Help support TMP


"Darwin Day" Topic


1657 Posts

All members in good standing are free to post here. Opinions expressed here are solely those of the posters, and have not been cleared with nor are they endorsed by The Miniatures Page.

Please do not post offers to buy and sell on the main forum.

For more information, see the TMP FAQ.


Back to the Animals Plus Board

Back to the Science Plus Board


Areas of Interest

General

Featured Hobby News Article


Featured Ruleset

BrikWars


Rating: gold star gold star gold star gold star gold star gold star gold star 


Featured Showcase Article

World's Greatest Dice Games

A cheap way to pick up on the latest fad and get your own dice cup for wargaming?


Featured Workbench Article

Building a Simple Data Set for Army Builder 3

Learning how to set up a new game system for use with Army Builder, the army design software from Lone Wolf.


Featured Profile Article

Editor Katie's House That TMP Built

With help from TMP, our staff editor and her grandparents now have a place to live.


Current Poll


Featured Book Review


47,748 hits since 2 Feb 2009
©1994-2024 Bill Armintrout
Comments or corrections?


TMP logo

Membership

Please sign in to your membership account, or, if you are not yet a member, please sign up for your free membership account.

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 

138SquadronRAF18 Mar 2010 6:44 a.m. PST

We've got a new page!

You know what that means folks!

We've started a new page; so I didn't want TJ to use the excuse that he'd missed it. So here we go again, repeating my question of March 1st, which repeated my question of February 2nd, which repeated my question of January 26th, which repeated my question of January 21st, which repeated my question of January 19th, which repeated my question of December 15th, which repeaded my question of December 12th and so on……

TJ to remind you this is what I want answered:

When a Prof. of Biology gives a lecture on evolution that is then broadcast on Youtube, then the contents can be rejected because of it appeared on Youtube. So in what circumstances would that lecture be acceptable to the creationists? Could such a format also be shared with the rest of the TMP community?

Daffy Doug18 Mar 2010 8:14 a.m. PST

I think that TJ has become a most infrequent TMP visitor (profile shows March 7th as "most recent visit"). (Piquetone, otoh, has already visited TMP today, but I bet he doesn't visit TBF anymore….)

138SquadronRAF18 Mar 2010 2:46 p.m. PST

Well asking TJ the same question 10 or more times, I loose track now, is following in the footsteps of my favorite UK tv journalist Jeremy Paxman:

YouTube link

crhkrebs18 Mar 2010 9:04 p.m. PST

Because my finite brain moves far beyond what science hypothesizes for a size to the universe.

No, you IMAGINE that your brain moves into these realms, when everything about your brain actually remains firmly rooted to the materialistic realm. You are imagining things.

If the universe as an actual physical quantity that we can hypothetically measure is all there is to existence, then it is finite,…..

Yes, that is what the physicists and cosmologists say.

…….yet producing life (us), which can conceive of infinity.

No, we cannot conceive of infinity. We cannot even conceive of large numbers. Infinity doesn't exist in any form besides made up mathematical concepts that are absent in the real world. There are no asymptotes in the Universe! Even black holes emit radiation.

That is an ex nihilo again.

In your make believe world. And don't treat "ex nihilo" as some unassailable axiom, like the Law of Thermodynamics. It is a simple philosophical concept that has little or no relevance any more. It is understood by most that there are countless examples of complexity deriving from simplicity, all driven by only physical laws. It's time to put "ex nihilo" to bed with all the rest of the outdated medieval concepts. We've learned a bit about our surroundings in the last 800 years.

The very fact that our imaginations transcend our finite brains is evidence for infinite Existence.

You need to try harder explaining your philosophical concepts. Boldly exclaiming a supposition doesn't make it anymore believable or tenable.

You imagine your mind transcends reality, but your brain is hopelessly mired in the real biological world of glial cells, neurons, sodium pump channels, neurotransmitters and small electrical charges. Our thoughts transcend nothing, and are as much part of the materialistic world as are the more mundane objects we see about us.

Our brains evolved over billions of years and are wondrous things. But they are no more transcendent from the laws and limitations of the materialistic world as are the amoeba and paramecium floating in a drop of water.

Ralph

gweirda19 Mar 2010 4:11 a.m. PST

"…no more transcendent from the laws and limitations of the materialistic world as are the amoeba and paramecium floating in a drop of water."

This touches on what I was (poorly) aiming at a couple posts upstream. I would extend the idea to include not just living things but every manifestation of "stuff": our brains (and ourselves) are just like a hunk of granite…just like a molecule…just like an electron.

What, if any, is the basis upon which to say that any particular characteristic of any particular manifestation is more "special" than any other? Conscioussness (that can generate stuff like awareness and imagination) is no more a defining element of existence/everything than is size or color or smell or whathaveyou: they are all equally randomly-generated facets of the universe (as is, perhaps, the universe itself?).

Evolution (in regard to living things) has shed much light on the "complexity from simplicity" issue – but it also has opened the door to the concept of "stuff" and how it is what it is…without any need for a behind-the-scenes "why?" to "cause" it to be.

RockyRusso19 Mar 2010 11:33 a.m. PST

Hi

The paradigm is that cultures invent words to express concepts. Thus, the famous "eskimos have 14 words for snow". Or whatever the number is.

Thus, we have a word "infinity" for a concept "infinty", therefore we do imagine something that transends our finite mind of neurons and such.

And amoeba imagine nothing, transcend nothing. There are better arguments against the imagining of a "necessary cause" being equated with "God" than this.

Rocky

Daffy Doug19 Mar 2010 2:48 p.m. PST

It is understood by most that there are countless examples of complexity deriving from simplicity, all driven by only physical laws.

You forgot the essential word, "apparent". There is no simplicity about existence. Only complexity evolving/morphing into other complexity.

It's time to put "ex nihilo" to bed with all the rest of the outdated medieval concepts. We've learned a bit about our surroundings in the last 800 years.

Not a medieval concept, just because it's old. You act like humans have only started REALLY thinking in the last few hundred years. We've been thinking metaphysically since our bursting upon the scene less than a million years ago.

Just because you don't have an answer each time I object to yet another "ex nihilo" doesn't mean that I am going to put it to rest.

You imagine your mind transcends reality,…

Not at all. If you recalled what I have said before: all of existence is reality. There is no such thing as "impossible". Our imaginations are exploring the possible. If they are not, then the universe as a mindless thing has produced a lifeform that transcends the mindless universe.

… but your brain is hopelessly mired in the real biological world of glial cells, neurons, sodium pump channels, neurotransmitters and small electrical charges.

Sounds like a biological machine to me, that's all. Without me it would just lie there, innert, dead to the world. When I quit the body, that's what it will become, a dead machine….

Daffy Doug19 Mar 2010 2:56 p.m. PST

Evolution (in regard to living things) has shed much light on the "complexity from simplicity" issue – but it also has opened the door to the concept of "stuff" and how it is what it is…without any need for a behind-the-scenes "why?" to "cause" it to be.

You mean "how", don't you? "Why"? gets into the "purpose" thing.

I would define purpose by our pursuits. Animals only survive in the moment and have a measure of joy in existing. Humans are not satisfied by any of that. Once our basic animal needs are satisfied we immediately start hungering for more purpose to existence.

To assume that the universe exists separately from what it spawns is returning to the concept that the rest of my body is just as unique and important as my brain: which is absurd: because as we all know intimately, our body is just a vehicle to carry the brain around: the brain is all important to comprehending and appreciating existence. A non sentient universe would not even be capable of accidentally coming up with sentience/sapience: the quality to derive such would be missing….

Daffy Doug19 Mar 2010 4:26 p.m. PST

And amoeba imagine nothing, transcend nothing. There are better arguments against the imagining of a "necessary cause" being equated with "God" than this.

What better arguments?

To my mind all limited arguments against a NC fall into the same area of limited concepts: people not managing to think big enough, not letting their finite brain power push outward in pursuit of infinity. Literally it is letting the study of "fly specks" occupy your attention when "God" has made your brain to think of so much more….

crhkrebs19 Mar 2010 8:34 p.m. PST

@Rocky

And amoeba imagine nothing, transcend nothing. There are better arguments against the imagining of a "necessary cause" being equated with "God" than this.

Misses the point, again.

@Doug

You act like humans have only started REALLY thinking in the last few hundred years.

No I don't "act" like anything of the sort and don't put words in my mouth. "Ex Nihilo" IS a medieval concept, and warrants the same response as bloodletting, trephination and exorcism in the treatment of headaches. Time to let it go.

For some good examples of complexity and order deriving from simplicity, check out the introductory chapters of the Blind Watchmaker. You will see that there is no need for the "Ex Nihilo" canard. Of course this means you will have to learn something diametrically opposed to your upbringing.

Ralph

gweirda20 Mar 2010 5:58 a.m. PST

"You mean "how", don't you? "Why"? gets into the "purpose" thing."

Yup – I used both where I intended.


"Animals only survive in the moment…"

The use of "only" here is the problem: What's so "only" about it? Rating the universe on an anthrocentric value system has what as its foundation? Assigning some special meaning to any of the multitude of arbitrary characterisitcs perceived is like picking out one grain of sand on a beach and pronouncing it THE grain – it is a good example of "not managing to think big enough". Such an act also wholly ignores (and thereby diminishes in value) all the arbitrary characteristics that are NOT perceived by our arbitrary senses and this so-called existential-defining, all-important brain. The brain (and all its thoughts, imaginings, whatever…) are the same as a lump of rock. The fact that the brain allows for (very limited) awareness and/or rumination of our environment is in no way special, much less a quality that justifies its use as the defining reason for existence.

"When I quit the body…"

Ahhh, there's the rub --what is this "I"? No such thing, really, is there? -at least no moreso than any other imaginary thing like leprechauns or fairies. There is no evidence of an "I" -if anyone has any, they should take the necessary steps to show it and collect the Randi prize.

Daffy Doug20 Mar 2010 9:15 a.m. PST

No I don't "act" like anything of the sort and don't put words in my mouth. "Ex Nihilo" IS a medieval concept, and warrants the same response as bloodletting, trephination and exorcism in the treatment of headaches. Time to let it go.

This line of reasoning is getting more bizzare and I am disappointed in you, Ralph.

How exactly can you compare "blood-letting" and "exorcism" with the most legitimate philosophical question ever posed? HOW DO WE EXPLAIN EXISTENCE IN THE FIRST PLACE? That question as I said transcends all the hundreds of thousands of years that our species has been on the planet.

Ex nihilo is a fundamental scientific law: you can't derive something from nothing; and you can't derive characteristics (pieces-parts) if the matrix for their appearance on the scene is lacking.

For some good examples of complexity and order deriving from simplicity, check out the introductory chapters of the Blind Watchmaker. You will see that there is no need for the "Ex Nihilo" canard. Of course this means you will have to learn something diametrically opposed to your upbringing.

From yet another book? I despair. Experience is proving to me that most (though not all, I have yet to run into an exception) reasons advanced for doing away with TFW are flawed: usually in the very first paragraph….

Daffy Doug20 Mar 2010 9:30 a.m. PST

Rating the universe on an anthrocentric value system has what as its foundation? Assigning some special meaning to any of the multitude of arbitrary characterisitcs perceived is like picking out one grain of sand on a beach and pronouncing it THE grain – it is a good example of "not managing to think big enough".

So our sapience is merely one example (one grain of sand) on a "beach" of other sapient lifeforms? We are THE most intelligent lifeform in the universe as far as we have evidence: that means that EVERY lifeform we observe is less intelligent than we are, and only we can judge where everything BELOW us fits in.

Such an act also wholly ignores (and thereby diminishes in value) all the arbitrary characteristics that are NOT perceived by our arbitrary senses and this so-called existential-defining, all-important brain.

What are we not perceiving with our (arbitrary) senses? Am I missing something?

The brain (and all its thoughts, imaginings, whatever…) are the same as a lump of rock.

Please demonstrate this absurd assertion. Other than the clear fact that all matter derives from variations of the same set of compounds, our brains have no equal anywhere in the universe (again, so far as we know).

The fact that the brain allows for (very limited) awareness and/or rumination of our environment is in no way special, much less a quality that justifies its use as the defining reason for existence.

I agree: your brain has nothing whatsoever to do with the purpose of my existence. But you are not capable of judging what my brain is aware of or if it is "special".

Ahhh, there's the rub --what is this "I"? No such thing, really, is there? -at least no moreso than any other imaginary thing like leprechauns or fairies. There is no evidence of an "I" -if anyone has any, they should take the necessary steps to show it and collect the Randi prize.

Did you post this or not? If you did then there's your "I am". If you deny your own existence you are delusional.

Leprechauns and fairies are real: I can show you any number of pictures representing them, and the literary referrences to them are voluminous. The instant a human being conceived of them and shared the concepts they became reality to our race: the concepts already existed elsewhere in the infinite multiverse, or else our brains would not be capable of conceiving "the little people" in the first place.

The virtually limitless capacity for imagination, with this physical organ we call the human brain, is the clearest evidence of just how unmeasurable Existence is. I've never seen a limit on my own imagination. I just keep noticing new stuff all the time, every moment in fact if I make myself aware of it. Most of it does not exist in the empirical world of Earth. But I have no doubt at all that the thoughts/imaginings have origins somewhere/sometime. "Genetic memory" might be a useful term here….

gweirda21 Mar 2010 7:25 a.m. PST

"…our sapience is merely one example (one grain of sand) on a "beach" of other sapient lifeforms?"

No – I meant that sapience is one example/manifestation of stuff: equivalent to color or size or smell or -most importantly- any one of the possible multitude of characteristics that "stuff" may display that we cannot perceive.

"…all matter derives from variations of the same set of compounds…"

Not just matter/compounds: even the structure of stuff we detect could, itself, be just one particular random manifestation. This thought derives from observation of evolution's "nothing is special" aspect (in the sense that there is no predestined, purposeful quality to any particular lifeform -or characteristic of a lifeform) and applying it to the "stuff" upon which evolution works. We are restricted to studying the specific manifestation that surrounds us, but there is no reason/support, IMO, for stating that it is THE one as opposed to just one of many possible manifestations.

Just like humans (or any other lifeform) are just one -and not THE one. Stating that "our brains have no equal" (AFAWK) is true but hardly remarkable -much less the basis upon which to formulate a hypothesis as to the underpinnings of existence. Similar statements (eg: So-and-so creature's whatnot has no equal.) can be put forward by the thousands. Claiming that our brains are somehow "more special" just because they allow us to think/imagine is based on nothing more than anthrocentrism that creates a scale built on one, arbitrary characteristic (-the one humans have the most of) that places us at the top and everything else below -the underlying "good-bad" judgement baggage that gets carried along with such a word-use is, itself, a huge red flag of warning.


As to the "I" : the context was the use of it as a thing separate from the body, as in "When I quit the body…". Such a distinct entity does not exist. As I said: if you've got your hands on one you can get $1,000,000.00 for showing it. Otherwise it's just another dragon-in-my-garage.

Daffy Doug21 Mar 2010 7:56 a.m. PST

Stating that "our brains have no equal" (AFAWK) is true but hardly remarkable -much less the basis upon which to formulate a hypothesis as to the underpinnings of existence.

You continue to equate the brain with everything else that matter does via evolution. The brain itself is remarkable compared to everything else that micro and macro evolution does. It isn't only remarkable, it is unique. EVERYTHING ELSE is non sentient, as in not self-aware. And out of all those other self-aware lifeforms, only ours is sapient. Only our brain is capable of channeling imaginative thoughts that transcend immediate boundaries of time and surroundings. We are unique among that which itself as a group is unique, which is lifeforms with a brain.

There is nothing arbitrary about pointing out our unique sapience. It isn't a matter of degree, it (human thinking) is infinitely greater than the next highest level of thinking. As Marc Hauser put it (I quote again): "Researchers have found some of the building blocks of human cognition in other species. But these building blocks make up only the cement footprint of the skyscraper that is the human mind." Also: "Although anthropologists disagree about exactly when the modern human mind took shape, it is clear from the archaeological record that a major transformation occurred during a relatively brief period of evolutionary history, starting approximately 800,000 years ago. It is during this period of the Paleolithic, an evolutionary eyeblink, that we see for the first time multipart tools; animal bones punctured with holes to fashion musical instruments; burials with accoutrements suggesting beliefs about aesthetics and the afterlife; richly symbolic cave paintings that capture in exquisite detail events of the past and the perceived future; and control over fire, a technology that combines our folk physics and psychology and allowed our ancestors to prevail over novel environments by creating warmth and cooking foods to make them edible."

It is the "evolutionary eyeblink" that always leaps out at me. This is, imho, strong evidence of outside tampering in the emergence of our species (what Arthur C. Clarke played with in his 2001 stories).

So comparing the brain to sand, bones, leaves, bugs and super novas is as non sequitur as you can go.

As to the "I" : the context was the use of it as a thing separate from the body, as in "When I quit the body…". Such a distinct entity does not exist.

The money of the great Randi is safe enough. Even the very existence of metaphysical phenomena does not make them empirically presentable on demand. The criteria upon which satisfaction is demanded is illogical: non overlapping "dimensions". The only contact in the empirical world that can possibly be detected is the effect upon the individual, in communication with the "I" no longer in a physical body. As most believers will tell you: a departed "spirit" in the overhelming number of cases goes where they are supposed to; all contact in this empirical world is severed. In those purported cases (extremely rare) where a "ghost" apparently remains (see Cooper Steve's annecdotal musings on the "Devil in the Vatican" thread on TBF), no such physical presense exists that would satisfy Randi's demands for proof: only the effect upon the afflicted individuals which is not traceable to any occult or metaphysical source. The behavior all bears the outward signs of mental illness (delusion). Nobody can prove scientifically that they are communicating with the dead. Virtually all believers in a separate "I" from the body rely solely upon their intuition, their "gut". We know that this physical world isn't all that there is to existence. But we can't show a spiritual knowledge in any empirical way. Randi's money is indeed safe….

gweirda21 Mar 2010 9:36 a.m. PST

"…continue to equate the brain with everything else that matter does via evolution."

Right: As well as equate it with every other possible quality beyond our perception within the universe AND all the (possible) multitudes of manifestations of stuff that could /do exist outside our universe.


"Only our brain is capable of channeling imaginative thoughts that transcend immediate boundaries of time and surroundings."

So? On an (arbitrary) scale that rates imaginative thought, our brains are remarkable. Big deal. On an equally arbitrary scale that rates speed (or size or blue-ness or -as I keep saying: some other quality that we cannot perceive) some other creature or whatever would end up on top. Again: So what?

"There is nothing arbitrary about pointing out our unique sapience."

What makes it special?

Just saying that imaginative thought is the super-coolest neato thing ever doesn't make it so. Sure, it allows for some things/activities that are unique: but that in and of itself does not set it apart as being "more special" than some other quality/characteristic --"I really think blue is the greatest so the blue-est thing is the best" is hardly a reason to justify the nature of existence. Placing brainpower/thought/imagination on a pedestal has no support beyond personal preference/liking --its value extends no further than one's own opinion (and the framework -ie: rating system- one uses to define things).


"We know that this physical world isn't all that there is to existence."

Not if knowledge is defined as non-subjective (ie: separate/non-dependent on the individual). It was found in other discussions similar to this that it is useful to distinguish between "knowledge" and "belief": the latter is subjective, the former is not.

There are no "souls" or "I s" existing separate from the body: just being able to imagine them (like with fairies or leprechauns or the dragon-in-my-garage) does not make them so.


The foundation of this relative to the subject of evolution is that we (including our brains and their thoughts/imagination) are completely arbitrary – it is one of the key concepts that the process points to. It is not logical, IMO to pluck a single, arbitrary result (of what is, itself, an arbitrary process) and proclaim it to be "special"…much less useful in defining existence. Saying that the current presence of imaginative thought proves its existence in a prior/larger sense is like saying that the current presence of blue-ness proves that the color resides in some out-of-this-world ether from which characteristics draw upon --like some great Wal-mart for manifestation.

Daffy Doug21 Mar 2010 11:14 a.m. PST

So? On an (arbitrary) scale that rates imaginative thought, our brains are remarkable. Big deal. On an equally arbitrary scale that rates speed (or size or blue-ness or -as I keep saying: some other quality that we cannot perceive) some other creature or whatever would end up on top. Again: So what?

Speed, blueness or "some other quality" are all the SAME. Thinking is not. Sapience is totally unique; it isn't even a thing, the brain is the thing: it's what the brain DOES that's unique. Blueness, rocks, speed, are all alike: they don't THINK, they are not self-aware. They cannot point to their limited uniqueness: e.g. "blueness" cannot see that it is unique only in the color; that nothing else in the universe that isn't blue shares "blueness": "blueness" cannot have a conversation and point any of this out. Neither can a rock, or even any other animal. Our sapience is "special" because the unique quality we alone have is the capacity to not only notice what sets other things in the world apart, but also how to imagine manipulating everything, even taking advantage of each thing's uniqueness. We can manipulate "blueness" to our desires and needs. Imaginative thought (that only we do) isn't even in the same category as other "things", being not a "thing" at all, but rather the existence of awareness that transcends the physical "machine" by which such thinking manifests inside the empirical universe. Everything else is simply part of that empiricial universe, bound to it physically and existing no other way. Only imagination moves beyond the empirical.

You can itemize a bazzilion qualities of matter, and not one particle of any of that infinite stuff THINKS: that's what they all share in common. If a rock started to think (became self-aware like homo sapiens), then it would be the only other thing in the universe that shares that with the human brain.

If you don't think that your capability to imagine is "special" because it is the only thing in the universe that does it, then maybe you'd be better suited as a rock?

…completely arbitrary…

You have no more proof of this assertion than someone who says that metaphysical knowledge is real. You claim arbitrariness is so because there is seemingly a virtual endlessness to the manifestations of matter in our universe: you equalize everything because in your mind there is no metaphysical anything.

Everyone I know of who believes in the reality of the metaphysical absolutely denies your assertion. Only those few who have no experience of or belief in the metaphysical even entertain such an assertion….

crhkrebs21 Mar 2010 12:45 p.m. PST

Our sapience is "special" because the unique quality we alone have is the capacity to not only notice what sets other things in the world apart, but also how to imagine manipulating everything, even taking advantage of each thing's uniqueness.

Allow me to differ.

Doug, you are sentient and sapient. You "think" you are special. We are all like that. We all cherish our sapience and sentience and it is a joy contemplating things. We are all the same in this respect.

BUT (and this is a BIG but….)

It is only one avenue that evolution has chosen to make an organism fit. Evolution doesn't give a rat's *ss about how "special" we think we are, because of our innate ability to think.

Firstly, we haven't been around long enough to know if the ability to think is a successful survival tactic. The jury is still out.

Secondly, since we are the only species left alive from the entire Genus Homo, I think that it is debatable whether "thinking" IS that useful. Our Genus is only 2.4 million years old, and 3 species out of 4, with a similar propensity to think, dream and imagine are already dead. I'm not that hopeful on species #4 either, sad to say.

Thirdly, the insects and bacteria that you scorn because they don't "think" have been alive hundreds of millions of years and billions of years, respectively. Their ability is to adapt to rapidly changing environments and to breed quickly.

You disdain them because they don't dream of space flight, contemplate morality or compose symphonies. Evolution doesn't care a whit about those abilities. Your entire argument is one big anthromorphic delusion of grandeur. What these humble creatures CAN do is something that none of the "thinkers" and "contemplaters" in the Genus Homo have done…..SURVIVE!

The only reason we are here is because these "non-thinking" humble creatures have been around for billions of years (in the case of bacteria) and have bio-engineered this planet and it's atmosphere into a form that is consistent with our eventual arrival.

I enjoy our species' ability to contemplate and be sentient and communicate to others, as much as the next guy. I'm enjoying this typing right now. But that doesn't make me or you any more "special" or "unique" than the hundred million lifeforms that live between the keys on our computer's keyboard right now. They also have incredible special and unique abilities that allow them to be much, much, much better at survival than we will ever be. Unfortunately, that is what evolution selects for……..not our sentience.

God didn't build this planet, the seas and our atmosphere. Microorganisms did. They built our Eden. You should give them a little respect, if just for that.

Ralph

RockyRusso21 Mar 2010 1:11 p.m. PST

Hi

micro organizims did not "build the planet".

The metaphyisical cannot be refuted just because you cannot prove it NOW. Helio centricism want not refutable until it was.

the necessary cause: if you can imagine an eternal "god" as a necessary god, then surely you can immagine an eternal universe without a "god" causing it. Thus, this sort of "reasoning" is just being founded by the bias of being raised in a judeo/christian tradition. Or as the athiests say, "well, then, who created god".

R

Daffy Doug21 Mar 2010 4:46 p.m. PST

Evolution doesn't care a whit about those abilities.

:) You make evolution sound like a sapient force at work.

Your entire argument is one big anthromorphic delusion of grandeur.

Really. Imagination has brought us to the brink of space travel and you call it a delusion?

What these humble creatures CAN do is something that none of the "thinkers" and "contemplaters" in the Genus Homo have done…..SURVIVE!

Why admire simple lifeforms that survive and yet have no more cognizance of existence than a rock?

And you don't know if we aren't going to survive. I find your lack of faith/hope disturbing (yet again).

If nothing about our position to think imaginatively impresses, gives hope or is in any way uniquely special, then admire the rocks, says I. They don't even need to adapt to anything.

God didn't build this planet, the seas and our atmosphere. Microorganisms did. They built our Eden. You should give them a little respect, if just for that.

Who/what "built" the micro organisms? I didn't "build" my children either. But I had something to do with their getting here. It's all part of the system. And some Cause had to establish the self-perpetuating system. Nothing (save the NC itself) can ever establish itself out of nothing….

@Rocky: the necessary cause: if you can imagine an eternal "god" as a necessary god, then surely you can immagine an eternal universe without a "god" causing it. Thus, this sort of "reasoning" is just being founded by the bias of being raised in a judeo/christian tradition. Or as the athiests say, "well, then, who created god".

R


I reject in all its essential (dogmatic) details any "brand" of Judeo-Christianity as a revealed truth from "God". And I lump all other religions into the same rejection.

Thus "my" NC isn't in any way beholden to established, traditional, historical religious exegesis.

"My" NC is required for scientific reasons; logical, "necessary" reasons.

Your assertion that an "eternal universe without a god causing it" is imaginable fails on the insistence of those who wish to remain "Godless": that such traits as our sapience can arise from an eternal godless universe that does not possess those sapient traits.

IMHO, nothing we see empirically manifested can possibly arise without this asserted "godless eternal universe" also possessing the martix for said-traits, i.e. we are intelligent, and so too must the universe be (even if it is godless, but saying that is oxymoronic).

I choose to call that eternal pattern for life "God". It certainly isn't finite like I am. And the only infinite, sapient force in the eternal universe – according to my greatest of all possible concepts (so far) – is worthy of my worship….

gweirda21 Mar 2010 5:22 p.m. PST

"…such traits as our sapience can arise from an eternal godless universe that does not possess those sapient traits."

Rather than "possess" I view it as "allows". Sort of like the "matrix" mentioned. A set of behavioral rules/restraints (for "stuff" itself, not just life/evolution) can, I suppose, be said to "create" facets/manifestations (like blue and brain -and, yes: to a non-chauvinist they are the same unless/until reason/evidence is provided to show why one is more "special" than the other --the assertion that "brains are best" is akin to saying our planet is best just because we live on it and it suits us so well) but one needn't go so far as to inhabit this matrix with those traits as one would stock store shelves. There is no need for an NC to exist in possession of all that can/may exist in order to have stuff configure itself in display of the multitude of manifestations we perceive (and, of course: all the ones we can't…which you keep ignoring the value of in placing imagination/thought at the pinacle of existence). The argument that only intelligence can beget intelligence means that only blue can beget blue PROVIDED the arbitrary nature of evolution is accepted. If evolution is rejected/discarded as the source (or "creator") for the various traits/characteristics (or only -for some unknown reason- just intelligence/imagination) then, sure: anything is fair game.

crhkrebs21 Mar 2010 7:13 p.m. PST

micro organizims did not "build the planet".

No Rocky, the sun made the planet. It's a figure of speech. I assumed you could figure that out yourself. The planet was a rapidly cooling volcanic ball with a toxic reducing atmosphere. To get from that to the Cambrian explosion you needed a few billion years of bacterial terra-forming.

Ralph

crhkrebs21 Mar 2010 7:39 p.m. PST

:) You make evolution sound like a sapient force at work.

I'll try and be more clinical so you don't get so easily confused. Did you even think about the point I was putting forward?

Really. Imagination has brought us to the brink of space travel and you call it a delusion?

I didn't say "Imagination". Your reading skills are lacking. I said your entire argument. You know:

We are intelligent
Therefore the Universe is intelligent
Therefore everything is about us.

Anthromorphic delusions of grandeur seems about right.

Why admire simple lifeforms that survive and yet have no more cognizance of existence than a rock?

Oh God, you actually missed the whole point. You scorn the simple lifeforms because they are not us, and use different tactics to survive that doesn't involve thinking, which is our tactic. Especially since the jury is still out on how successful "thinking" is as an evolutionary trait. Do you get that at least?

And you don't know if we aren't going to survive. I find your lack of faith/hope disturbing (yet again).

Wow, now you are quoting Darth Vader. Yes, I'm a bit pessimistic about our species survival, especially as our intelligence may be our undoing.

If nothing about our position to think imaginatively impresses, gives hope or is in any way uniquely special, then admire the rocks, says I.

I feel like I'm talking to rock right now. The comprehension level is about the same.

Who/what "built" the micro organisms?

I don't know. But I do know simplicity derives complexity simply through the laws of physics. Enough complexity and you may cross a blurred line to life. Before you get to microorganisms you get things like viruses and prions, which are not alive but share some characteristic of life.

And some Cause had to establish the self-perpetuating system.

How tedious. Another unsubstantiated statement.

Nothing (save the NC itself) can ever establish itself out of nothing….

Yet another unsubstantiated statement, combined with special pleading. "Unmoved mover" anyone?

Ralph

RockyRusso22 Mar 2010 12:45 p.m. PST

Hi

I don't see how you, doug, get to the "nothing save the NC itself.." idea. If the NC is eternal…follow that one.

Again, I see your insistance about sapience as a version of observer bias. "Made man in his own image…" stuff.

Ralph, If you had said "the current conditions"..then I would have no quibble. actually, gravity 'created"…

Our intelligence.. that is buying into my first training in anthro. And I am not sure I buy your fear. The issue is the concept not of sapience, but the odd nature of humanity. In order for separate species to truely be a species we need isolation of populations to allow mutation and drift to eventually produce a separate species.

The problem is that the concept with both canis and homo is still out. Both species first developed the trait of long distance travel. This makes drift and isolated mutation producing difference difficult. In short, we go over the horizon and have sex.

In parallel, the endangered speies act is struggling with "wolf species" protection. One issue is the eastern red wolf, which freely interbreeds with both dogs and coyotes and some naturalists suggest that there is no such species to preserve. There may be a similar episode to deal with with hominid. We get "walk" first, and our range explodes. It is difficult to be certain that our various hominid species selected for intelligence were actually genetically distinct enough that in fact they were not actually just developmental sub species.

Rocky

Daffy Doug22 Mar 2010 4:04 p.m. PST

I feel like I'm talking to rock right now. The comprehension level is about the same.

I was enjoying this until your response turned foul. You seem to have serious problems with comprehension (even of humor) yourself.

gweirda22 Mar 2010 4:12 p.m. PST

so, Doug…would you care to discuss WW1 aircombat instead?

; ) (hoping to keep this light / friendly…)

Daffy Doug22 Mar 2010 4:13 p.m. PST

I don't see how you, doug, get to the "nothing save the NC itself.." idea. If the NC is eternal…follow that one.

"Eternal" is a space-time concept. TFW is what "causes" space-time: for, as Einstein quipped, "Keeping everything from happening at once."

That means that TFW "holds" everything that exists within space-time continually present in one infinitely increasing NOW. And the only way that Existence in the first place is possible is if TFW is the only uncaused Cause. TFW simply IS.

The opposite of a fecund space-time infinitely/eternally increasing is the VOID: darkness with nothing. TFW does that "state" too, but, if my intuition tells me anything close to the truth, TFW prefers being fecund rather than "sit alone in the Darkness with Nothing"….

Daffy Doug22 Mar 2010 4:23 p.m. PST

gweirda: Rather than "possess" I view it as "allows".

Okay, "allows" works for me. I allow things all the time. Semantics don't change the NC being evident fact.

Ralph says "I don't know", but chooses to hold some amorphous extremely limited (limiting) concept of an eternal universe that just exists because that is what it does: but he won't consider that intelligence residing within the universe (actively part of it in fact) cannot be explained as a mere fluke. The universe must "allow" intelligence to rise within itself, ergo it is natural to the universe and comprehended by it.

To assume that our intelligence is some kind of trait alien to the universe (not comprehended for what it is), is as silly as saying that math only exists because homo sapiens invented it.

And yes, I would rather discuss WW1 air combat. If you start a thread on "Biplanes" let me know….

crhkrebs22 Mar 2010 6:34 p.m. PST

I feel like I'm talking to rock right now. The comprehension level is about the same.

I was enjoying this until your response turned foul.

Good. See how I feel. Now go back and read (not skim) what I wrote. Then ponder your stupid comment, "If nothing about our position to think imaginatively impresses, gives hope or is in any way uniquely special, then admire the rocks, says I."

You will see it has absolutely nothing to do with what I was talking about. I won't repeat myself for a third time. My "foul" response was earned by your indifference to an opinion other than your own.

Intelligent discourse is a 2-way street. Kindly have the respect to properly read someones comments before you make inappropriate retorts to them. Otherwise you're just another TJ.

Ralph

crhkrebs22 Mar 2010 7:22 p.m. PST

Rocky,

Nice story. I read it twice. I still can't figure out what this has to do with what I'm talking about.

Ralph

Daffy Doug23 Mar 2010 8:31 a.m. PST

Ralph, who enjoys being bristly more than trying for transparent: your observation that crude, "simple" lifeforms are more admirable than our unique sapience, was taken by me to be a form of argumentation and not a serious point of view: thus my comment "If you don't think that your capability to imagine is "special" because it is the only thing in the universe that does it, then maybe you'd be better suited as a rock?" It wasn't addressed to you and gweirda took no offense. But I was pointing out a fallacy.

Your fallacy was in comparing simple life that isn't even sentient to our unique sapience: and then getting annoyed because I didn't take you seriously. I do "get it": life as we know it started out (evidently) as simple, single cell, non sentinent: and that life still exists alongside our so-fresh experiment, unchanged, ongoing, enduring. You admire that. I find it a total yawner quite frankly. The universe is filled with simple particles, some of it evidently "alive" and most of it not. So what? Here we are, the only life that really thinks imaginatively, and all you can point out is the obvious fact that simple, stoopider lifeforms are much older and "survive" better (maybe)….

RockyRusso23 Mar 2010 10:00 a.m. PST

Hi

Doug, if you can imagine an eteranal entity called "God" or "Necessary Cause", there is no logical reason to not accept as plausable an eternal universe that just IS.

Just like the NC.

The issue, I think, is that you grew up with Genesis which stars with an empty void and god. Without some testable evidence, I cannot support the idea that as we are sentient, something about existance itself must be sentient.

And that applies to Ralph's not getting my "story". The issue is intelligence as merely an evolutionary ploy, an attribute that is tested by evolution that might be a failure in that there are failed hominid species that tried the whole "better than a chimp" brain size.

My suggestion is that the problem with declaring a human species, or a dog species might not be as direct as other species. Both Dog and Man first "chose" long range walking. This "choice", not to imply an actual decision, leads to defined "species" that are not actual separate species as defined as NOT being able to interbreed. Thus, with hominid, the failure might not be due to the failure of the brain, but that local drift was re-merged back into the general strain.

Or, as in, world wide, there are wolves, coyote and various dogs, but not really. There are hominids that were just "races" rather than separate species.

Rocky

crhkrebs23 Mar 2010 2:59 p.m. PST

@Doug

….your observation that crude, "simple" lifeforms are more admirable than our unique sapience,……

Excellent example of something that was never said but attributed to me. I challenge you to find the corroborating quote. I didn't bother reading the rest…….you're already going in the wrong direction.

@Rocky

You fleshed out your argument better and I see where you are now heading with it. I think that the experts (I can only parrot their findings) believe

H Habibis
H Neanderthalis
H Floresiensis
H Sapiens

are all separate species. These are the 4 agreed upon. It's

H Rudolfensis
H Ergaster
H Georgicus
H Antecessor

that they are not clear about. They are sure H Heidelbergensis is a subsection of H Neanderthalis.

Bottom line.

We think. We enjoy thinking. We value it. Therefore we anthropomorphize it. We project it onto the Universe and project it onto made up gods and demons. It's nonsense. It's the big tool in our survival toolbox. As our entire genus is only a few million years old, the jury is still out on how successful intelligence is as a survival tactic. Whereas (for example) the jury says the cockroach is pretty damned successful.

Special note to Doug: I don't worship cockroaches, I don't find them more admirable than humans, I don't prefer cockroaches to humans, I don't even like them. But I took enough biology to know a winner when I see one. Geddit?

Ralph

Ghecko24 Mar 2010 3:25 a.m. PST

To 138SquadronRAF:

If this thread ever gets back to something that even looks a little scientific and off all this mindless philosophy (or whatever it is) I may decide to join back in.

Till then, enjoy the mindless waffling on.

Regards.

crhkrebs24 Mar 2010 8:34 a.m. PST

….all this mindless philosophy

For someone who is "intelligent discourse" challenged, you are one to talk.

Ralph

crhkrebs24 Mar 2010 8:36 a.m. PST

Doug, I tried to PM you about a different topic at the TMP site. Your "P" button isn't highlighted and doesn't work. If you enable it I can contact you.

Ralph

RockyRusso24 Mar 2010 11:35 a.m. PST

Hi

As I said elsewhere in this thread… as a lad in university I was given the privilage of personally examining using the tools of the day, Australopithecene remains. It was, for me, "spirital".

Clearly not ape like.

WE are evolving. I am not convinced that "success" is merely finding a niche and fitting it. And there isn't a lot of evidence of cockroaches of today being the same species of the cockroaches of millions of years ago. Sharks as a group are also ancient, but the modern species are "modern".

Another way to look at humanity is this way. We are apes that can be linked back to the first lemurs, the critical non-ape change is in the middle of the foot BEFORE the big brain. Walking long range changed everything. Among other things, local phenomena are unlikely to take us out like the currently threatened other ape species.

There are two "bottlenecks" to our line where we came close, 70k ago and about 130. But I am not sure about now.

R

Daffy Doug24 Mar 2010 12:09 p.m. PST

Doug, if you can imagine an eteranal entity called "God" or "Necessary Cause", there is no logical reason to not accept as plausable an eternal universe that just IS.

Just like the NC.


I do. I just don't buy into "no intelligence". If the universe (infinite multiverse, whatever) "permits" intelligence, even sapient imagination that is apparently infinite in its own way, then SCIENTIFICALLY, the universe/multiverse must possess what it permits. I guess that the concept of a self-aware NC (be it even the entire multiverse or what's behind it) just gives some people the eebiejeebies.

The issue, I think, is that you grew up with Genesis which star[t]s with an empty void and god.

I never liked that book as a child and growing up didn't improve it much.

Without some testable evidence, I cannot support the idea that as we are sentient, something about existance itself must be sentient.

Only that, the universe allowing/permitting traits to arise that don't have an origin, is ex nihilo.

My finite brain can hold the concept easily of TFW permitting/allowing/causing space-time and "populating" it with an infinity of worlds and lifeforms, moment following moment, forever: and all the while TFW holds the entire mess as a singular NOW, aware of every particle from the cosmic to the subatomic – as well as VOID, Darkness with Nothing for infinity: the one held opposite to the other….

Daffy Doug24 Mar 2010 12:14 p.m. PST

@Ralph: But I took enough biology to know a winner when I see one. Geddit?

Yes, you admire "a winner". Okay, not more than thinkers. That was an apparently false assumption on my part about your perspective.

I think I made my position clear: I don't view mere "survival" as a comparative tool here. Your objections to our species anthropomorphizing existence is a pointless argument, imho, and doesn't signify any real evidence that TFW must be merely a human construct. As I said, my theology doesn't depend on or borrow anything from dogmatic definitions of what/who TFW is.

Doug, I tried to PM you about a different topic at the TMP site. Your "P" button isn't highlighted and doesn't work. If you enable it I can contact you.

I no longer have a supporting membership account, ergo no PM functions. You could always email me, douglarsen50 at msn dot com….

Daffy Doug24 Mar 2010 12:25 p.m. PST

@TJRAYMOND: "mindless philosophical waffling", if it produces BIGGER concepts about who/what TFW is, have already transcended "The Good Book" by more than a skosh. If you continue to hold that "The Good Book" contains all that TFW has revealed or ever will reveal, then I politely suggest that in this world of a broadening and speeding-up Information Highway, you are living with mounting cognitivie dissonance….

britishlinescarlet225 Mar 2010 1:39 a.m. PST

link

Thought you might find this interesting.

Pete

crhkrebs25 Mar 2010 4:05 a.m. PST

If this thread ever gets back to something that even looks a little scientific……..

By "scientific" do you mean like when you stated that the process of Evolution breaks the Second Law of Thermodynamics? Is that the "science" you are talking about?

crhkrebs25 Mar 2010 4:12 a.m. PST

I think I made my position clear: I don't view mere "survival" as a comparative tool here.

But that IS what we are talking about as this is an EVOLUTION thread. Evolution "selects" on a basis of survivability, not the ability to dream up space travel and write symphonies.

Your objections to our species anthropomorphizing existence is a pointless argument, imho…..

Our survival tool is our ability to think. You are projecting that ability onto the Universe. You think that that is any less a pointless exercise?

…TFW holds the entire mess as a singular NOW…..

Sure, Deepak.

Ralph

gweirda25 Mar 2010 6:46 a.m. PST

"Only that, the universe allowing/permitting traits to arise that don't have an origin, is ex nihilo."

From this I infer that it's not just sentience/imagination that is/was pre-existing to its manifestation, but every trait that we are aware of (and, again: What about those we do not perceive?).

The opinion that sentience/imagination is held to be "special" just because one thinks it's kewl is tangential to the greater implication that holding to a pre-existing, all-encompassing wal-mart of traits is somehow necessary for things to exist -an idea justified only because the concept of ex nihilo is found to be too difficult for one of those things -intelligence- to wrap itself around.

Such an idea -if held- presents a cosmology wherein any/every trait of matter (not just evolved life) sits on a shelf waiting for…what?…"Oh, look" -says the NC- "those quarks-atoms-molecules are about to form the proper structure: Better send in some hardness from the stock in the void (aisle 5?)…" Seems silly to me. Colorful as a story, sure -but wholly unnecessary, and perhaps delusional insofar as it dismisses one of the key components/foundations of evolution: its arbitrary nature (as well as the arbitrary nature of nature -ie: the laws that govern/regulate the behavior of stuff).

Water poured into a glass takes the shape of the glass -not because the shape was pre-existing in some ethereal void waiting to be manifested, but because the arbitrary result of how stuff acts produced that shape. Likewise, the brain can think and ponder and imagine -not because that ability was…what?…inserted?…into the behavior of a particular bunch of stuff, but because of the arbitrary result of how that group of stuff acts.

Thinking is just another behavior of stuff -no matter how kewl it may be. To say different is to beg the question of how (without chauvenism) one can demonstrate how it is unique from all other traits -not because of its ability, but because of how it came to exist in a way separate from all other traits.

138SquadronRAF25 Mar 2010 6:50 a.m. PST

So there you have it gentle reader, TJ, will not answer this simple question:

When a Prof. of Biology gives a lecture on evolution that is then broadcast on Youtube, then the contents can be rejected because of it appeared on Youtube. So in what circumstances would that lecture be acceptable to the creationists? Could such a format also be shared with the rest of the TMP community?

Daffy Doug25 Mar 2010 8:57 a.m. PST

But that IS what we are talking about as this is an EVOLUTION thread. Evolution "selects" on a basis of survivability, not the ability to dream up space travel and write symphonies.

You keep saying that. And you keep dragging me back on-topic (or trying your level-headed best). And I keep jumping the tracks. This time I didn't start it! :) It doesn't take much to encourage me.

Our survival tool is our ability to think. You are projecting that ability onto the Universe. You think that that is any less a pointless exercise?

It happens to be the way we are made. It is what draws us to the stars and will result in our getting off this planet: while "your" precious micro organisms in all of their perfectly non sentient state will never even notice.

You pass over our sapience as a mere accident of mindless evolution. Yet you define your concept of existence by the very mathematical exegesis that WE invented. By your logic the universe doesn't exist at all! Since everything you use to define it was anthropomorphically invented, and we are the ONLY anthropomorphism. Nothing we say can be trusted to be true, because our thinking, being unique, does not have application to any of the rest of existence.

Deepak…

I have never read anything by Chopra. I only know who you are referencing, because my son years ago told me that he was visiting Chopra's Website in his search for spiritual meaning. I couldn't pick Deepak out of a lineup….

Daffy Doug25 Mar 2010 9:10 a.m. PST

Seems silly to me. Colorful as a story, sure -but wholly unnecessary, and perhaps delusional insofar as it dismisses one of the key components/foundations of evolution: its arbitrary nature (as well as the arbitrary nature of nature -ie: the laws that govern/regulate the behavior of stuff).

Stories are silly? Yes some/most of them are, I guess. But as the storyteller in "1,001 Arabian Nights" told Scheherazade, "People need stories more than they need food."

In fact, your facile little exercise IS a story that explores the heart of the matter of the relationship of the NC to our own existence. Shelves and aisles, numbered ingredients, etc., denote purpose and capacity, even intent. Which is much the same approach of "The Good Book".

Arbitrariness is merely a perception made with limited knowledge. As I told Ralph, the scientific exegesis (especially the mathematical) is entirely a creation of our species, which thinks up such things to explain the universe/existence. By using the same logical dismissal of the NC as a mere "projection of anthropomorphic thought", so too, must we dismiss all of our pondering as pointless projection upon the rest of the universe which is NOT anthropomorphic.

Or, we can ascribe to the NC the same traits we possess. And the rest of the universe also possesses traits of the NC, manifesting through creation (oh, that word)….

gweirda25 Mar 2010 9:50 a.m. PST

"Arbitrariness is merely a perception made with limited knowledge….dismiss all of our pondering as pointless projection upon the rest of the universe which is NOT anthropomorphic."

Right -though I would, perhaps, drop the last four words as being unecessary to the position. The idea is stated fairly well, yet is dismissed out-of-hand in favor of…

"…the universe also possesses traits of the NC, manifesting through creation…"

Why? (Aside, of course, from it making you all tingly inside.)

To say that we (and our brains/thoughts/imaginations) are nothing at all remarkable and do not possess the ability to winkle out/fathom how stuff works beyond its usefullness to our own insignificant exisitence seems to me to be not so bad a thing (or inherently illogical/false) as to automatically generate a "We're tied to the NC by a special bond of creation/purpose" stipulation that elevates us to top-of-the-heap status. (Still wondering how/why our thinking came to be in a way separate from all other traits.)

What is wrong about the idea that our limited, arbitrary perception/understanding -that is the result of nothing more than a random arrangement/behavior of some of the stuff that makes us up- is unable to point at and/or grasp a greater foundation of how/why stuff is the way it is? We are, simply, what we are: the water has taken the shape of the glass it's been poured into. The fact that that shape is not specially-tied to some super-dee-dooper NC is not an idea-killer, IMO.

Daffy Doug25 Mar 2010 2:27 p.m. PST

I ask a different question in an attempt to answer your question: Why point out how important all of our other ideas/concepts/inventions are, EXCEPT the metaphysical? What makes that singular propensity of our species something to be dismissed/scorned as "anthropomorphicizing the universe"?

Either the metaphysical is remarkable or everything about our thinking is all unremarkable. To concentrate on the empirical sciences as some kind of panacea of knowledge, when our imaginations delve at least as much into the imaginative as the empirical, seems like a prejudice of thought. Our inventions that specialize the empirical are somehow more reliable? How do we know that?…

gweirda25 Mar 2010 2:41 p.m. PST

"…or everything about our thinking is all unremarkable."

That's the point that I was agreeing with --and that you seem to dismiss out of hand for some reason.

"Our inventions that specialize the empirical are somehow more reliable? How do we know that?…"

We don't, and I don't think a scientist worth the title would claim that they are. (NOTE: the context being a human trait/ability that works/delves deeper than our shallow, arbitrary existence.)


ps- off to work…

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34