Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
|
|
|
Jul 11, 2016 - 07:26pm PT
|
No, Paul, I do not think the reverse is equally true if "science" and "liberal arts" are transposed in above post. Then again, perhaps as a "science type" I am biased. Still the point remains... I am a fan of the liberal arts in general and to my lights there is no conflict between them and science. Only certain groups and individuals make a mess of it. Or seem to want to make a mess of it.
Science in action this week: For the second time, DSCOVR captures the moon passing by the sunlit side of Earth...
I'd say that's pretty meaningful. Cool too.
http://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2016/iris-releases-new-imagery-of-mercury-transit
...
It is tragically amusing to see HFCS holding up "science" the way fundamental preachers hold up the bible.
Yeah I'm a real Pat Robertson or Jerry Falwell, hilarious!
The fact is, I'm in good company: Carl Sagan. Richard Dawkins. And thousands of others. Choose your meat.
IMO it is a small fringe group that really truly believes in fundamental creationist theory and
Yes, this is your opinion and it is naively incorrect. That's the bad news. The good news is if we just wait a couple more decades (on top of the few that have already passed since the good ol' Billy Graham days), your incorrect opinion may at long last become correct (voila!). Since changes have never been so rapid as now. Therein lies the hope.
Perhaps in a sense on one count you are right though: I do not know what it is like to be a "hollum" in this life. (A "hollum" is one who has no passion for science or nature investigation.) Everyday I am grateful I am not a hollum and have never been a hollum.
I am passionate about rockclimbing and outdoor adventures.
I am passionate about science. I am passionate about getting
the worldworks and lifeworks right. Those are my crimes, I guess.
re: worldworks
http://www.supertopo.com/climbing/thread.php?topic_id=1593650&msg=1642359#msg1642359
re: lifeworks
http://www.supertopo.com/climbing/thread.php?topic_id=1052940&msg=1053114#msg1053114
What makes a cheetah go?
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Jul 11, 2016 - 07:48pm PT
|
eudaemonia = "human flourishing" which is the source of much of the world's current problems, but probably not for too long in the scheme of things.
One can search for meaning in any way they please, and where ever they find it is probably valid. The problem comes from insisting that the basis for that meaning is absolute.
We live in large groups, our ability to do that is an evolutionary adaptation, and a very successful one as evidenced by the success of other social species, the ants and their kin in particular. One can interpret a higher purpose to our "morality" but it would be a mistake to ignore the evolutionary advantage of social living. We mask all sorts of behavior with our various philosophical musings, but nature could care less... if the behavior does not provide a means for survival and for reproduction that behavior is quickly extinguished, in a cold and heartless manner, but often slowly over generations.
overly complicated, yes, I admit, but it is actually great to test what is an overly complicated explanation here... but science is accessible to anyone who wants to learn about it. It is not "revealed" knowledge, it is knowledge you can learn.
Also, I have no problem with people criticizing science, science is more than up to the task of defending itself, and in some ways, the vociferous criticism is an indication of how successful science has been at explaining the human condition, and providing a benefit for that condition.
While science has also provide technologies that harm humans, it is apparent that the balance is for the good, the human population is increasing.
And that inverted Bowl they call the Sky,
Whereunder crawling coop'd we live and die,
Lift not your hands to It for help--for It
As impotently moves as you or I.
|
|
zBrown
Ice climber
|
|
|
Jul 11, 2016 - 08:01pm PT
|
Seeing is accessible to anyone who wants to learn to see.
-Carlos Castaneda
Can you repeat that? OK
“If you seek with the mind, it will not take you anywhere, except to a tautological situation where you repeat the obvious. In science, the tautological questions prove themselves. That's the art of our science. . . ‘All these variables and nothing else.’ We are champions of pseudo control–we reduce the problem to manageable science. What a fantasy!
|
|
jgill
Boulder climber
The high prairie of southern Colorado
|
|
|
Jul 11, 2016 - 08:01pm PT
|
IMO it is a small fringe group that really truly believes in fundamental creationist theory . . .
Not surprising since you live in Berkeley. I grew up in the deep south where Biblical fundamentalism flourishes.
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
|
|
|
Jul 11, 2016 - 08:04pm PT
|
"I grew up in the deep south where Biblical fundamentalism flourishes..."
Let alone the Middle East via Islam.
If PSP had an ounce of true interest in this area, he'd research it. Not just over an hour either but over days or weeks or however long it took to meet some basic standard. But instead he spews what he does - assuming I guess others know no more than he does in this subject matter.
|
|
MH2
Boulder climber
Andy Cairns
|
|
|
Jul 11, 2016 - 08:06pm PT
|
Yes, and morality within cultures follows that morality whether it is reproductively successful or not: consider Gnostics such as the Shakers who simply don't produce period. Morality has left evolution behind.
Morality makes a good example. There is variation in moral codes, including such extremes as the Shakers. A new variant may survive for a while but it will not be immune to selective pressures. Morality has not escaped evolution.
Humans are trying to leave evolution behind, but success is in doubt.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Jul 11, 2016 - 08:33pm PT
|
Morality has left evolution behind.
evolution will leave the Shakers behind, and then there will be none.
Perhaps there is nobility in that...
|
|
paul roehl
Boulder climber
california
|
|
|
Jul 11, 2016 - 08:44pm PT
|
eudaemonia = "human flourishing" which is the source of much of the world's current problems, but probably not for too long in the scheme of things.
Human flourishing in the sense that we live productive, full, virtuous lives in which we find satisfaction physically and mentally. It does not refer to unthinking reproduction and misuse of the environment which is what I assume you're referring to.
Morality has not escaped evolution.
Morality has escaped evolution in the sense it is willing to sacrifice evolutionary success for the sake of an ethical system, again the Shakers. That the Shakers will not be evolutionarily successful is the whole point as they just don't care. Evolution may still be at work in the broadest sense but it means little to most of the worlds moral systems. In that sense these moral systems have disengaged from concern with regard to evolutionary success. Pretty simple.
|
|
Largo
Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Jul 11, 2016 - 09:59pm PT
|
The idea of revealed knowledge is deep study. Revealed by who? Or what? And if not knowledge about some thing or phenomenon, then knowledge about what? And revealed through what process?
I think the issue that bothers me here is the implication that there are measurements, and revealed wisdom, and nothing else.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Jul 11, 2016 - 11:58pm PT
|
Morality has escaped evolution in the sense it is willing to sacrifice evolutionary success for the sake of an ethical system,
except that you do not have any idea how evolution has shaped the ethical systems... so saying morality has escaped is ridiculous
|
|
paul roehl
Boulder climber
california
|
|
|
Jul 12, 2016 - 06:14am PT
|
//Morality has escaped evolution in the sense it (morality) is willing to sacrifice evolutionary success for the sake of an ethical system,
except that you do not have any idea how evolution has shaped the ethical systems... so saying morality has escaped is ridiculous |
|
MH2
Boulder climber
Andy Cairns
|
|
|
Jul 12, 2016 - 06:37am PT
|
It's (Scholasticism) on a level that places it above mere survival, mere reproduction. A priest is expected not to reproduce.
Like a worker bee.
|
|
MikeL
Social climber
Southern Arizona
|
|
|
Jul 12, 2016 - 07:27am PT
|
Ed: To me, the "hard problem" is to understand the role of non-equilibrium physical systems.
Indeed. A fascinating puzzle.
eeyonkee: MikeL, the earth being 5ish billion years old and life emerging sometime before 3 billion years ago are not conjecture.
(I thought you said you weren’t going to read my writing or talk to me anymore.)
DMT,
Thanks for the reference. I haven’t read a fiction book for a decade or more, but I’ll look into this one.
Cintune: Evolution fosters morality in cases where morality conveys reproductive benefits. Evolution also fosters immorality when it does the same. Evolution doesn't care, it's a mindless process.
Is there anything important that evolution does not explain?
It’s an old analytical saw that “when everything is X, then nothing is X.” That is, when a descriptor applies everywhere to everything, then the descriptor does not discriminate. It’s a useless descriptor.
|
|
paul roehl
Boulder climber
california
|
|
|
Jul 12, 2016 - 07:39am PT
|
Like a worker bee.
That statement speaks volumes about scientism. Recommended: a large dose of the humanities.
|
|
jgill
Boulder climber
The high prairie of southern Colorado
|
|
|
Jul 12, 2016 - 11:17am PT
|
Over 11,000 posts and it isn't even possible to agree upon whether mind is a synonym for consciousness or mind incorporates subconscious processes.
Some time back the distinction between awareness and consciousness was noted, but that's gone by the wayside.
Still entertaining, though.
;>)
|
|
MikeL
Social climber
Southern Arizona
|
|
|
Jul 12, 2016 - 11:26am PT
|
Only in this conversation, Jgill. The distinction remains, but it ends up to be a technical one among contemplatives. As I wrote above, to use such technical terms will require that folks accept the distinctions. If folks cannot see the emptiness of concepts, then the technical distinction won't be accepted.
EDIT: I would say that from my side, "mind" includes everything (including the kitchen sink).
|
|
MikeL
Social climber
Southern Arizona
|
|
|
Jul 12, 2016 - 11:48am PT
|
Today I’m here working in the 100+ degree heat of southern Arizona trimming trees on the land with a chainsaw and pole saw in long pants and a long sleeved flannel shirt. I can hardly drink enough water. Perhaps I got dizzy and dehydrated.
While applying the saw against the mesquite , a thought appeared about the efficacy of evolution. Me being spiritually attenuated and all, I wondered: just how “successful” is the theory of evolution *in practice?* How does the slogan go? . . . “the survival of the fittest?” I found myself standing up, wiping the sweat from my face, thinking that thought, and then laughing: “There’s no survival! Everything dies!” Some life just lives a little longer than others. Some genetic lines go a little farther than others—but, Great Scott, nothing lasts forever. Everything is impermanent.
It reminded me of when I was a teenager arguing whether my studebaker was faster than my friend’s ’57 chevy. “I can get through a quarter mile in 15 second, and you can only get through in 16 seconds. HA!” (BFD.)
Everything that matters IS relative. (That’s a kind of joke—but perhaps a telling one.)
|
|
MH2
Boulder climber
Andy Cairns
|
|
|
Jul 12, 2016 - 02:13pm PT
|
That statement speaks volumes about scientism. Recommended: a large dose of the humanities.
I will gladly repay you on Tuesday for a humanities today.
|
|
eeyonkee
Trad climber
Golden, CO
|
|
|
Jul 12, 2016 - 03:54pm PT
|
So, I've been thinking more and more about fundamental principles in biology and what they might be, if by fundamental principles we mean those principles that were in existence at the time that life got started. In other words, what are the principles that are not the result of evolution itself?
We know that life is DNA-based and that DNA occurs in every cell in every living organism on the planet. We know that DNA contains genes that are code -- recipes if you will, for developing and maintaining that organism. We know that it is proteins, coded for by genes, that do all of the actual work and are the actual stuff of life. And we know that replication of the genes plays a key part -- without replication, you do not have life. The DNA gets replicated, and the replicated DNA specifies the recipes for building and maintaining new bodies.
And, finally we know that a mechanism exists that can knock out or change a character in a gene in a sex cell – a mutation – that, most of the time is detrimental to the development of the new embryo, but occasionally confers “adaptive fitness” not only to the developing fetus, but, potentially, to all of its progeny. This mechanism we know, is one of the key components in the evolution of a species.
But Basil, what does it all mean?
Lately, I've been leaning toward software concepts as accounting for the lion’s-share of the fundamental principles for life. A key concept that came out of the software industry a couple of decades ago is the idea of design patterns. Design patterns are ways of solving common software problems that represent more or less best practices based on years of software development. They can be broken out into creational, structural, and behavioral patterns. Since life developed by trial and error in an algorithmic setting (over billions of years), I can see how life may have hit on these same patterns that software developers hit on and abstracted. The patterns are like mathematics or something. They were out there to be discovered and exploited by life and software programmers.
|
|
jgill
Boulder climber
The high prairie of southern Colorado
|
|
|
Jul 12, 2016 - 04:23pm PT
|
It reminded me of when I was a teenager arguing whether my studebaker was faster than my friend’s ’57 chevy
My '56 Power Hawk would have done the job. It overheated, however.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!