"Darwin Day" Topic

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.)

I passed over this before. I want to point out a couple of things.

You make our unique thinking capacity for imagination, and our equally unique capacity to carry imagination into the realm of functionality, out to be "nothing at all remarkable". Fingernail parings are no more significant than our thoughts. You are arguing to an absurd degree to make a point: which seems to be that there is no hierarchy to the existence of things. You would put no importance on anything at all. Yet the universe, cosmic and micro evolution, puts hierarchy on everything. Anything of less importance to survival (further development) gets downgraded: lifeforms go extinct because of that hierarchy.

In fact, our capacity to imagine far exceeds our needs to survive. We "fathom" many things that have nothing to do with survival. Almost as if our evolution was intended to bring us to this point. (And man has it happened fast.)

We don't know if our existence places us in a "preferred" status vis-a-vis the rest of the universe. We can only see that nothing is above us in the intelligence contest: not by the remotest stretch can any other brained animals compare to us. So assuming some special purpose is natural for us to imagine for ourselves. We are the only animals that seek TFW: most of us do and always have. We want to understand things.

But you're right: we can't "winkle out" how everything works. And that comes close to the basis of the ontological argument. TFW is infinitely beyond the greatest "winkling" we can possibly do….

"We can only see…"

Re: Humanity's arbitrary, shallow, insignificant perspective.

That, for me, is a huge limiting factor -whereas you seem to use it as justification for defining existence.

Our intelligence (no matter how unique or kewl it may be to you) is just one of many known (and -you continue to ignore- a potential multitude of unknown) traits/manifestations of stuff. To use it as a basis for how (much less why) stuff is the way it is -on a grand, cosmological scale- is the ultimate hubris.

How we see and/or think about things (and how we may imagine stuff) has value only within the scope of our own existence -and that scope is (no ifs, ands, or buts) so petty on a universal scale that it is absurd to assert any form of super-dee-dooperness to it/ourselves.

The cosmos is so large that we -even with our super-dee-dooper brains- cannot comprehend its extent/form: only make vague guesses using the limited sensory/congnitive tools that have (arbitrarily) evolved. (Even using such terms as "large" and "extent" display a significant limitation to our paltry comprehensive ability.) To say that "We are the only animals that seek TFW" is such a small claim to fame that being the least proud of it -much less using it as a pass to the executive washroom- is at best laughable, and at worst horribly destructive insofar as the "We're #1" delusional mindset generates harmful behavior.

anyway…enough morning blather…time to load up the car and head off to a con for some dice-rolling!

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 25th, which repeated my question of March 18th, which repeated 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……

After over three months I get this:

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.

Gentle reader, is that the resposnse of a gentleman interest in a civil discourse? Could TJ be another form of net denizen entirely? That is entirely a matter for you and I could not possibly comment.

All I am interested in is a streight answer to 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?

Our intelligence (no matter how unique or kewl it may be to you) is just one of many known (and -you continue to ignore- a potential multitude of unknown) traits/manifestations of stuff. To use it as a basis for how (much less why) stuff is the way it is -on a grand, cosmological scale- is the ultimate hubris.

This is what I don't get about your attitude, gweirda: you seem to be advocating for dismissing the ONE trait we do not share with anything else in the universe, and that is our limitless imagination. It is not the same hierarchically as "blueness" or anything else: it is literally the highest form of existence we know about. Yet you want to relegate it to something suspicious, unreliable, delusional: instead of exercising it to the fullest extent possible, i.e. exactly what it seems "designed" to do. That is not hubris, it's pushing to your full potential.

This imagination of ours reaches far beyond the limits pf perceived space-time. So it isn't as puny and feckless as you seem to believe.

…"We're #1" delusional mindset generates harmful behavior.

Of course it does! And it also got us to where we are now: ready to launch ourselves into the galaxy and beyond: we'd do it in an eyeblink if someone gave us the capacity (Star Gate SG1 anybody?). The potential bad and good will always be with us. If we pull back because we fear our own brain power we'll atrophy and die out….

Hi

Actually, doug, you have no idea if our imagination is unique.

In fact imagination is a testable and usable trait. As is a belief in magic. It works this way, the observation is that people imagine all the time that they know the future. A limited example is "wishing" some friend would call. The 900 times it doesn't happen, you forget it. The ONE time by coincidence the phone rings, you jump, say " I KNEW it was YOU…" is the one you remember.

This is a survival trait. The short version of the studies done on this is, seeing the grass ripple and imagining a preditor only has to be right every so often to be a survival trait. Being wrong about the movement as a threat isn't a detriment.

Notice that your CAT sometimes hears a noise, Imagines something, responds to what he imagines only to be disappointed that there is no prey to kill or no threat to avoid.

Imagine is, at least, a common mammalian trait.

R

Looks like the Creationist approach has slopped over into this work on Napoleonic History:

link

An interesting review that does name it's sources. TJ would be proud I am sure if he ever bothered with replies.

In fact imagination is a testable and usable trait. As is a belief in magic. It works this way, the observation is that people imagine all the time that they know the future. A limited example is "wishing" some friend would call. The 900 times it doesn't happen, you forget it. The ONE time by coincidence the phone rings, you jump, say " I KNEW it was YOU…" is the one you remember.

This is a survival trait. The short version of the studies done on this is, seeing the grass ripple and imagining a preditor only has to be right every so often to be a survival trait. Being wrong about the movement as a threat isn't a detriment.

Well said, Rocky. This is an example of pariedolia, the psychological phenomenon involving a vague and random stimulus being perceived as significant (thanks Wiki).

We all do this because we "look" for patterns and correlations, even when there aren't any.

Ralph

Doug says:

You make our unique thinking capacity for imagination, and our equally unique capacity to carry imagination into the realm of functionality, out to be "nothing at all remarkable". Fingernail parings are no more significant than our thoughts. You are arguing to an absurd degree to make a point: which seems to be that there is no hierarchy to the existence of things. You would put no importance on anything at all. Yet the universe, cosmic and micro evolution, puts hierarchy on everything. Anything of less importance to survival (further development) gets downgraded: lifeforms go extinct because of that hierarchy.

I'm trying to follow this. I'm having a hard time. For instance what is, "…cosmic and micro evolution…." supposed to mean? Give some examples of, "…the universe….. puts hierarchy on everything." so I know what you are talking about. Also what does, "Anything of less importance to survival (further development) gets downgraded: lifeforms go extinct because of that hierarchy." mean? Give examples.

Then tell us what your point is and how these examples support your thesis. Otherwise these are "deep and meaningless" statements, ala Deepak Chopra

Ralph

Gentle reader, is that the resposnse of a gentleman interest in a civil discourse?

TJ is busy scouring through the IDiot and Creatard Websites, plagiarizing them, and then he's going to pass that off as his own thinking here. Give him time.

Give up on your question RAF. TJ won't answer that because he doesn't have an answer for it.

Ralph

Actually, doug, you have no idea if our imagination is unique.
…
Imagine is, at least, a common mammalian trait.

Of course it is unique: it is "skyscraper-sized" imgination, not just wondering if the grass waving contains anything useful or scary….

what is, "…cosmic and micro evolution…."

Evolution on a cosmic scale, i.e the way galaxies and what makes them up form; the universe is apparently evolving as we go. And evolution on the atomic and subatomic scale, resulting in life.

Give some examples of, "the universe….. puts hierarchy on everything"

I was referring to the way evolution selects for survival and complexity. Every contender with our species is extinct; our superior intellect survived, making lesser intellect lower in the hierarchy of importance.

Also what does, "Anything of less importance to survival (further development) gets downgraded: lifeforms go extinct because of that hierarchy." mean? Give examples.

The lower orders died off. Sometimes they just get marginalized and then either strike a balance (like the aggressive and passive chimps referred to by gunfreak a few pages back), or eventually become endangered and go extinct. This process occurs when evolution doesn't give equal advantage to contending species. There really is no such thing as "balance in nature", no harmony. That's only a perception romantic conservationists make by viewing nature right now: but it's like judging from a snapshot. So the disadvantaged traits suffer degradation through comparison to the stronger survival traits in the contending species.

Then tell us what your point is and how these examples support your thesis. Otherwise these are "deep and meaningless" statements

My argument with gweirda, not my NC thesis. Tangentally it applies as evidence for a NC. I focus, naturally, upon our intellect as uniquely HUGE; making our search for TFW as valid as mathematics or any science or invention. To relegate our sapience to the same level as biological similarities in ourselves with other mammals is arguing absurdity. And because our intellect dreams up virtually infinite concepts -- far beyond the needs for survival at any point since we appeared on the scene less than a million years ago -- it is evidence that our brain's "design" is intended to search the stars, and do that as quickly as possible….

Give up on your question RAF. TJ won't answer that because he doesn't have an answer for it.

Well he's obviously chosen to ignore a simple, civil question. Three months is long enough. He will never give me a streight answer now. So we are left in the dark. It will not however stop me from sharing videos of real scientists talking about real science from whatever source.

Is TJ a gentleman or some other less palatable net denizen? You decide gentle reader, I could not possible comment.

Here are Professors Richard Dawkins and PZ Myers talking on matters of interest here. THe source "The Austrian Broadcasting Corporation"

link

It's not Youtube so the creatards and similar net denizens can't whine.

Every contender with our species is extinct; our superior intellect survived, making lesser intellect lower in the hierarchy of importance.

You vs a squid at 100 meters depth- try it.

'Survival of the fittest' means 'best fitted'.

Evolution on a cosmic scale, i.e the way galaxies and what makes them up form; the universe is apparently evolving as we go.

Be careful here. The word "evolution" is used but means something totally different here. Totally different processes are at work.

And evolution on the atomic and subatomic scale, resulting in life.

This is a scientifically meaningless statement. Atoms and subatomic particles do not evolve.

I was referring to the way evolution selects for survival and complexity.

Evolution does NOT select for complexity. In some species (all the eukaryotes), their complexity allows the individuals to be more fit. Complexity does not necessarily imply fitness. There is a big difference. The VAST majority of lifeforms on this planet are unicellular and rather simple and very successful. You are anthropomorphizing again.

Complexity will come out of simplicity as a function of physics. The presence or absence of life notwithstanding.

Every contender with our species is extinct….

I assume you mean "within". You are still wrong. Every contender within our GENUS is now extinct.

…..our superior intellect survived, making lesser intellect lower in the hierarchy of importance.

First, you can't tell that H. Sapiens was more intelligent than H. Neanderthalis or H. Florensiesis, just because they left more artifacts. Maybe H.N. or H.F. were more predisposed to philosophy than building flints (Haha!). Seriously, it's like saying the ancient Egyptians were much more intelligent than the ancient Israelites, because they built pyramids and the Israelites didn't.

Second, no one (least of all you) can tell that "intelligence" had anything to do with the survivability of the Homo genus. Paleontologists know that Homo Sapiens had a much wider diet than did H. Neanderthalis. Therefore, we were more adept at finding food during droughts and changing environmental conditions. Think about the survivability situation of Brown Bears in contrast to Panda Bears. Intelligence within the Ursus Genus has little to do with it.

Your concept of "hierarchy" is biologically indefensible.

The lower orders died off. Sometimes they just get marginalized and then either strike a balance (like the aggressive and passive chimps referred to by gunfreak a few pages back), or eventually become endangered and go extinct.

Really. Tell that to one of the most intelligent animals on the planet, that happens to be so endangered that they are not expected to survive throughout the next 2 decades………the highland Gorilla. Next to Pan Troglodytus, I believe they are our next closest genetic relative. Another example of diet selectivity and low breeding rate being way more important than intelligence as an indicator of fitness.

To relegate our sapience to the same level as biological similarities in ourselves with other mammals is arguing absurdity.

I don't know what this means. Our sapience is our tool. Flying fast is another animal's tool and breeding quickly is someone else's. They are all legitimate survival techniques. Intelligence doesn't have a good track record at this point.

And because our intellect dreams up virtually infinite concepts -- far beyond the needs for survival at any point since we appeared on the scene less than a million years ago -- it is evidence that our brain's "design" is intended to search the stars, and do that as quickly as possible….

Wrong again. Our brain's "design" was to allow us to survive in an inhospitable and ever changing environment in the face of equally well adapted competitors. The fact that we can contemplate, study and analyze the Universe around us is a happy, yet secondary benefit.

Ralph

Hi

Doug, the idea of imagination and animals is special pleading. You started with our "unique" then when pointed out that imagination was in others, you changed the criteria to "bigger".

The point is that a difference in Degree is not the same as a difference in KIND. You have seen your cat imagine invisible things to play with. And B.F.Skinner in his work demonstrated that animals subjected to random conditions not only imagine patterns, but imagine "magic" as a solution.

That your current assertion is that we do it "better" might be true, but it doesn't support your primary point.

Rocky

This is a scientifically meaningless statement. Atoms and subatomic particles do not evolve.

They combine into single cell life, which proceeds to evolve. That's all I meant.

Evolution does NOT select for complexity.

It does when complexity answers the need for survival, which life seems to have demanded for millions of years by now. If simple survival is all that evolution is after, why not do the entropy thing and revert all life back to unicellular?

The VAST majority of lifeforms on this planet are unicellular and rather simple and very successful. You are anthropomorphizing again.

Long ago, complex life ceased to compete with simple, unicellular life. And complexity continued, leaving behind every form that could not make the advance; 99%+ of all lifeforms on this world are extinct for this reason (excluding sweeping cataclysms). This was going on for billions of years before WE showed up. There's nothing anthropomporphic about that.

Complexity will come out of simplicity as a function of physics. The presence or absence of life notwithstanding.

I argue the obvious: that there is no such thing as simplicity in the first place. The BB was not a simple event just because it originated from a point of singularity. None of this existence is simple, just altering, morphing, evolving complexity: unicellular life is just one "ingredient" within a mass complexity that is never fixed in place: it never "arrives" at a finished point or state.

Seriously, it's like saying the ancient Egyptians were much more intelligent than the ancient Israelites, because they built pyramids and the Israelites didn't.

But since we are the most intelligent, with NO related cotenders anywhere in sight, the evidence is in favor of "we were the most intelligent". Or you can toss everything from the artifacts that paleontologists/anthropologists use to measure intelligence, and just argue creatively instead.

Tell that to one of the most intelligent animals on the planet, that happens to be so endangered that they are not expected to survive throughout the next 2 decades………the highland Gorilla. Next to Pan Troglodytus, I believe they are our next closest genetic relative. Another example of diet selectivity and low breeding rate being way more important than intelligence as an indicator of fitness.

I didn't say that only intelligence establishes the evoluntionary hierachy. Because intelligence is primarily what I am focusing on you conflated my statement to say that only intelligence decides. Of course all other factors apply as well. Evolution is always a complex of factors.

Intelligence doesn't have a good track record at this point.

And what is that supposed to mean? Oh yeah, you measure SURVIVAL as the ultimate, impressive best guage of a "good track record". As I said before, rocks survive just fine without having to worry about anything. And unicellular life doesn't worry about anything either (being non sentient) but still doesn't "survive" as certainly as rocks do. It's apparent that you and I have different values/expectations.

Our brain's "design" was to allow us to survive in an inhospitable and ever changing environment in the face of equally well adapted competitors. The fact that we can contemplate, study and analyze the Universe around us is a happy, yet secondary benefit.

Another assertion. You can't show that I am wrong with a mere assertion.

I assert that YOU are wrong, based on simple evolution: there is no reason why our brain power would evolve to far exceed the needs for simple survival (no other animals show such an excess of brain power). To your perspective survival is what matters.

So explain for me (us) how evolution managed to shoot so infinitely far beyond the mark where our minds are concerned. Why can we think of things that do not now, and certainly never did in the past, have the slightest thing to do with mere survival?…

Doug, the idea of imagination and animals is special pleading. You started with our "unique" then when pointed out that imagination was in others, you changed the criteria to "bigger".

I have quoted Hauser repeatedly (just last page even, the "cement footprint compared to the skyscraper of the human mind" analogy); so there is no application of any definition of "special pleading" from me.

You have seen your cat imagine invisible things to play with.

Perceived imagination in the minds of other species is a true case of human observation "projecting" human traits onto other animals where none exist (the elephant trained to sketch an elephant, for example, is not imagination on the elephant's part; it is just mimicry)

I don't know anything about B. F. Skinner, but suspect an expectation resulting in a conclusion. Your anecdote certainly seems like anthropomorphic projection to me.

My primary point isn't to claim an absolute difference between our minds and those of other animals; but rather, that our unique level of imaginative thought -- appearing on the scene in "an eyeblink of evolutionary time" -- is evidence for a theory of outside tampering. Some higher beings are "working" for the NC!…

Every contender with our species is extinct; our superior intellect survived, making lesser intellect lower in the hierarchy of importance.

You vs a squid at 100 meters depth- try it.

We have never been in competition with squids for survival. We know almost nothing about squid intellect. I am reminded of the undersea "race" of critters created by Arthur C. Clarke in his "The Songs of Distant Earth". They were obviously intelligent, perhaps VERY intelligent. But they were so alien as to be almost unapproachable by us. Much of our ocean life is in that same category still today. I have seen it posited that dolphins are the second most intelligent creature on Earth, as intelligent as an average human teenager. Now we can argue about how high or low such an intellect actually is!…

Another assertion. You can't show that I am wrong with a mere assertion.

Pot…..kettle…….black.

I don't have the patience to list the errors in the above entries. The human brain evolved for the same reason every other creatures brains evolved…..for them to survive. That is how evolution works. Everything else is gravy. Sorry you don't get it. You've sapped all my interest in this conversation, well done. No response is necessary.

"The human brain evolved for the same reason every other creatures brains evolved…..for them to survive. That is how evolution works."

I disagree. The human brain (and everything else) evolved because of chance. The "survival" part of the equation only enters into the picture if a particular trait is either helpful (makes more) or harmful (makes less) -if it is neutral it can still exist/evolve.

I see our "excessive imagination" in this light: the "reason" it came to be may have nothing to do with survival insofar as its existence had no direct effect on whether we bred/lived.

I could see, however, how imagination (taken to mean thinking of stuff that isn't) is a natural use/extension of the ability to predict/project behavior -which I see as one of the key components of our survival. Figuring out that sleeping beneath a large rock perched precariously on the cliff above you is risky/not-smart is an "imagined" notion (since it obviously is something that isn't…at least not yet), and would be classified/grouped right alongside imagining that an invisible dragon pushes the rock down upon an unwary slumberer.

Narrowing down the explanation (from dragon to physics, perhaps) is, imo, an exercise that can only be measured by its usefullness to us, which -as I keep harping on ; ) – is a very insignificant measure. Gravity can be said to be better than a dragon in the sense that it is just more useful to us -neither one can claim to be "the Truth" of how stuff is/works.

An imagination that only goes so far as to come up with an idea, but fails to go far enough to see that that idea could be (in fact: is most likely) wrong is, imo, an imagination that falls far short of praise -much less elevation to "Truth-Finder-of-the-Cosmos" status.

Ironically, placing imagination (or any facet/trait of humanity -or, for that matter, any aspect of existence that we know of) upon a pedestal in a pantheon of cosmological truths has no foundation beyond hubris that -being based upon a narrow, chauvenistic, "We're-all-that" POV -is itself a symptom of lack of imagination.

Could our large brains be the result of influence by some TFW/NC from a mysterious ether? Sure -and rocks could fall off of cliffs because invisible dragons push them. The relative weighting of physics v. dragons is one of pragmatism, not "Truth". IMO, the greatest stregnth of science is its underlying humility that results from the premise that -no matter how great/useful an idea/theory may be- it's still, in the end, just something someone thought of and it could very well be wrong. The problem with invisible dragons (and their ilk) comes when they are seen not as "just another idea someone came up with" and, instead, are touted as "the Truth" that no mere human can understand -much less analize or (perish the thought) judge and found to be wanting.

Therein, to me, lies the importance of the issue of evolution (and its ilk, where science is opposed by dragons). Placing any one idea upon an unassailable pedestal of "Truth" removes discussion/debate from the toolbox of dispute and leaves only violence, and that's sad.

ps- pot…kettle…I guess that leaves me to being a skillet? ; )

pps- today's word is "ilk"…see how many times you can use it.

An imagination that only goes so far as to come up with an idea, but fails to go far enough to see that that idea could be (in fact: is most likely) wrong is, imo, an imagination that falls far short of praise -much less elevation to "Truth-Finder-of-the-Cosmos" status.

Care to give examples of what (who) you mean by this? Because I don't see THINKING people as guilty of this. Only laziness or fear can hold a thinker back for a little while; until s/he grows up and casts away the prejudices of childhood.

IMO, the greatest stregnth of science is its underlying humility that results from the premise that -no matter how great/useful an idea/theory may be- it's still, in the end, just something someone thought of and it could very well be wrong.

This is how true religion and science are alike: they are both pursued with faith. The religionist trusts in his experience thus far (proving his religious beliefs, morals and ethics by experience and experiment much like scientists prove theories -- a Google "Einstein quote of the day" recently said as much), and scientists push into the unknown with faith on the work that has already been done.

There will always be noobs in both arenas who cast aspersions on the other side, while failing to see their own closed minds.

Everything is "just another idea that somebody came up with". But existence is not an idea. It is the only positive fact we have. Assuming that it is just some random, mindless (unaware, unpurposeful) "force" that somehow we derived from -- and thus we possess far greater powers, sapience, imagination and purpose than our origins -- is such a limiting of concepts to explain existence in the first place, that suchlike are simply mistaken from the getgo.

As I said, the only viable pursuit of truth when we try and conceive how we come to be in the first place, is to always imagine the biggest concept possible, not some lesser/limited concept. And "your" concept of a random "chance" with no further explanation is so far short of what I can imagine that I can't entertain it….

Hi

Being able to imagine is no form of proof. And, oddly, I find "chance" a really big idea.

WE imagine the impossible all the time. And often what we suspect might happen is countered by chance. Or as we usually state it "I planned to do this, but life interfered".

R

"…existence is not an idea."

Yes, it is -insofar as it is an expression based upon our limited perception/understanding.

How we perceive/grasp/interpret the data around us (which is, of course, just the bits/data that we do perceive, much less grasp/interpret -it can hardly be said to be a significant, much less representational, sampling of the cosmos) can in no way be used to support an understanding of the universe. Such an exercise is, indeed, "such a limiting of concepts to explain existence in the first place." You asked for an example: there it is. You continue to place human intelligence on a pedestal just because it's "the best we know" without acknowledging the limitations of "the best we know".

Another example further down:

Stating that "…the only viable pursuit of truth when we try and conceive how we come to be in the first place, is to always imagine the biggest concept possible…" fails to see that our "biggest concept possible" is as miniscule an unremarkable iota as one CAN truly imagine.

The difference in POVs appears to be that I think we (which includes how we perceive/describe stuff) are just one of a multitude of random manifestations, whereas you believe that our level of intelligence is somehow "special" insofar as it can't possibly be merely a particular behavior of some of the stuff that makes us up that came to be in the same random manner as everything else. The only reasoning put forward to support this "superdeedooperness" is that it's kewl -to that I say "whoopdeedoo".

Creating/maintaining the idea of "superdeedooperness" requires the invention/existence of a mysterious, hidden, force/power to stock the shelves from which manifestations come -or is it only kewl traits that special stuff like us get that are stocked, while "blue" and "hard" can be had off the streets by any shmuck? Whatever: the fact that one needs to make and have this invention (the TFW or NC or whatever) in order to make the wheels of the cosmos it creates go 'round in order to…what?…Make us feel tingly/special?

As I stated upthread (somewhere?) – I think the "Aha, I understand!" is a Scooby-snack for our survival, the chemical reward/high given when we succeed in figuring something out to encourage more "figuring something out" --it's our drug/addiction to support our (random) genetic advantage. Understanding that handicap in our behavior is important in weighing our actions. Discovering that the sole effect of an action (or pattern of thinking) is to get us high (as opposed to maybe also keeping rocks from crushing us…) should set off red flags of warning that perhaps that action (or pattern of thinking) is suspect.

geez…what a rambling mess…sorry, Gum. Still sleep-deprived from the Con-weekend, methinks…

ps- I second Rocky's assessment/support of "mere chance". It's enough to account for everything without even having to resort to the use of odds that defy even our puny powers of comprehension -I just don't see the "gap" that requires filling…

You continue to place human intelligence on a pedestal just because it's "the best we know" without acknowledging the limitations of "the best we know".

You assert that limitations exist to our intelligence. I will grant in the physical limitations we struggle. But imaginatively we seem virtually limitless. Compared to anything else we know, what limitations about our intelligence are you concerned about?

Stating that "…the only viable pursuit of truth when we try and conceive how we come to be in the first place, is to always imagine the biggest concept possible…" fails to see that our "biggest concept possible" is as miniscule an unremarkable iota as one CAN truly imagine.

How do you know that? What if the opposite is true? That you can imagine as big as you choose to, and the only limitation on where you can go with it is your lack of belief in yourself, your lack of faith?

Just because we don't seem to gain super powers through wishful thinking doesn't mean that thinking BIGGER doesn't result eventually in bigger advances. With more of us thinking bigger our world is made smaller. It is now becoming "straitened because of the inhabitants". We are literally too big for this planet and the pressure will only build until we either blow ourselves up or off into space. Do you doubt this?

Discovering that the sole effect of an action (or pattern of thinking) is to get us high (as opposed to maybe also keeping rocks from crushing us…) should set off red flags of warning that perhaps that action (or pattern of thinking) is suspect.

So what you are saying is that you don't believe in "the high" of inspiration? Wow, that's sad. Because those highs are what have carried us to where you and I can tap keys and exchange instant messages from anywhere on the planet. And you level it out to be equal with "blueness" and "hardness" or whathaveyou.

There isn't any "gap" being filled by acknowledging a NC to existence in the first place. It is a fundamental requirement since existence is real and apparently must be infinite in order to account for everything we can possibly imagine and the infinity of other "stuff" we will never imagine, but accept is "out there"….

Hi

But full circle, if the NC always was and always will be, why not existance itself?

R

Because there is a state where nothing but existence itself "exists"; the one held in opposition to the fecundity of infinite creation. In NOW (no space-time) both states occur. I call the whole of it "God" and feel completely comfortable with the word/name/title/term/definition….

All I am interested in is a streight [straight] answer to 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?

And that's it…?

A simple question just for you:

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

It should be obvious why I have disregarded the question, but since you can't seem to let it go…

It's the content, not the format…

You do realize that people can, and countless do, place all kinds of male bovine excrement on Youtube? You are aware of this aren't you?

Yes, I am being just a little sarcastic. Answer me this:

Why is evolutionary material on Youtube deemed by you to be true and correct and any creationist material deemed to be desperately wrong?

Could it be that your personal biases and beliefs have anything to do with it…?

When talking about elements, atoms and molecules, this was said…

They combine into single cell life, which proceeds to evolve. That's all I meant.

Those here demanded that abiogenesis had nothing to do with evolution… well?

Thank you so much TJ for acknowledging my question after over three months. Even if you failed to answer it.

Yes I know there is lots of rubbish on Youtube – Ray Comfort explaining the banana as proof of design for example.

YouTube link

There is also good material, for example my of a Biology Professor giving a public lecture supporting evolution. You, like many Creatards and IDiots launched the ad hominim attack, this time on the source and therefore me for posting the item.

I would accept a Professor of Biology speaking against evolution on Youtube if you posted it. Mind you they would have to be a Biologist with a proper degree, not someone form say Liberty University. The degree, would, of course have to in biology not so other science and certainly not in theology, divinity or supersttion.

So my problem is not the medium but the original source material.

Gentle reader, after three months I am not going to get a better answer. Whether TJ is a gentleman or some other net denizen if of course a matter for you. I could not possibly comment.

When talking about elements, atoms and molecules, this was said…
They combine into single cell life, which proceeds to evolve. That's all I meant.

Those here demanded that abiogenesis had nothing to do with evolution… well?

Well what? Single cell life evolves, TJ. You don't happen to believe that and, frankly, that is your problem. All the components of these cells, and all the cells that make up your body and my body, are made up of varying combinations of elements, atoms and molecules. How is that related to abiogenesis?

I see from that, and your response to RAF, that your reading comprehension is as poor as always.

Ralph

Nice set of lectures, endorsed by a Professor of Biology, but presented on Youtube (so TJ can save time and ignore the content) showing how badly 'designed' the human body actually is. Evolution produces the best suited not necessarily the most effcient. Either that or the "Intelligent Designer", who was named as the Flying Spagetti Monster, does not know what he is dong. Enjoy:

link

"Evolution produces the best suited…"

Depending on the scarcity of resources and/or threats in the environment evolution will produce just about anything, won't it? It's when things get tough that the "best" stand out/survive more, although "lesser" beings can still get by: we've all had green/ill-trained/low-morale troops pass sequenced die rolls that -going into the action- one would assume would leave them as only a wet spot on the battlefield. In the long run (ie: geological time) things develop a certain pattern, but we shouldn't be too hasty in assigning much weight to things like "normally", "usually" or "probably": the dinosaurs learned it only takes one one-in-a-million string of "20s" to make the title "best suited" nothing more than an epitaph.

but we shouldn't be too hasty in assigning much weight to things like "normally", "usually" or "probably": the dinosaurs learned it only takes one one-in-a-million string of "20s" to make the title "best suited" nothing more than an epitaph.

I like that and may well steal it!

Pete

Why steal it when you can have it for just $5 USD ? ; )

What will our "string of 20's" be, I wonder?

Having great confidence in our 'satiable sapience, I vote for super nova. Hopefully by then, we'll be off this ball of mud and conquering the universe >:D ….

What will our "string of 20's" be, I wonder?

Having great confidence in our 'satiable sapience, I vote for super nova.

Too bad your great confidence in our "satiable sapience" doesn't apply to yourself. A quick peek at a science text will reveal that our sun cannot super nova. Too small.

As for conquering the Universe, I wouldn't count on that either. Too big. Too much time dilation.

My vote is that our demise will come at our own hands. I wish I am wrong.

Ralph

Hi

I always liked the 60s story "The March of the Morons" where the bright people become to sophisticated to have kids and just spend everything taking care of the sub-normal.

Rocky

A quick peek at a science text will reveal that our sun cannot super nova. Too small.

link

Arthur C. Clarke was totally up in the night? (The Songs of Distant Earth) He said that it was the lack of detectable neutrinos which signalled the eventual supernova….

1) Clarke isn't wrong………it's a sci-fi novel. You'll notice no Monolith was found on the Moon in 2001 either. It's fiction. (Funny how that works.)

2) I Wiki'd the novel Songs of Distant Earth as I was unfamiliar with it. Apparently, the lack of neutrino emissions indicated to the scientists that our Sun would go Nova in 3600 AD. Our Sun will be fine in the year 3600. Like I said it's fiction.

3) A sun going Nova is not the same as a sun going Super Nova. Our sun will do neither. It's too small. Not enough mass, not enough fuel. Like I said before, take a peek into a SCIENCE TEXTBOOK, not a sci-fi novel.

Ralph

Clarke's conceit was that his novels were based on REAL science, not fiction. Only his plots were fictional, not the premises they were founded on. So if the sun can't go (super)nova Clarke's understanding of the science was either in error or has been called into question by further theorizing since he wrote.

Of all the Net denizens I converse with, and have conversed with, Ralph, you come across as among the most pedantic and certain of everything you say. Is there anything that you don't know, or think you know?…

Ralph, you come across as among the most pedantic and certain of everything you say

Because Ralph generally only comments on subjects he knows about.

link

Pete

Of all the Net denizens I converse with, and have conversed with, Ralph, you come across as among the most pedantic and certain of everything you say. Is there anything that you don't know, or think you know?…

When I was 14 I was in Grade 9 Physics and learned that our Sun would become a Red Giant. As it burns it's mass off, it loses gravitational pull and expands it's size. The expanding Red Giant will probably swallow up all four of the closest planets. As it burns more material away it will end it's life as a White Dwarf. I thought this was common knowledge to any science student.

Before I write something down I double check it for proper dates, terminology, places and spelling. Once it's written down here, it is plain for all to see and critique, so you'd better be sure of what you are presenting to the public. You see, I'd rather be mistaken for a pedant (from "pedante", schoolmaster or instructor) than a fool.

If it makes you feel better I enjoy your knowledge of the Middle Ages, something I'll freely admit to knowing only superficially.

Thanks for having my back, BLS2. I was trying to get Doug to look at a Science text.

Ralph

As to Arthur C Clarke:

So if the sun can't go (super)nova Clarke's understanding of the science was either in error or has been called into question by further theorizing since he wrote.

Or he employs some artistic licence for the sake of his storyline. Surely, as a novelist yourself, you can appreciate that. There has to be some fiction in order to have science-fiction, don't you think?

Ralph

A. C. Clarke: "This novel is, among other things, my attempt to create a wholly realistic piece of fiction on the interstellar theme -- just as, in Prelude to Space (1951), I used known or foreseeable technology to depict mankind's first voyage beyond the Earth. There is nothing in this book that defies or denies known principles; the only really wild extrapolation is the "quantum drive," and even this has a highly respectable paternity."

So I guess I mistakenly took "wholly realistic" to apply to the basic science as well. Clarke concerned himself with writing "realistic" space travel, (vis-a-vis no warp drives, etc.), and yet deliberately made up impossible future solar events? That seems weird and unlikely to me.

I was trying to get Doug to look at a Science text.

My "supernova" quip above was based on Clarke's novel which I had recently read. You called me on it with science. I thought that you coming to loggerheads with Clarke was perhaps an example of science theory not agreeing with itself. You say that Clarke was fudging in poetic licence. And I am agreeing with you IF he was wrong. Am I going to go study a science text to see if Clarke was wrong? No I am not. Because how would I know that the science text I study is right? Because Ralph said so? And maybe Ralph and RAF, et al. the TMPers "science club" are wrong, and Clarke was right….

link

Seems that perhaps Clarke was writing in reference to a then-current problem with neutrino detection: the bother was that half or a third of the expected neutrinos were being detected, causing concern. The theory of "solar neutrino oscillation" satisfied the concerns by 2002.

So was there a period when the Sun's apparent core temperature allowed for the consideration of a nova or even supernova state? -- in other words, a possiblity of an exception to the Chandrasekhar mass limitation -- and that possibility was disproven by 2002?…

Btw, even tho I said "super nova" as my vote for our species' extinction, I didn't specify OUR sun, did I? So Ralph was either reading my mind or leaping to a conclusion – obviously the latter, since he doesn't grant me 'satiable sapience along with the rest of our species (bristly, our Ralphy is).

In browsing around just now I came across some blather about the "five periods of great extinction" in Earth's primeval history. One of them was perhaps caused by one or more supernovae (within 26 million lightyears of Earth) that "stripped the ozone layer away, thus exposing us to our own sun's radiation."

This could occur "tomorrow or a billion years from now", again. Lack of evidence of such an event in the past could be accounted for by the fact that the galaxy has rotated at least twice since then, thus clearing away the evidence. (no, I am not going looking for the links again, for what I have paraphrased above….)

So Ralph's choice, of our self-destruction, might be preempted by cosmic doom instead. Rather than live anticipating extinction by our own hand, I would rather leave it up to an "act of God" that destroys the Earth: and our worthy descendants will have safely cleared the planet and seeded outer-space long before that happens….

Because how would I know that the science text I study is right? Because Ralph said so? And maybe Ralph and RAF, et al. the TMPers "science club" are wrong, and Clarke was right….

I couldn't care less what Clarke said in a work of fiction.

For our sun to go supernova, all our current understanding of solar physics, fusion, and the groundbreaking, Nobel Prize winning work by Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar will have to be wrong. I doubt it.

Why would you expect science texts to be wrong? Chandrasekhar did his work in the 30's and 40's. How old are your local textbooks? I would say that every Physics textbook in the country would state that the eventual fate of the Sun is to become a Red Giant and collapse into a White Dwarf.

In browsing around just now I came across some blather about the "five periods of great extinction" in Earth's primeval history. One of them was perhaps caused by one or more supernovae (within 26 million lightyears of Earth) that "stripped the ozone layer away, thus exposing us to our own sun's radiation."

It has been proposed for the Ordovician–Silurian extinction event. The problem is that there is no evidence. You would need to look for gamma radiation "burns" on the Moon or on Mars (as neither have any weather conditions). Actually most scientists believe it was due to a drop in Co2 levels causing a global cooling of the oceans. There were no land lifeforms beyond microorganisms at this time (440 Mya).

You'd better check your numbers as the figure of 26 million light years is ludicrously wrong. Our entire galaxy is only 100,000 light years across.

By the way, there are about 200 billion to 400 billion stars in the Milky Way alone. A 2006 publication from the European Space Agency estimates that a sun goes supernova once every 50 years within the Milky Way. That's not a lot of supernovas!

So Ralph's choice, of our self-destruction, might be preempted by cosmic doom instead.

But I doubt our "cosmic doom" would be from a nearby supernova. Due to our proximity to the asteroid belt I know that the Earth is the planet with the third most impacts (after Jupiter and Mars). I would say that it is statistically more likely to be taken out by an errant meteor or asteroid than by a supernova.

And finally, I found an abstract from another Dr. Krebs. This one is at the Max Plank Institute for Physics and Astrophysics and deals with supernovas. No idea if he is a relative.

link

Ralph, who apparently bristles

Hmmm….. the bibcodes are protected. Try this:

link

Check the link above the name Krebs and Hillebrandt and the abstract should show up.

…26 million light years is ludicrously wrong…

Oopsie. Scratch the "million" and I had it right

link

One supernova every c. 50 years, that's not bad. Happens quite "a lot" then. I guess there'd be a way of calculating what the percentage chance of one within 26 light-years is; it would be a percentage of the total suns big enough to supernova within 26 light-years of Earth. I have no idea what percentage of big suns are within 26 light-years of Earth. the link says "once in a billion years", so not much chance of that destruction happening: unless it has already BEEN a billion years since the theoretical last time a supernova stripped our ozone away.

Still, you'd rather believe in our self-destruction as more probable than some "act of God" originating in the cosmos; even though life on our planet has been destroyed/decimated numerous times before we ever showed up….