Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
there are lots of different ways to design robots.. or consciousnesses... evolution is one way, working it out on a drawing board is another...
evolutionary programming is used now quite commonly, to obtain a desired optimum result without having to design, in detail, the algorithm.
to state that a designer is required, is however, a failure of imagination...
it states, in essence, that the entire universe emulates human thought and action,
which I believe is a very arrogant, and a very ignorant position.
Just because you cannot imagine something happening doesn't forbid it from happening... there are other things which do the forbidding ("the physical laws"). Evolution does not violate any of them.
|
|
John Moosie
climber
Beautiful California
|
|
Moosie- I'm on your side, bro, I'm trying to get along here. I'm a huge Clinton fan. What, are you a humanities grad and have a problem with my scientific view?
Okay, I apologize if I came on too strong, but I am asking questions that pertain to science.
You made some statements as though they were fact. Ie.. the repubs re the party of small government and fiscal responsibility and the dems are the party of goverment.
I am simply questioning your facts as any good scientist would do.
Why do you seem to think that humanities lack science? It can be scientifically proven that the humanities improve life. There are many studies that show that just adding artwork to a workplace improves productivity. So why the harsh on humanities? It all works together in harmony, or at least it can. When one understands the deeper roots of things which is what Werner is trying to get you to see.
Science has a basic problem. It can't prove the existence of God with the tools that it has, so it ignores God. This is a mistake.
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
Yes Dingus presents intelligent questions that a human being asks, not that he's another dogmatic programmed robot.
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Jan 7, 2010 - 01:23pm PT
|
Truth is Ding, both you and Ed overtalk things. Either it's over-humanizing or over-philosophizing. Old habit from a long line of tradition I suppose.
But the facts are, this Cosmos has properties, basic properties. In other words, a nature. Part of that nature is "selection" based on how short or long lived particles to objects are. It's that simple. This selection applied to biology evolutionary scientists and others called "natural selection." That's your answer.
Alright Smarty Panties... Sometimes I think, thank goodness for the Animal Kingdom. For all you "ghost in the machine" people, I'm sure you've watched Animal Planet or back in the day Wild Kingdom and have the vision of a cheetah chasing a gazelle. What makes the Cheetah go? What makes the Gazelle go? Does the Cheetah have a ghost in its body machine, too? And the Gazelle likewise? If not, then you must admit: pretty astonishing biology (or biotics, which is my preferred term).
In fact, so astonishing while it turns some away in fear draws others in to study the phenomenon.
|
|
Ricardo Cabeza
climber
an interim space
|
|
'See I don't have any Faith. Not in science, not in any religion. None.'
I guess that's one of our differences.
I have faith (lower case) in the human spirit and the inherent goodness of humans. While I consider myself agnostic, I feel, and have felt, a higher energy. Some call it God, some call it some sort of Physics, I call it power.
That probably only makes sense to me, but whatever.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
its not a who... Dingus... and I'm not asking you to believe in anything, I could really care less about belief myself, let alone what you believe, really, that's your business..
but if you want to explain things it is hard to beat science at trying to figure out not only what the explanation is, but also what you are explaining...
...you're from Missouri, at least in spirit, you want to be shown. But you also don't have the time to learn how to see.
Given that, it isn't really worth time to try to explain something to you, you simply won't "believe it."
To me it isn't a question of belief, it's a question of going out and doing the science. When I do that, I understand... and I'm only really interested in understanding, I'm not even really interested in "The Truth."
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Jan 7, 2010 - 01:30pm PT
|
No, I get that, too, Ricardo.
Part of the problem is language. How do you talk to people who it too often seems couldn't be bothered to distinguish one form of spirit or God or faith (aka trust) or belief from another. It's so frustrating sometimes!
When I'm hanging 500' above deck on a half-inch rope, that's faith (aka trust), but not the ol' time religious sort.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
it is not true Dingus... science has a lot to say about those questions...
blow your mind... what causes geometry? what causes time?
all subject to scientific study, no need to invoke anything but nature...
|
|
Norwegian
Trad climber
Placerville, California
|
|
the effects of cause.
period.
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Jan 7, 2010 - 01:38pm PT
|
Ding wrote-
"But thus far, science has not been able to address the fundamental question I am asking."
So until it does, no beliefs (i.e., mental "holdings" ) at all. Till it does we have to maintain the bronze age stupidities institutionalized by European societies of the middle ages? Augghh!
It's time we got around to it: the development of a science-based belief system. But when it's developed make sure it has a new name so people don't call it religion!
|
|
Ricardo Cabeza
climber
an interim space
|
|
I think it is all about culture and contitioning.
Scientists see one thing.
Christians see another.
Muslims see yet another.
And so on.
What ties it together is the energy flowing through everything on this small planet, we all sense it on some level but quantify it in different ways.
It's the same vibration, just a different interpretation of what it is.
Regardless, it's the tie that binds all of us together. As humans, as plants, as animals, as minerals.
It seems that there is a basic pulse that beats through everything here.
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Jan 7, 2010 - 01:43pm PT
|
Alright Ricardo, but don't go getting whoo whoo on us now.
The three Abrahamic religions (J, C, and I) all have the same god. Although many of their adherents don't know it because they're so busy fighting each other down through the centuries.
Jehovah (aka Allah in Arab) is as fictional bogus as Zeus (Egypt) or Amon Re (Egypt) or Quezel (Mayan). Only difference, this local god was institutionalized BIG TIME.
The reason religions and science have been at each others throats is because each has put forth different models for (a) how the world works and (b) for how life works. Either earth was created 6000- 10000 years ago (which my Grandmother was taught and believed) or it was created tens of millions (plus) years ago.
"Just the facts, mamm."
|
|
John Moosie
climber
Beautiful California
|
|
Fruc, that isn't what Dingus is implying at all. He is simply holding himself in reserve for what is the root cause of all.
Science says that chemicals and natural laws combined to create life. Perhaps they did, but what created the chemicals and the natural laws? This is the question that Dingus asks. Science says that they just were, which makes nature their "god".
Religion says first cause is God. A conscious Being that created the chemicals and the laws by which they interact.
This is where faith comes in. Ed has faith that science is all that is needed to create the life he wants. Others will say, including me, that there is a deeper answer. This answer does not exclude science, as science is a creation of God. It just recognizes that science does not have the tools to prove God exists. To prove God, one must go within into ones own heart. That is a journey best led by someone who has been there. Few have, including most religious people.
|
|
Ricardo Cabeza
climber
an interim space
|
|
I'm not getting soft, I just think that we all see the same things in different ways.
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Jan 7, 2010 - 01:49pm PT
|
QT "but what created the chemicals and the natural laws?"
ANS: Not Zeus. Not Jehovah (the local desert deity of Jews, Christians and Muslims), not Marduk. Any more than Mother Goose.
FYI There's a new field now, it's called hypercratics. Hypercratics is the study of higher powers, those that define our fate, destiny, lives. Some have personalized (personified) hypercratics. Thus, Hypercrates. So you could say I believe in Hypercrates (hi per' kri teez). Which is handy. (It's from the greek: hyper-, above, over + cratic, rule)
Hypercrates is a far cry from Jehovah. Just sayin.
|
|
John Moosie
climber
Beautiful California
|
|
So you think you know what didn't. That still doesn't answer what did. Do accept what science says in that they just were. That they are first cause?
|
|
Ricardo Cabeza
climber
an interim space
|
|
'Again, who designed the robot, please?'
George Devol.
Or was it DaVinci?
Just funnin now, Dingus.
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Jan 7, 2010 - 02:01pm PT
|
So what happened to WBraun? I'd like him to answer the question I posed earlier:
What makes a cheetah go? Does a cheetah have a ghost in its body machine? Seems to me, either it does or it doesn't. Right?
One lifeworks model says yes, another lifeworks model (the scientific one) says no. Science says no ghost in the machine. So do I.
|
|
taorock
Trad climber
Okanogan, WA
|
|
It's all consciousness.
Upgrade your observations in science and of nature. It is more about connecting than disassembling. Fundamentalism in science and religion isn't very pretty.
This relates:
Many scientists share the belief that there are problems with falsifiability and foundation ontologies purporting to describe "what exists", to a sufficient degree of rigor to establish a reasonable method of empirical validation. But Lakoff takes this further to explain why hypotheses built with complex metaphors cannot be directly falsified. Instead, they can only be rejected based on interpretations of empirical observations guided by other complex metaphors. This is what he means when he says, in "The Embodied Mind", that falsifiability itself can never be established by any reasonable method that would not rely ultimately on a shared human bias. The bias he's referring to is the set of conceptual metaphors governing how people interpret observations.
Here is something to address robots:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embodied_cognition
Cheers Mr Fructose.
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Jan 7, 2010 - 02:06pm PT
|
Taorock- More over-philosophizing. Sometimes I think it's done about as much harm to the Ascent of Humanity endeavor as the institutionization of ancient theology.
P.S. Read Daniel Dennett, he's the cure, the role model, for all the screwball over-philosophizing out there. Oh, I like Lakoff. He reminds us the way we frame things in dialog is important. Whether its in matters of faith or politics.
Ding- I read your post top to bottom, and backwards. Can't make sense of it.
It's a shame that when Christians speak of God, others don't call em out, remind them that they speak of Jehovah (aka Yahweh or Allah). Not Zeus or Apollo. Not Amon-Re. Not Hypercrates.
"You are what you eat."
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!