LIFE

[SwordOfTheSpirit]

#97

Apart from just sort of mentioning, you, know, sort of just casually, that all manufactured items have not evolved, they have been changed by HUMAN BEINGS!! .... and I know that's not all you've said here, but I couldn't read it all through in detail and missed out quite a bit!

So if the arguments used elsewhere are applied to the things human beings design and make, one would have to conclude that human beings didn't design and make them, otherwise it creates an infinite regression.

[Walter]

#97
So if the arguments used elsewhere are applied to the things human beings design and make, one would have to conclude that human beings didn't design and make them, otherwise it creates an infinite regression.

NOPE, and I've read it 5 times now

[SwordOfTheSpirit]

NOPE, and I've read it 5 times now

You read #97 as a response to #96?

[SusanDoris]

NOPE, and I've read it 5 times now

I commend your fortitude!

[Sriram]

if there is some unseen intelligence guiding evolution then it perhaps isn't very bright given that 95% of all species have gone extinct. The diversity and evolution of life seems entirely consistent with the rationale that is the outcome of descent with random variation upon which undirected selection acts.  And even if there is some unseen guiding hand that is making a botched job of it whilst maintaining a superficial illusion that it is all purely natural, this explanation still fails to explain the origin or nature of the guiding force; where did it come from ?

torridon,

Well...probably most of the human made products have also gone extinct. What we are left with now are only the latest models.  The parallels are so obvious.

Why do you keep asking about the origins of those forces?  Would robots know the origins of humans when they cannot even sense us....or for that matter, even if they could sense us off and on?  Of course not!   And because they cannot know of our origins does not mean we have not created them.

The simple answer  to your question is that we have no idea  about the origins of the guiding intelligence. So what?

Merely repeating such fundamental questions does not help in going forward.  Such questions can be asked  of all scientific theories and no one would have any answers.   We have to put together all pieces without getting carried away only with certain aspects of reality while ignoring others.

 

[torridon]

torridon,

Well...probably most of the human made products have also gone extinct. What we are left with now are only the latest models.  The parallels are so obvious.

Why do you keep asking about the origins of those forces?  Would robots know the origins of humans when they cannot even sense us....or for that matter, even if they could sense us off and on?  Of course not!   And because they cannot know of our origins does not mean we have not created them.

The simple answer  to your question is that we have no idea  about the origins of the guiding intelligence. So what?
....

Why, because that renders the explanatory value of our understanding null.  A chain is only as strong as its weakest link.  If we claim that A is because of B and B is because of C and C is because a magic pixie made it, why, because it wanted to and stop asking questions, that renders worthless the entire project.  Locating an ultimate explanation for all things out of reach in some unknowable external realm has the hallmark of a logic fail, an unwillingness to try to understand things on their own terms. An explanation that avoids this weakness is stronger.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Why, because that renders the explanatory value of our understanding null.  A chain is only as strong as its weakest link.  If we claim that A is because of B and B is because of C and C is because a magic pixie made it, why, because it wanted to and stop asking questions, that renders worthless the entire project.  Locating an ultimate explanation for all things out of reach in some unknowable external realm has the hallmark of a logic fail, an unwillingness to try to understand things on their own terms. An explanation that avoids this weakness is stronger.

But surely wanting the total illogic an infinite chain of derived power because one is troubled by something with actual power is pretty desperate.

The 'magic pixie' thing is pretty gratuitously new atheist arrogance and humbug if one is prepared to entertain stuff popping up out of nowhere as we speak.

[Sriram]

Why, because that renders the explanatory value of our understanding null.  A chain is only as strong as its weakest link.  If we claim that A is because of B and B is because of C and C is because a magic pixie made it, why, because it wanted to and stop asking questions, that renders worthless the entire project.  Locating an ultimate explanation for all things out of reach in some unknowable external realm has the hallmark of a logic fail, an unwillingness to try to understand things on their own terms. An explanation that avoids this weakness is stronger.

torridon,

You are still caught in the religious idea of the 'ultimate' explanation. There is no ultimate explanation that we can possibly attempt to understand. The attempt here is only to understand immediate causes. 

Ideas such as random variations, chance, emergent property etc. are not explanations. They are attempts to keep possible non material explanations at bay and to circumvent all such ideas. It is a fear of the non material. The God phobia!

What I am attempting is only to explain Consciousness, Self, Life and other phenomena that we experience everyday.  For this, taking a cue from the way man made objects get created and how they evolve, is perfectly in order.  As above so below!

Cheers.

Sriram

[torridon]

But surely wanting the total illogic an infinite chain of derived power because one is troubled by something with actual power is pretty desperate.

The 'magic pixie' thing is pretty gratuitously new atheist arrogance and humbug if one is prepared to entertain stuff popping up out of nowhere as we speak.

We have evidential basis for stuff popping up out of nowhere and granted we don't fully understand it and this is par for the course in the sense that science throws up observations that do confound our intuitions and we need to work on it to figure out what it all means. That said, a particle popping up out of nowhere is small beer compared to gods with similarly zero provenance, coming as they do fully preloaded with morals, intelligence, plans and desires.  Gods are thus a poorer candidate for your 'actual power' than something simpler.

[torridon]

 

Ideas such as random variations, chance, emergent property etc. are not explanations. They are attempts to keep possible non material explanations at bay and to circumvent all such ideas. It is a fear of the non material. The God phobia!

Nah, that's just conspiracy thinking.  Emergence and probability are indispensable foundational principles that we have come to understand through observation.  Furthermore your notions regarding self, consciousness are not faithful to evidence, and they only persist as ideas because they depend unevidenced realms of reality that are out of reach of falsifiability,

[Gordon]

torridon,
Ideas such as random variations, chance, emergent property etc. are not explanations.

They are part of the explanatory backdrop: for example many of the established statistical tests involve estimating the risk of chance, where findings are deemed to be 'significant' only where the risk of chance is estimated as being no greater than a certain value (usually 5%).

They are attempts to keep possible non material explanations at bay and to circumvent all such ideas.

We've yet to see any non-material explanations, given the absence of an underlying method to give context to claims of the non-natural: we do see plenty of fallacies in support of the non-natural, which is telling.

It is a fear of the non material. The God phobia!

Nope: it's impossible to be fearful of claims there is no credible evidence for.

What I am attempting is only to explain Consciousness, Self, Life and other phenomena that we experience everyday.  For this, taking a cue from the way man made objects get created and how they evolve, is perfectly in order.  As above so below!

Which is your personal incredulity kicking in again: you are also using the fallacy of equivocation here too, since you are using 'evolve' differently by using the same term to refer to both the design and refinement of something manufactured (such as would be evident in patent documentation) with the unguided biological process of evolution (as per the TofE).

[Shaker]

We've yet to see any non-material explanations, given the absence of an underlying method to give context to claims of the non-natural: we do see plenty of fallacies in support of the non-natural, which is telling.

I would go further and say that a non-material explanation is a contradiction in terms, for the reason given: nobody can cough up with any methodological basis for evaluating claims of the non-material.

Goodness knows we've asked often enough ...

[Sriram]

Nah, that's just conspiracy thinking.  Emergence and probability are indispensable foundational principles that we have come to understand through observation.  Furthermore your notions regarding self, consciousness are not faithful to evidence, and they only persist as ideas because they depend unevidenced realms of reality that are out of reach of falsifiability,

torridon,

They are philosophical ideas  that seek to explain experiences and observations, without conflicting with actual empirical findings. If they fit into a pattern that is consistent with certain observations and personal experiences, that should be good enough. Everything does not  have to fit the criteria of mainstream scientific investigations. As I have said, science is not everything!

Life is too big to fit into the boundaries you have defined for science. 

[SusanDoris]

torridon,

They are philosophical ideas  that seek to explain experiences and observations, without conflicting with actual empirical findings. If they fit into a pattern that is consistent with certain observations and personal experiences, that should be good enough. Everything does not  have to fit the criteria of mainstream scientific investigations. As I have said, science is not everything!

Life is too big to fit into the boundaries you have defined for science.

There is, however, greater security and safety when it is known what is reliable fact and what is fiction. To live in a hazy, insubstantial world of beliefs for which no method exists to understand whether they are fact or not is to live a less than complete life. When I die, I shall know that I have not been blind to reality.

[Walter]

torridon,

They are philosophical ideas  that seek to explain experiences and observations, without conflicting with actual empirical findings. If they fit into a pattern that is consistent with certain observations and personal experiences, that should be good enough. Everything does not  have to fit the criteria of mainstream scientific investigations. As I have said, science is not everything!

Life is too big to fit into the boundaries you have defined for science.

what motivates you to continue with this inane childish nonsense , what is it you don't understand?

[Walter]

There is, however, greater security and safety when it is known what is reliable fact and what is fiction. To live in a hazy, insubstantial world of beliefs for which no method exists to understand whether they are fact or not is to live a less than complete life. When I die, I shall know that I have not been blind to reality.

SD,
 A magnificent, truthful post

[SusanDoris]

Walter

thank you for saying.

[Shaker]

There is, however, greater security and safety when it is known what is reliable fact and what is fiction. To live in a hazy, insubstantial world of beliefs for which no method exists to understand whether they are fact or not is to live a less than complete life. When I die, I shall know that I have not been blind to reality.

A lovely post, Susan. It brings to mind a quote by the philosopher George Santayana: "To be boosted by an illusion is not better than to live in harmony with the truth; it is not nearly so safe, not nearly so sweet, and not nearly so fruitful. These refusals to part with a decayed illusion are really an infection to the mind."

[SusanDoris]

Thank you, Shaker. At least I know there are four young people - both granddaughters and their partners - who will live complete lives. They have very sensible parents, but I think a bit of it is due to granny's influence!!

[torridon]

torridon,

They are philosophical ideas  that seek to explain experiences and observations, without conflicting with actual empirical findings. If they fit into a pattern that is consistent with certain observations and personal experiences, that should be good enough. Everything does not  have to fit the criteria of mainstream scientific investigations. As I have said, science is not everything!

Life is too big to fit into the boundaries you have defined for science.

You might have got away with that view 200 years ago but not now. Ideas of spirits and souls and suchlike belong in a pre-science age, they are not consistent with our accumulated understanding of what life is, how it works, the nature of consciousness and the self, and the relationship between brain and mind. Such ancient ideas persist only because they lack the level of detail and verifiability that we expect in all other areas of life now.

Apart from that, Happy New Year 

[torridon]

There is, however, greater security and safety when it is known what is reliable fact and what is fiction. To live in a hazy, insubstantial world of beliefs for which no method exists to understand whether they are fact or not is to live a less than complete life. When I die, I shall know that I have not been blind to reality.

Nicely said 

[Sriram]

You might have got away with that view 200 years ago but not now. Ideas of spirits and souls and suchlike belong in a pre-science age, they are not consistent with our accumulated understanding of what life is, how it works, the nature of consciousness and the self, and the relationship between brain and mind. Such ancient ideas persist only because they lack the level of detail and verifiability that we expect in all other areas of life now.

Apart from that, Happy New Year 

torridon,

What do we really know of Consciousness and Self through the 'accumulated knowledge' of science....?  Nothing at all!  Like peering into the car engine to find out  why it is going somewhere!     Hardly likely to yield results.   Mechanisms are not causes!

Anyway...Happy New Year to you too!      And to Shaker, Walter and Susan!

Cheers.

Sriram

[Walter]

torridon,

What do we really know of Consciousness and Self through the 'accumulated knowledge' of science....?  Nothing at all!  Like peering into the car engine to find out  why it is going somewhere!     Hardly likely to yield results.   Mechanisms are not causes!

Anyway...Happy New Year to you too!      And to Shaker, Walter and Susan!

Cheers.

Sriram

you too and I hope you find what you're looking for

[ekim]

There is, however, greater security and safety when it is known what is reliable fact and what is fiction. To live in a hazy, insubstantial world of beliefs for which no method exists to understand whether they are fact or not is to live a less than complete life. When I die, I shall know that I have not been blind to reality.

Another view might be that to personally experience what is reliable fact as opposed to just a belief based upon second hand information, one has often to give up the restrictions of security and safety to make a journey of discovery into the unknown.  To such an adventurer, the moment to moment journey is more vital than just living in a metaphysical world of facts and figures derived from others,  which he might see as a life not lived at all.

[Sriram]

Another view might be that to personally experience what is reliable fact as opposed to just a belief based upon second hand information, one has often to give up the restrictions of security and safety to make a journey of discovery into the unknown.  To such an adventurer, the moment to moment journey is more vital than just living in a metaphysical world of facts and figures derived from others,  which he might see as a life not lived at all.

Absolutely!  Without inner quest....merely reading about the cosmos and QM is not living at all IMO.     What reality would we get to know of?!