains that went on the same "path" as ours are now extinct: tying that brain development to freed up hands and bigger skulls: this is hypothesis only and cannot be advanced beyond the assertion of hands and big heads in upright apes being the sole cause of a brain that evolved into an imaginative/abstract reasoning one.

There is enough research/presentation in the database to refute the claim that "homo sapiens is the only "animal" that thinks then does/creates". Chimpanzees alone are enough to deflate that proposal.

What allows you to have this both ways? On the one hand we have an essentially unevolved arboreal ape, predating our earliest, now extinct antecessor: no change to the brain in the chimp in all these millions of years. And any mimicking could be simply explained by exposure to humans. Yet you also claim that our brains think the same way only at different levels or degrees. Besides, I don't see a "Planet of the Apes" thing occurring here. Your appeal to the evidence for similarity doesn't bridge the enormous gap lying between ALL other animals and our species alone.

Dunno, it could be that saying other species "…do not imagine anything differently from their immediate surroundings" is what you mean: imagination --is that the special quality?

Yes. But what is imagination? The discontent with the present followed by a constant quest to get that which is imagined. We are alone in this. The same quality is what makes quest for answers to the questions of existence and death: things that ALL other animals accept mindlessly, i.e. without curiosity.

"The fact is, existence in the first place needs a cause…"

Why? Based on what reasoning? So far all I've understood is that "I can imagine it, therefore it must be", and since that doesn't work for unicorns I don't see why it should work for something that serves absolutely no function in the workings of the universe.

I find your lack of faith in unicorns, disturbing.

Existence is an infinite concept; but unicorns are merely part of existence. The two concepts are not the same. No other concept is the same as the NC: it alone is uncaused and responsible for everything existing. Unicorns and FSM and the dust from ethereal pink elephants are all part of caused existence, not in any way equal with the NC of it….

So, what you're advocating is a "super-ultra-mega-ultimo-mostro-zord" --heck, my kid came up with that years ago.

That doesn't mean it's real.

Really, Doug, all you're saying is: I can imagine this really way-out-there concept, so it must be true, 'cuz it's so…ya know…out there.

nonsense.

"No other animal species possesses remotely similar imaginative, abstract reasoning"

I think you see difference in kind where there is none. What is the difference between the space shuttle and a twig a chimp fashions to gain a meal of termites? Scale? Complexity? What? --nothing but a difference in degree. You state that there is an "enormous gap lying between ALL other animals and our species alone." No, there isn't. Read Sagan (Cosmic Connection, Dragons of Eden, Shadows of Forgotten Ancestors to name a few) and you will see that --for many decades-- it has been understood by those who study the matter that we are not that different.

And who are we to impune the value of whalesong?

Again: to use a human scale of value has no basis when measuring the worth of other species --when the object of the measuring is to determine the purpose/meaning/value of the universe. hubris.

You still haven't said why you think there is purpose.

The problem with your position is that it is subjective, and wholly dependent on drinking the Koolaid. You need to present something that doesn't rely on a subjective acceptance of your POV for understanding. You need to drop a rock on my head. So far, all you've mentioned are the sort of fairy stories that have been proferred for millenia, and they just don't hold water.

What is the difference between the space shuttle and a twig a chimp fashions to gain a meal of termites?

It's the reasoning behind the tool's creation that's different: you're being confused by the fact that they are both tools. A bird's beak is a tool also. Teeth are tools. The only difference is that "nature" gives them in one case and not the other: the twig/shuttle are foreign objects turned to use to achieve a goal. But never in a millennium of generations will the chimp tie two twigs together to reach into a place where one length of twig can't reach. If you can't see the differences in the thinking going on (and not just the degree of difference) I can't help that.

…the value of whalesong…

Communication is no indicator of abstract, imaginative even metaphysical reasoning occurring. All such studied communications reveal predictable behavior of the simplest, needful kind. We alone concentrate on speculation and wishful thinking; we alone live as much or more somewhere else than the immediate moment: no other animals do this, at, all. And it is that kind of "day dreaming" which has gotten us to where we already are, just about to launch ourselves off of our little ball of mud and start "conquering" the galaxy. We would do it today if we could travel fast enough. Animals one and all are bound to this planet of the moment and always will be.

I am not talking about relative worth of species. As George Burns said (playing TFW), "Animals are some of my favorite things", or words to that effect: then went off to spend some time with them. All creation is valuable even precious.

You still haven't said why you think there is purpose.

I have. Why purpose exists for us is arguable. But the fact that we do have purpose is proof that the universe also possesses purpose. If it does not then we do not. If the NC does not possess purpose behind creation then no such concept can possibly exist: making our capability of imagining purpose -- the very concept of it -- part of an ultimate paradox resulting in an ex nihilo: the created cannot possess more traits than the creator.

I am not going to suggest another "fairy story". The reality of this one we are living is quite sufficient….

"…the differences in the thinking going on and not just the degree…"

You'll have to do more than state this (or at least point to some scholarly, peer-reviewed papers/presentations that put this idea forward) to have me take it seriously: to be honest, your history of "oh wow" justification and blatant display of ignorance regarding evolution leads me to place little trust in your say-so. NOTE: I don't expect my own say-so to be held in any regard, either --that's why I suggest readings and/or rely on the community to fact-check my propositions.

"We alone concentrate on speculation and wishful thinking…"

You know this how? And even if it were true: so what? What unique, special value is there in imagination that makes it a justification for the meaning/function of the universe?

"…never in a millennium of generations…"

If by this you mean a thousand generations --or even if you only mean a thousand years-- you reveal a huge ignorance of the timescale of evolution. And again: for some reason you put undeserved value upon the traits/qualities that humanity has obtained (through nothing more than "stupid" chance) without providing some sort of reasoning/rationale as to why our "top of the heap" status in these particular abilities somehow rates as special --as in "This is why everything is the way it is" special.

Like Sagan said: big ideas require big proof. You're proposing the reason for the meaning of the universe: and all it really is is a bit of synaptic activity that --in the grand scheme of things-- means diddly squat. Imagining an NC is no different than imagining a unicorn --despite your assertion that "bigger is better"…Rocky addressed that fairly well, I thought.

"…the fact that we do have purpose is proof that the universe also possesses purpose."

The idea that "we have purpose" is a fact? BS -big steaming pile …and trust me: as a former farmboy, I know what one smells like… ; ) You need to provide some sort of evidence of this purpose before you use it to justify the reason for the universe…