Lucid Dreamers and God
Nes, you are not a very good reader.
My deity, as stated is not anthropomorphic. I am not speaking from a proto linguistic perspective.
According to science? You don't know anything about language. You can use words according to definition, or by enumeration, as you are doing.
By definition, our purpose is the same as any other environmental acquisition system of a living organism.
Biological fact.
Philosopher8659 wrote: Nes, you are not a very good reader.
My deity, as stated is not anthropomorphic. I am not speaking from a proto linguistic perspective.
According to science? You don't know anything about language. You can use words according to definition, or by enumeration, as you are doing.
By definition, our purpose is the same as any other environmental acquisition system of a living organism.
Biological fact.
I have actually read up on science through studying it online, and by studying it through the others to know how negative it is.
As far as my studies on math and on programming, I am still schooling (I am basically slow at schooling, so I don't learn as fast as some of the others), so I basically am learning about different things on my way to pursue an education.
According to Summer, we don't really have much of a purpose, if any. We don't really have any reason to exist on this planet. His attitude is very pessimist like mine is. And according to him, our existence is nothing more than an illusion. If science really did actually mean for us to have an actual purpose to exist, then why is nature constantly so cruel to our species allowing us to constantly suffer all the time?
You are probable confusing something with nothing. If life is a thing, then it is something, and can be predicated of. Typically, people speak of life as meaning their life. Life is not a thing, we are,
Just because one cannot predicate of life, just like one cannot predicate of space, or linearity, one can predicate of a line, a life, your life.
You do, just like everyone else, have a biologically defined purpose. Or as Aristotle would say, "Everything that has a function, exists for its function."
When you do not know what your function is, your job, nor how it is done, you are not actually self aware.
When one does not know what definition is, nor that language is constrained by definition, then they get language as the above posters. Pure gibberish. As Plato and other pointed out, All reasoning follows from definition, and definition is a mirror in names of reality.
Philosopher8659 wrote: You are probable confusing something with nothing. If life is a thing, then it is something, and can be predicated of. Typically, people speak of life as meaning their life. Life is not a thing, we are,
Just because one cannot predicate of life, just like one cannot predicate of space, or linearity, one can predicate of a line, a life, your life.
You do, just like everyone else, have a biologically defined purpose. Or as Aristotle would say, "Everything that has a function, exists for its function."
When you do not know what your function is, your job, nor how it is done, you are not actually self aware.
When one does not know what definition is, nor that language is constrained by definition, then they get language as the above posters. Pure gibberish. As Plato and other pointed out, All reasoning follows from definition, and definition is a mirror in names of reality.
Basically asexual people don't really have much of a purpose in life at all according to science unless somehow we learn parthenogenesis or DNA cloning. Science basically teaches that we live here to eat, sleep, excrete, reproduce, and then die. And then basically the cycle starts again with our offspring. We may learn techniques in how we can survive longer, but basically that's how you live your life. In most scientists today, they wouldn't value one individual species from another at all. In fact most people don't even value each other at all, which is why divorce happens at such a very high rate.
Since the principles of language are not followed today, do you think you can rely on what you read?
Critical reading is reading and comparing a persons words against the principles of language.
Once you establish a naming convention, thinking and speaking according to definition is the only way you can speak without talking non-sense. Definition determines the principles of predication. That is how Plato could argue so well. You simply show how the other person cannot even adhere to, much less comprehend definition. My work in analogic is only half of my language project.
Secondly, when you argue, it is not who says what, but the following of reasoning based on definition. That is the meaning of In the beginning was the Word,. . . it is the principles of language that are God, the only power, or authority for a mind that is awake.
All of my essays follow from definition. If one does not follow by definition, they can no more give their word than keep it. Not in any social situation.
We are a mind. One of a group of environmental acquisition systems of a living organism. Our purpose is identical to the rest, to maintain and promote the life of the body-and to do in accordance with the principles of language. We simply produce the behavior of our body in order to have life and have it more abundantly. Or, in the solution to the name of the Beast 666 "To regulate our behavior so as to turn the past into the future and to bring the future to pass."
As the puzzle was sealed by principles of language (the answer is actually given at least 4 times in the text) that is how we do our job. That is our purpose. If we cannot do that, all the words in the world can not cover up the fact that we are simply dysfunctional, no matter who says what.
The whole of the Platonic doctrine is virtue is doing our own work-the work of mind. Plato based his outlines, each on a principle of reason or psychology. The Judeo-Christian Scripture is not only written in the same manner, but it writes the words also in the history of man. Far more advanced than Plato.
For example, if you are not thinking, you see two stories of creation, the blessing and the curse, Gen 1 to Gen 3. If you are thinking by definition, you see this; The serpent spoke in the name of the Lord, What he said came to pass. God confirmed his words. In other words, the serpent, by Law, was a prophet sent by God. The outcome was the same, to become like God, or Truth in judgment. It is a test of the human mind. Not written by man. You read it by appearance and they look quite different, even opposed, you read by definition, they both say the same thing. Like my mathematical glyphs, you write the equation and then you move the elements of the glyphs and the figure looks radically different, but the definition always remains the same, you always get the correct answer to the equation. A very wise man once said, Judge not by appearance, but by righteous judgment. That is only possible, as even Confucius pointed out, by the rectification of names. But to go from one kind of thinking, to the other is a great leap in psychology. There is a real psychological difference between being proto linguistic, and linguistic. I use to write before I took up my studies seriously, I asked in the Lucid Dream state about my work, I got the reply that it was rubbish, but I was also told that some day I would have to share what I learned in unlocking the principles of language. Lucid Dreaming is a constant state of criticism of our behavior.
Philosopher's logic: if we concede that we are made of atoms (because it's conveyed in language format somewhere) we desist from our identity as humans.
[ Post made via Android ] Image
Someone who cannot reason, always places an adjective where it cannot linguistically go.
Is logic mine, or yours, what is said is simply either true or false.
I would be just as reasonable if I said, If I believed that running involved legs, then running would loose its identity as running.
Adjective? If you are referring to my post above, you tell me where you see an adjective. If you say "logic" I will laugh because it's a noun. The adjective would be "logical" so you have just shot yourself in the foot one more time. And since you are trying at all costs to criticise me, allowed me to repay you, my friend. It's "lose," not "loose." Go on, edit it! :mrgreen:
And running would not lose it's identity as running. The word "run" contains definitions which can involve the use of legs but not necessarily. Example: My car runs on Diesel. So if you said you believe running always involves legs, you would simply be wrong. :-D
[ Post made via Android ] Image
Interestingly enough, the word "run" has the most definitions of any word in the English language. Lol!
[ Post made via iPhone ] Image
Look up the definition of an adjective, and then tell me that in such constructions Euclid's Elements, etc, Euclid's is not adjectival, genius.
You should teach yourself to write clearly. It's an indispensable tool in discussion. That last post was a grammatical and syntactical atrociy, like much of your writing. Or perhaps writing with deliberate ambiguity and pedantry is a conscious strategy...
[ Post made via iPhone ] Image
You should teach yourself the principles of language itself. You just stated a self referential fallacy. Common grammar is a logic, this means that the analog component resides with the reader for understanding. That is why people don't get writers like Plato, or the source of the Judeo-Christian Scripture, or even mathematics for that matter.
Lucid Dreams, on the other hand, is an analog language, one has to have a certain degree of rationality to actually comprehend it as a language.
Both branches of language are interdependent, the principles of which you will find in no author today, except those who pair the analog with the logical, i.e. a formal system, as Euclid attempted, and as I demonstrate in my novels.
Those who are truly linguistically incompetent, don't get it no matter how it is said. The very fact that the analog component of common grammar is in the most rudimentary stages of standardization, demonstrates, or proves, mankind is proto-linguistic.
Yaweh has joined this debate with his circular logic, deschainXIX! ^^ :-D
[ Post made via Android ] Image
Arceus has joined the debate. I threw a Master Ball and caught the Pokémon Deity: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B6dZXgvA2gc
Now he has to do what I say....mwah ha ha!! http://www.vgcats.com/comics/?strip_id=282 (Arceus is the Pokémon at the end of the comic)
There is no God. :mrgreen:
Philosopher is one of those people who finds patterns; connects dots; observes the utility of people, animals, and things; and then uses this to reinforce his teleological delusions. He is the sort of person who looks at geometrical wonders - such as Euclid's Orchard - which to me are nothing but great mathematical art and utilities, and deems them to allude to some kind of ultimate godly order. He is swayed by some kind of mathematical pantheism and lost in his own metaphorical gobbledygook. Earth calling Philosopher!
He is no different to some who occasionally experience numinous lucid dreams and mistake that for divine revelation. Lucid dreaming can be a useful tool and a source of creativity. Nothing more.
[ Post made via Android ] Image
Summerlander wrote: There is no God. :mrgreen:
Philosopher is one of those people who finds patterns; connects dots; observes the utility of people, animals, and things; and then uses this to reinforce his teleological delusions. He is the sort of person who looks at geometrical wonders - such as Euclid's Orchard - which to me are nothing but great mathematical art and utilities, and deems them to allude to some kind of ultimate godly order. He is swayed by some kind of mathematical pantheism and lost in his own metaphorical gobbledygook. Earth calling Philosopher!
He is no different to some who occasionally experience numinous lucid dreams and mistake that for divine revelation. Lucid dreaming can be a useful tool and a source of creativity. Nothing more.
[ Post made via Android ] Image
Quite a mouthful for someone who cannot fault any line of reasoning, equation, or geometrical demonstration that I have done. But, that is the definition of a BS'er, is it not? Someone who engages in character assassination because they cannot actually do a thing about the actual arguments. How pathetic. You must lead a very insecure life. But then, I understand how frightening it is when something is simple and you cannot comprehend it. One tends to act like a mindless animal.
You base your attacks as someone who assumes the whole world is like you, too lazy or too stupid to actually examine the facts, the evidences I have posted online. As you have consistently refused to present any, for you apparently have nothing to show but empty words which only reflect your own pathology.
You apparently never considered, that since the mind is responsible for human behavior, a great deal of what your mind is capable of doing is always reflected in your actions. My cat doesn't consider that either. However, if my cat became aggressive, I would simply let it out into the wild.
The fact that I maintain that a proof is something which simply proofs the use of words back to definitions, is not actually a new idea. Nor is it an irrational one, for, being civil, being linguistic, has never been anything more than the ability to give your word, and keep it. Or, since we are mind, and in a metaphor, Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. Not magic, nor mysticism, a simple linguistic fact. There is plenty of evidence I tender for my words, thousands of examples where I reduce proofs back to the givens only, so that my equations are, when I can do the reduction, always given solely in terms of the givens, in other words, to first principles. A method I taught myself from the first time I took up the exercise. You will find that it is an ideology quite distinct from Cartesian Geometry, which is always in reference to an arbitrary coordinate system. And even Einstein's dependency on coordinate systems of reference, when anyone linguistic agrees with Plato, the relative difference between things cannot be predicated of either things. Results solely in terms of the givens are independent of arbitrary coordinate systems of reference, an idea science has yet to comprehend and master. And the fact that I can demonstrate linguistic facts about the Judeo-Christian Scripture does not imply that my mind is weaker than yours, not by a long shot, and not by your method of demonstrating just how weak your mind is. You certainly can carve a boat with an ax, or you can manufacture one according to standards. One of them, however, will definitely not break arctic ice, nor float an army in your defense.
The whole idea, that the mind is responsible for human behavior, and that it is wholly linguistic by function and fact, and that true psychotherapy relies on this fact, is not only the foundation of the Judeo-Christian Scripture, but also the Platonic Dialogs. It is also the foundation of reason itself. Proof is always the ability to demonstrate that "line must be upon line, and precept upon precept." Not mysticism, not magic, but a true religious function of mind. The reason you cannot resolve many examples to the one idea, is because you are incapable of seeing the idea to begin with. Not even a child can group what it cannot grasp--but it often has a tantrum blaming the blocks.
As counting developed by grouping via a standard of perceptible objects, it expands to grouping by the intelligible, which is simply beyond some. We really have not strayed far from the crib after all. But don't have a panic attack, just keep working on it. Logics, after all, are only methods of indexing and manipulating memory. If you don't have the memory, well, nice house, but nobody home again. Give your linguists a ton more grants, and they just might some day figure that out. After all, what have they said about a monkey and a typewrite? Give these guys more paper and ink! However, if you really don't believe that we live by chance, maybe it is true, someone would be sent to teach man about Law, the principles of language itself.
It is no accident that language consists of two fundamental branches. For a mind they amount to the indexing system and the material indexed. Logic and Analogic. Two Branches of Law. Both derived from one and the same thing, i.e., a perfect match between them. neither of them alone, can be called language. However, you do have two branches of language because one can take either one as a given, and the other must be a product of mental crafting.
This pattern might be recognized by anyone familiar with the workings of a computer.
When comparing two things, one compares the definition of the things themselves, not when they were written, not the use of language to write them in, not the mythology associated with the thing. Damn. If you cannot compare them, then show some sense, check the content of your own hard drive. If it is empty, then don't pretend you can do the impossible or that your ignorance really is bliss.
Now, I realize you are not taught this in school, but if it was, if man had the wit to figure it out, there would be no need of what is actually written in the Book.
Some have asked, why do I bother with people who are really thick. I learned how to solve the Delian Problem because it was said impossible. Granted it took me 10 years, much of that time working 12 hours a day, 7 days a week in a factory, and granted most will not even look at it because of the bad rep it has in history, and others simply do not comprehend the solution and there may be some, that if they accept the solution, that the foundation of language rests on definition, they would be out of a job with a history of personal incompetence tacked on to it. But the more difficult the task, the more one is apt to learn. I learned enough from it to develop a new branch of Basic Analog Mathematics, which some have sought for from almost the start of formal geometry. There is an old ancient saying, hard is the good.
As the mind is wholly linguistic by function, a sane approach to problem solving is to strive for the linguistic competence for the task. I would never have even considered reading the Book, had not my teacher in the lucid dream state given me a certain reply to a certain question. A question in regard to the function of lucid dreams themselves. My first reaction to the Book was that it was rubbish, but it only took a moment of reflection to see language used in a way I was unfamiliar with, language that required whole linguistic processing. Most of it is beyond me, but the easier parts, which others could not see, all say the same thing, learn how to do our own work as mind.
A correct education then consists in the perfection, understanding, and maintenance of the indexing systems of the mind, i.e. Logic, and the material indexed, experience, i.e., Analogic. Ordered experience is best learned by learning real hands on and functional crafts. One of the simplest, and most economical, is simply geometry.
In vague terms, language and culture. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xai6s0AEyYc
Character assassination? Is that how you feel? Wow! :mrgreen:
I'm sorry, but, I also don't know what I'm supposed to present. From where I'm standing, you are the one making claims to knowledge that most don't possess because apparently we are all proto-linguistic. I confess that I didn't even check your links. Do you know why? The ignorance transuding from your badly constructed posts put me off. :mrgreen:
Seriously, though, your presentation is terrible apart from your anti-scientific views, Judeo-Christian recommendations, and casuistry. If you are really onto something, and I got you completely wrong, prove me wrong. Why not go for the Nobel Prize, eh? ;-)
[ Post made via Android ] Image
Summerlander wrote:
He is no different to some who occasionally experience numinous lucid dreams and mistake that for divine revelation. Lucid dreaming can be a useful tool and a source of creativity. Nothing more.
[ Post made via Android ] Image
Lucid Dreaming is a form of escapism actually. A way to escape the cruelty of the real world. Because I know my DCs would never hurt me (as I created them), so I can talk to them all I want, and never get criticized (unless I program them to do so). This is why I hate reality, and prefer Lucid Dreaming over it. I even told the so called people who thought ghosts existed their world was horrible, because the last thing I needed was to deal with yet more former humans who would probably discriminate against and hate me anyways. DCs are so much easier to deal with, as they will never discriminate (unless you program them to). This is a video that compares reality to a Lucid Dream: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XFQURrhXOFw
Lucid dreaming can be useful in many ways. Escapism is one of them. And yes, you are quite right in saying that dream people are just that... dream people. They are just mental creations. Illusions. Not real.
[ Post made via Android ] Image
I've never seen more a gross misunderstanding of the atheist's position. Dawkins et al assert that there could be a deity, but it is certainly not the paternalistic, mercurial maniac of humanity's religions. The religious say, "You dont know what the answer is," to which the atheist replies, "No. But I know what it's not. You're the one with the immodesty to claim to know." You must always allow for the uncertainy factor. As Bertrand Russell said, "There could be a teacup currently orbiting Jupiter, but it's very unlikely." Or there could be a huge tentacle monster orbiting our universe, the product of its gastro-intestinal distress.
Hagart is right. We must reconcile ourselves with the fact that we cannot, with our meager doling of mammalian cranial matter, understand the quantum spontaneity of existence, so it's not necessary to desire to comprehend fully its totality. We evolved to fuck and survive, not to understand what the universe is or why it's there.
[ Post made via iPhone ] Image
And the real miracle is that the universe proves to be comprehensible to us with every discovery we make. And isn't it wonderful how amazingly accurate in its predictions quantum theory can be? ;-)
There is no reason for me to believe in God or to even entertain the idea. Not only is it doubtful, it is undesirable, too! Who wants a celestial dictator who paradoxically judges his creation?
The same applies to the idea of life after death. Scientific experiments show us how consciousness depends on brain function. Meditation can show us that the self is an illusion. And if when I die I happen to subsequently wake in a laboratory -- packed with subjects 'sleeping' in chambers -- to discover that it was all a cruel experiment, I will be very angry with those behind it. And I will also proceed to wake up my loved ones and the rest of humanity. If we entertain this idea we cannot help but take into account that, so far, WE (the living) remain in this 'dream world' and the dead are yet to contact us from the beyond. Of course this doesn't prove that they, as conscious agents, ceased to exist completely -- but it doesn't prove that they survived and are unable to 'wake' us either.
You say something is missing, Hagart? I'm sorry but I don't know what you're talking about. By the way, buildit... There is a gnome living in my garden and I am the only person that can see him. This being tells me he created the universe, too. Can you disprove him? :-)
The OP -- which mentions great secularists such as Thomas Paine, Bertrand Russell, and A.C. Grayling -- already illustrates why the onus is on believers to demonstrate God's existence. Without evidence, why should one believe? Faith? It's not a virtue as much as religionists like to claim and it defies reason.
Me and deschainXIX are not even bringing anything new to the table, guys. If you read through a book like Dawkins's "The God Delusion," you will find all the necessary refutations of theological charges, the pseudoscience of intelligent design, the ludicrous wager proposed by Blaise Pascal, the brainwashing and mental abuse of children by religion etc. etc. I find it impossible not to resonate with the reasoning of Richard Dawkins. If you have something that makes his position untenable, I'm all ears...
[ Post made via Android ] Image
It may well be that when man can understand how to produce life from nonorganic matter that religion will need to give up the ghost, but somehow I doubt it. I mean how hard would you laugh if Neil degrass Tyson suddenly came out and said we are actually going to Mars because we found God there. I mean think of all the money the space program could drain from churches? How could delusional followers not fund the need to set up a base there so they could be closer to their God?
Religion can start by giving up the God of the Gaps tactic as science is quickly filling in such cracks and the Almighty is running out of places to hide. Looking at life today and attempting to work out its origins is akin to forensics. Scientific fields such as cosmology, paleontology, biology and chemistry have already helped us to find ways in which life could have emerged and evolved from simplicity. It's no good saying that God planted the seeds when science has already proposed a few rich theoretical candidates which are similar in explanatory power. None of them require a divine creator!
One of the theories discussed in Dawkins's "The Blind Watchmaker" (another book I highly recommend -- it's a mind opener!) is the 'clay theory' of life. The pressures from a hostile, terrestrial environment in its primordial stages, the stirring of chemicals, the increasing complexity of crystals, and other factors led our planet to stumble upon an unlikely event: the first replicator molecule (postulated to have been something like RNA). From then on there was no stopping it...
It has become quite apparent that the conditions for life to emerge have to be right. Earth happens to be in the goldilocks zone, has the right tilt, and the right chemical ingriedients. Given the hostility of most of the observable universe, I would even go as far as saying that intelligent life is rare. To say that our planet struck a jackpot of sorts is not the same as saying a god had special plans for this tiny cosmological grain.
There is no evidence of a divine intelligent designer whatsoever. On the contrary, with the advent of science it has become patently obvious that, to say an omniscient god made the universe is to insult him. If we indeed discover that there is a Creator behind all this we already have an idea of what he/she/it is like. This 'god' would be anything but intelligent! He would be extremely clumsy or, simply put, a sociopath more interested in concealling his whereabouts than to prevent cataclysms that have claimed millions of lives. (Check OP for more on God's caprice.)
So the God religionists are looking for, the one they imagine to be perfect in every way and the source of morality itself, already doesn't exist for He would contradict the very nature of the cosmos. If they find a Creator it will be one who is not worth worshipping or following in any way.
Atheists, thus far, have every reason to remain sceptical -- and every reason to be anti-theistic (go Hitch!). 8-)
And whence came lucid dreaming in this arena? The dream world itself demonstrates how nonsensical our minds can be before any order can be established. This emergent order isn't anything special either. It's just the product of an organism being forced to adapt to a particular environment. Hence, making sense of things...
It seems to me that the escapism lucid dreaming can provide is a tool we found to slake certain urges that cannot (or would be hard to) be entertained in the real world.
[ Post made via Android ] Image
Now of course you know that picking on the Christians, now a days, is like beating the special kid in the wheel chair. If your going to do it right you need to flag down the Muslims who've moved it to the next level of religion based hate because waiting for folks to go to hell isn't really enough, you need to send them there. :roll:
I also find humor in the skeptics who have developed their own religion of anti religion with the books of their gospels leaders, holding them up like the best bible thumper in Texas. Not to mention the sales pitch each adds into their personal speech right after the present their latest book of answers (please send your tax dollars we need a new space ship, collider or telescope). I think it's human nature to pick sides and then loose perspective on what the fight is really about. Watching Dawkins turn red and start calling people names is surely not the polarizing effect he wants. Yet the anger and venom will keep the walls of isolation strong on both sides due to the psychological nature of the participants in the idealogical debate. Maybe that's what they want as it surely has gotten them on some pretty big soap boxes that science alone couldn't.
Both sides like to use lack of evidence as proof of nonexistence. Has science found where new life has pooped into existence in the past 4 billion years? I mean it happened on earth as soon as conditions were "favorable" so why hasn't it happened again on earth?
Old phrase, "figures don't lie but liars can figure". Bring all the data you want but even in science there is seldom a consensus on it's exact meaning. This is why science continues because every discovery just opens doors to new questions. Even the multiverse ideas are so widely debated amongst science that the only reason it exists as a hypothesis is that it cock blocks religion in the intelligent design arena.
Here's an idea. Find evidence that God is on Mars and you'll be able to have a Mars base in five years because of the funding the faithful will force into the system to be closer to God. :D But science would never do that because it would defile the holy walls of the establishment with tainted funds from the deluded. Who's more deluded the people who believe in God or the thousands who signed up for a one way trip to Mars where they'd likely arrive as long dead corpses? :? We don't need believers in God to find signs of all sorts of delusions in humans, so why do skeptics act like religion is somehow spacial when it comes to the faith in astral fairies?
As for logic from lucid dreaming? You are joking right? You know how many snake oil schemes promising spiritual connections there are? If anything lucid dreaming only proves the very ingrained need humans have for delusions to make the world make sense. I couldn't have come up with such a fantastic idea on my own so I must have been dream sharing with someone. I could see myself in bed so I must have left my body. I pack a quartz crystal and it gives me focused energy because quartz is a great conductor of currents of energy (NOT). LOL
Point is we are apparently a delusional species. So maybe the delusion about God is the lesser of the evils we could exhibit in our delusional existences. :cry:
Have you heard of the Balkans war of the '90s? The greatest Brogdingnagian ethnic cleansing of Muslims was conducted by a predominantly Christian Serbian army. These were fanatical Christians who took the Bible seriously -- in particular, the horrid Book of Deuteronomy. As for Muslims, my friend, I can tell you that they have not 'taken it to the next level' as they have always behaved like this. Need I also remind you that, if not for Christianity and Judaism, Islam would not exist today? It makes sense to hold Constantine the Great partly responsible for the insidiousness of a death cult such as Islam. Scepticism is not a religion either -- it is a healthy approach as the world is full of chicanery. Dawkins has not called anyone names, he has simply tried to raise consciousness about bad ideas -- namely those supported by religion.
Now, on the question of abiogenesis and anthropogenesis -- why is it not happening again? It might be! Certain locations on Earth are being studied right now as they resemble the primordial chemical soups that our planet once harboured and scientists tell us that it's possible they might stumble upon replicator molecules unlike anything we've seen (if this hasn't happened already). And then, evolution takes over towards complexity and it may take millions of years before any gross change becomes apparent. This sort of thing doesn't happen overnight. We must also take into account that Earth is not what it used to be. Terrestrial protology is not what you imagine it to be -- for starters, the atmosphere lacked oxygen back then (billions of years ago) as the fermentation of crystals were still producing potential replicators destined to generate the precursors of DNA. So, asking why life hasn't happened again on Earth is like asking why the atmosphere is no longer what it used to be. And seen as the evolved complex lifeforms such as plants and animals of today consume minerals and procreate for survival, it has become exceedingly difficult for Earth to hit the jackpot again. The abiogenetic affair is doubly improbable now despite a planetary gamble taking place today with new substances.
As you can see, buildit, you are not aware of much of the scientific literature, otherwise you would understand that there is only one side lacking evidence whilst making premature claims to knowledge.
Science has no dogmas and tests the nature of reality. It has predictive power and its experimentation and conclusions are then peer-reviewed. It is simply a method of enquiry which has improved our way of life a great deal. If there was no consensus in the scientific community, you would not have a TV, a phone, a PC or a laptop amongst many other amazing technologies. What has religion brought you? Fear, ignorance, and prayers...
It is true that certain discoveries made by science open the door to new questions... questions that the pious wouldn't even dream of asking! Heck, despite being able to predict how gravity will affect objects in space we still don't know how it works. But while the scientist humbly and honestly admits to not knowing, the religious will claim to already know with a non-sequitur: 'God's behind it!' While the scientist informs us that he is still working on it, the religious have already given up the search for answers. The lord, they say, is responsible and thus what else is there to know?
Also, how many probes have we sent to Mars and how many show it to be an arid planet devoid of life let alone... God? :mrgreen:
Buildit also suffers from the very servile masochistic syndrome blighting the pious: Human beings are worthless without God. My mind couldn't have possibly generated such perspicacious voice, therefore it was God Himself imparting His revelation to me. Buildit's version -- 'I couldn't possibly have come up with such idea, therefore I was dream sharing with someone.'
Never mind the fact that most of the information in the brain never reaches consciousness, right? :-)
By the way, when did I say that we derive logic from lucid dreaming. I believe my words were, 'The dream world itself demonstrates how nonsensical our minds can be...' Go back and re-read that paragraph! :-D
I should have called this "Lucid Dreamers VS God." :mrgreen:
[ Post made via Android ] Image
You do realize that like Israel the Balkins have had ethnic wars possibly since the time of Alexander the Great. I simply am teasing you that you like to chastise a group of religious people far less likely to take an attack upon God as a reason to kill another. In other words I'm calling you a bully for not picking on a tougher crowd. :twisted:
As for your points on abiogenesis, this is a question science has asked. I mean if we really want to predict the likelihood of life elsewhere in the universe this is a question we need to understand. I am not bothered by the answer that science doesn't know, but the less likely life is to simply come into existence the more we need to question other possibilities. We are still investigating extremophiles in the oddest places. We model their success in our thoughts of exobiology and what we might look for elsewhere in the solar system for life. I simply point out that in considering if a higher being was involved we need to consider this factor in the drake equation.
As for Dawkins, even Tyson has commented that he is not a level headed person in a debate. He says Dawkins is very precise and grammatically correct but not as great a communicator as he could be. I tend to group Dawkins and Krauss in the same boat of strongly opinionated atheist crusader looking to score points with their fellow anti christians. Which is fine, I still respect their research. Well, maybe Krauss more than Richard since he's also from Ohio. :lol: Maybe this link will work? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dxff0k_TEzI
As for science having no dogma in principal I agree. It is the most useful tool humans have for discovering new information without the bias of our opinion. But the creatures that use science are flawed, prone to delusion and pick heros and Gods from TV stars to scientific celebrities. Likewise they can be influenced by money and power, as in reports from tobacco industries and even the anti global warming reports.
As for my "very servile masochistic syndrome blighting the pious", I have no clue where you are getting that from my joking about the funding of NASA Mars missions thru redirecting gullible believers about God being there. :roll:
In the end I am a scientist and have been since high school, my two degrees and career in laboratory work with gas filters and detection equipment. I'm also a Christian but not a bible thumper, it's a book written by men and I've seen it twisted and used for control to many times. I like the idea of mankind reaching to be something better than our animal biology leads us to be. I think the term is greater than the sum of our parts. I think that is what God is all about. If we can't do that we will surely continue on the road we have started towards certain disaster for humans and possibly all life on earth.
buildit wrote: You do realize that like Israel the Balkins have had ethnic wars possibly since the time of Alexander the Great.
And your point with this is? Because from where I'm standing it still doesn't take away from the fact that Christians massacred Muslims in the '90s in that particular region. It was still a religious war. :mrgreen:
buildit wrote: I simply am teasing you that you like to chastise a group of religious people far less likely to take an attack upon God as a reason to kill another. In other words I'm calling you a bully for not picking on a tougher crowd. :twisted:
LOL! :-D
This is like a baby in the playground saying, 'Why do you always pick on me, why don't you pick on him?' If it makes you feel any better, I have already criticised Islam enough in my other thread, the "Iraqi Crisis" one.
But Christianity is just as pernicious. It's doctrine forbids embryonic stem cell research (I can't believe you are a scientist and Christian but I do believe that you are neither good at one or the other) which, I shouldn't have to tell you, Mr. Scientist, promises to rid us of many ills and could potentially save an untold number of lives.
Contrarily, the doctrine of Islam has no remonstrances regarding such scientific practice. And then, of course, there is Mother Teresa who once encouraged the poor to suffer and die in order to know the mind of that Jewish carpenter we are not even sure existed -- I remember her also saying that people shouldn't wear condoms... :-)
A bully for not picking on a tougher crowd... :-D
Oh dearie me, that cracked me up! Never mind that Christianity predominates in the most powerful nations on Earth: The United States of America and the Russian Federation. 8-)
buildit wrote: We are still investigating extremophiles in the oddest places.
We can only talk of life as we know it, but it must be said that all the planets outside the Goldilocks zone of our solar system have apparently failed to produce life. If it is found, it is likely to be bacteria. Also, I really can't envision extremophiles giving rise to intelligent civilisations -- this remains to be seen.
buildit wrote: As for Dawkins, even Tyson has commented that he is not a level headed person in a debate. He says Dawkins is very precise and grammatically correct but not as great a communicator as he could be. I tend to group Dawkins and Krauss in the same boat of strongly opinionated atheist crusader looking to score points with their fellow anti christians. Which is fine, I still respect their research. Well, maybe Krauss more than Richard since he's also from Ohio. :lol:
So you assess someone's research based on where they are from? What a great scientist you are! 8-)
buildit wrote: Maybe this link will work? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dxff0k_TEzI
I have watched the whole symposium before (unlike you, I'm sure) and it's not much of a rebuke really. They were debating about how the goods are delivered to the layperson (especially if they are religious) and if books with a degree of persuasion is the right approach. You also failed to mention Dawkins's much warranted response for comparison. (Talk about Tyson bias there on your part.)
Perhaps we should segregate the world into two communities: the scientific and the religious. If they are not into science and abhor it then they might as well give up all the privileges that science has provided them with. Let's see what happens.
If some people really want a world without science perhaps we should leave them to it and see how they fare. Tyson is great but he is also very naive about the geopolitical repercussions of leaving people to their ignorance -- especially those who believe the nuke is God's gift to bring about Armageddon. Such people care not about the scientifically intricate explanations. This is where Dawkins -- and certainly Sam Harris in that arena -- comes in and tries to encourage more people to delve into science. The books are useful in introducing the scientific world to the layman. It is a beautiful thing, in my opinion, to see scientists excited to share what they found in science with the rest of the world. (I loved the scientific literature produced for the layman by those who worked at CERN and found the Higgs boson.) It is also great when the philosophical work is done for you which encourages to do your own from an advanced standpoint. ;-)
buildit wrote: As for science having no dogma in principal I agree. It is the most useful tool humans have for discovering new information without the bias of our opinion. But the creatures that use science are flawed, prone to delusion and pick heros and Gods from TV stars to scientific celebrities. Likewise they can be influenced by money and power, as in reports from tobacco industries and even the anti global warming reports.
Nobody said we are not flawed, but progress has been made (albeit slowly) and we live longer and better than before. And religion certainly hasn't helped -- it stultifies human progress. Think about the number of children dissuaded from learning about evolution in America. Think about women in the Middle East who are not allowed an education and how Islam is mostly anti-science. Think about the millions of people with great potential who were deprived a chance. And then there are those like you who don't help matters by pretending to be scientists and religious people at the same time...
buildit wrote: As for my "very servile masochistic syndrome blighting the pious", I have no clue where you are getting that from my joking about the funding of NASA Mars missions thru redirecting gullible believers about God being there. :roll:
I also don't see how you think I got that from your NASA joke. I got that from your statement about deeming yourself to be incapable of great ideas and positing 'dream sharing' as the explanation. :-)
buildit wrote: In the end I am a scientist
No you're not. :mrgreen:
buildit wrote: I'm also a Christian
No, you're not. :mrgreen:
buildit wrote: I like the idea of mankind reaching to be something better than our animal biology leads us to be. I think the term is greater than the sum of our parts. I think that is what God is all about.
So you like fantasy and admit that this is what the God concept is all about? You do know that this has got nothing to do with truth, right? :-D
[ Post made via Android ] Image
I have watched the whole symposium before (unlike you, I'm sure)
and you'd be wrong as usual.
Perhaps we should segregate the world into two communities: the scientific and the religious. If they are not into science and abhor it then they might as well give up all the privileges that science has provided them with. Let's see what happens.
But it was religious individuals who discovered and first developed the field of science. I know, you can have Newtons theories on Alchemy. :P
Nobody said we are not flawed, but progress has been made (albeit slowly) and we live longer and better than before. And religion certainly hasn't helped -- it stultifies human progress.
Yes, science has been a great tool for the powerful and rich. But what has it done in third world countries? It's the religious groups who send food and medical aid to the quake in Nepal. When it comes to bad science there is good reason to fear the advances science has given the militaries of the world to kill people. War gases, nuclear bombs and better ways to kill at a distance with drones. As Isaac Asimov said: 'The saddest aspect of life right now is that science gathers knowledge faster than society gathers wisdom.'
So you like fantasy and admit that this is what the God concept is all about? You do know that this has got nothing to do with truth, right? :-D
Truth? Science doesn't give you truth either. It gives us data and observations which are used in interpretation by people. You admit people (humans) are flawed delusional beings right? It's your whole argument against religion is it's a delusion in human minds. But when it's human minds interpreting science data they work better? Now you're the one who's delusional and grasping at fantasy. :D
buildit wrote: and you'd be wrong as usual.
Would I now?
buildit wrote: But it was religious individuals who discovered and first developed the field of science. I know, you can have Newtons theories on Alchemy. :P
It wasn't science back then just as Newton's hobbies were not scientific.
buildit wrote: Yes, science has been a great tool for the powerful and rich. But what has it done in third world countries? It's the religious groups who send food and medical aid to the quake in Nepal.
Wrong. It's not just religious people helping out there.
buildit wrote: when it comes to bad science
'Bad science' is not science. Science is either done properly or not at all.
buildit wrote: there is good reason to fear the advances science has given the militaries of the world to kill people. War gases, nuclear bombs and better ways to kill at a distance with drones.
To be read with sarcasm... :-D
Because science comes with instructions to kill people and religion doesn't, right? I suppose Newton is also to blame everytime a plane crashes, and Einstein is responsible for the nuclear bomb because he discovered that E=mc2. And cutlers are to blame everytime a serial killer uses a kitchen knife... :-D
buildit wrote: As Isaac Asimov said: 'The saddest aspect of life right now is that science gathers knowledge faster than society gathers wisdom.'
And what do you think Asimov implied with this statement? That science should gather knowledge at a slower pace for our own good or that society should get with the program and work towards the same goal i.e. the good of mankind? :-)
buildit wrote: Truth? Science doesn't give you truth either. It gives us data and observations which are used in interpretation by people.
This coming from a self-proclaimed Christian, folks! Talk about the pot calling the kettle black! :-D
buildit wrote: You admit people (humans) are flawed delusional beings right? It's your whole argument against religion is it's a delusion in human minds. But when it's human minds interpreting science data they work better? Now you're the one who's delusional and grasping at fantasy. :D
Am I delusional in saying that some minds work better than others? :mrgreen:
But I will concede -- as I've mentioned before anyway -- that scientists can get it wrong, too. However, the difference is that they are quick to rectify their mistakes if their theories happen to be falsified. In the processed, scientific papers are binned. The same cannot be said about the pious, who stick to the same scripture and the same belief without evidence. In some instances, they kill you for burning their sacred book.
Call me delusional again. :mrgreen:
[ Post made via Android ] Image
It's alright, Deschain. I could have mentioned to Buildit that Isaac Asimov was an atheist, too. :mrgreen:
And I could remind you Gregor Mendel was a clergy, it doesn't make genetics illegitimate . :roll:
So Buildit, have we established here, once and for all, that, in all likelihood, God does not exist in any way, shape or form apart from human imagination and dreams (lucid or otherwise)? :mrgreen:
In all likelihood it wouldn't matter to you if he did. :lol:
By the way, Buildit, I really recommend that you read "The Selfish Gene" as it will help you to acquire a better understanding of evolution and dispel that ridiculous notion that the gene is somehow sentient, intelligent and thus selfish as though it were an ego. :geek:
I couldn't find it today but I did but The Greatest Show On Earth. Since it is written after The Selfish Gene I am hoping it might contain some of his thoughts on the issue. My education specified the importance of natural selection and economics of energy in the environment and food webs over individual causality.
I try not to carry any prejudices or ego into discussions like this. But as you consider it a debate I now see where my perception of your derisiveness emanates from.
Buildit, do you realize that you just said that "the individual," as a biological unit, is the same thing as fluid genetic information? These are indisputably distinct entities in science, like the distinction between populations and communities and ecosystems. It doesn't really matter what it "seems" like "to you," because this is elementary biology and Dawkins specifically dispels this confusion in almost all of his work.
Taking what I said out of context? Are we discussing the genetics of a population or the heredity of an individual here? When I heard Dawkins discuss it he used it in the context of the individual and their natural instincts as influenced by genetic preservation. He did not cover the expression of genes in a population like Mendal did.
Here is one of the videos on the selfish gene I watched... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n8C-ntwUpzM
Now here he is defining the individual as a carrier of the gene and that the genes of a population are dependent upon the individual as being good at what it does. This to me is inherent in natural selection. The altruism is based upon a benefit for the individual. These benefits are obvious in the benefit of mutual protection, mating opportunities and food availability thru exploiting cooperative hunting. All of these natural instincts are beneficial to the genes immortality. In a very obvious way the symbiotic relationship that began between dogs and humans demonstrates the genius of a gene trait which utilizes empathy and kinship even outside of its own species.
If you still think my comprehension of his theory is incorrect please explain it better than you have in previous comments.
When did anyone mention even in passing the Mendelian (not "Mendalian") principles of heredity? They have nothing to do with your failure to discriminate between the levels of organization in ecosystems.
What don't you understand?
1.) You said Dawkins thought individuals were selfishly motivated due to their genes, comparing his theory to cynicism. 2.) I corrected you; Dawkins acknowledges both the altruistic and selfish behavior we see in individuals and populations, as genes are the selfish operators in nature, not individuals. Dawkins constantly tells people not to misconstrue his idea for an advocation of selfishness (as is the case with cynicism; as you were drawing parallels between cynicism and Dawkins' gene idea). 3.) You spun out casuistry, saying that the gene's selfishness, in your mind, equated to the individual's selfishness, despite the gene often compelling the individual to sacrifice itself for the longevity of the gene (like parents sacrificing themselves to ensure the survival of progeny).
And, yes, you're completely missing the concept. Dawkins obviously says that selfishness in genes often gives rise to selfishness in individuals, but there is an enormous departure from "cynicism" (as you nastily described it) in that often altruism rises in the individual as well. You're saying that altruism is actually egocentrism in disguise, which is to misconstrue the definition of "altruism"--genuinely selfless motivation for helping others. This we do observe, of course. Dawkins allots a good portion of his book discussing various examples of altruism in nature.
[ Post made via iPhone ] Image
But from what you are saying you imply the gene itself is making some sort of intelligent decision. All genes do is pass on expressed traits. If those trails allow you to reproduce the trait can be carried forward and influence another generation but your description sounds like a anthropomorphism of the abilities of DNA. I hope you are just poorly describing the idea from your laymen's point of view and a more articulate description in his book is more enlightening. :?
It's not really difficult to understand. Personification is a device used here to describe the "selfish" mechanism in nature, the component upon whom natural selection operates. Cynicism itself is a term used in the humanities, whereas this scientific term is used to indicate conditions in nature that would produce what is considered "egocentrism" or "selfishness"--if one wanted to distinguish between the two terms (I wouldn't indulge in such anthropocentrism), fine. (Dawkins actually expressed ironic contempt of the enduring assertion of the humanities in the realm of science in his book.) But one of the most elementary points in biology is that organisms are composed of molecules upon whom the laws of chemistry and physics operate naturally. Once we have replicators that have distinct characteristics, we can have selection, and once we have selection we can have "selfishness":
Naturally, genes that are codes for effective "survival machines" are selected for, against those that code for ineffective progeny-producers and present-generation ensurers. Primarily and tertiarily dogmatic supplies and products are the components of the selection. In other words, the gene "aims" (or perhaps "is aimed") to create prime conditions for its own replication. I know you probably still don't understand, and perhaps Summerlander can explain it better, if he read The Selfish Gene.
The point is that individual organisms are not intrinsically selfish, as cynicism would hold. We observe altruism as well--how does cynicism explain this? And Dawkins obviously acknowledges this, and wrote a whole book explaining that genes, not individuals, are the intrinsically selfish operators in nature. Remember that I'm just clarifying what Dawkins' thoughts are for you; I'm not necessarily defending them (although they are correct). If you think the theory is flawed, take it up with him, not me. And what I mean by that is, actually give his work a look rather than preemptively saying his work is cynicism in order to somehow lend your own lazy, unoriginal thoughts credit. Anyone who pays attention to the syntax of an argument will see you're shifting the argument from what Dawkins' argument is to whether or not it is viable, without any resolution or change of energy. :D
[ Post made via iPhone ] Image
In other words, the gene "aims" (or perhaps "is aimed") to create prime conditions for its own replication.
Doesn't it make more sense to say the genes which provided the traits which increased the likelihood for individuals to survive and reproduce are the ones which get passed on?
The point is that individual organisms are not intrinsically selfish, as cynicism would hold. We observe altruism as well--how does cynicism explain this? And Dawkins obviously acknowledges this, and wrote a whole book explaining that genes, not individuals, are the intrinsically selfish operators in nature.
That matches what I've heard in his online videos and you were much clearer, well done. :D But I would suggest that the underlying principal being survival and successful breeding means that the selfish traits carried by the genes which produce expressed characteristics only increase the likelihood of altruistic behavior. To become altruistic the individual must perceive a benefit from their actions even if the benefit is on a scale that includes improving society such that the environment or culture of the population is a better place for survival or breeding potentials. In my mind to suggest otherwise would mean symbiotic relationships like bacteria in the gut is an altruistic behavior.
So yes, I still see animals as selfish (cynical) even if I agree that the root is to be attributed to genetic imprinting.
@ deschain:
I couldn't agree more with what May Sarton said. No wonder in Christianity Satan sells the tree of knowledge with his luring pitch despite God having forbidden its fruit! I had a feeling that Christopher Hitchens, being the maverick that he was, would provide a professorial account of the pragmatic application of contrarians -- contrarians as needed -- which is redolent of bravery, intelligence, uniqueness and independence. In this sense, being a contrarian has its uses and in hindsight you didn't misrepresent him so much. I can see now how it can be argued that we need more contrarians as an antidote to the abject prostration of the pious by religious dogma. Thanks for clarifying the Hitch's position and I will soon read the book after I'm done with Karl Pilkington's "The Moaning of Life." (Now here's a funny and adorable cynic!) :-D
Indeed, even if Dreyfus had been a bete noir at the time, Emile Zola served as the prime example of an influencial contrarian nobly encouraging others to combat all forms of discrimination -- not just anti-Semitism. Orwell busied himself with the fascists in Spain and the misrepresented Marxism of Stalin. Far too many people seem to think that an idea is worth pursuing because it's ubiquitous. Somehow it doesn't enter the minds of the sheepish herd that the current unanimity could be amiss. And yet, quite a few are enamoured with conspiracy theories!
@ Buildit:
Of course the friarhood of Mendel did not rob genetics of its authenticity. Whoever said it did? (It's sort of ironic that he is mentioned by Dawkins, alongside Darwinism, as the biologist denies Lamarckism in "The Selfish Gene" -- if you had read it you would know.) Genetic function is a fact that Mendel, as a scientist, happened to rightfully uphold -- insofar as he could -- and his religionism was simply irrelevant. The same goes for Newton who did some serious work as regards classical physics when he wasn't dawdling with alchemy. You could have mentioned the apparently seamlessly scientific Francis Collins -- former head of the Human Genome Project -- who decided to embrace Christianity having been numinously transfigured by the sight of a frozen waterfall. This was his personal sign from God. Do you perceive Collins's reason for prostrating before the Almighty to be dianoetic (let alone legitimate)? And how is this relevant to scientific enquiry? :-)
The problem is not what Isaac Asimov said, Buildit. Apart from the irony that you quoted a renowned atheist, what he said was actually valid. But it is your interpretation of his quote that is problematic and fallacious. Asimov's statement does not predicate the stagnation of scientific disciplines for our benefit, nor did he further an urgency to raise erudition in the world as a solution to keep up with discovery and novelty. He merely made a poignant observation. You took that out of context and used it to support your anti-scientism. (You remind me of Rupert Sheldrake.) :-P
And yes, Buildit, 'in all likelihood' when it comes to God's nonentity because His absence is quite striking if not telling. (I hope you know the kind of probability that the quoted phrasal idiom alludes to.)
Moving on to "The Selfish Gene"... When are you going to admit that Deschain schooled you there instead of pretending that he is wrong or belying the subject of evolutionary biology? We have already established that a genetic unit is only 'selfish' in the sense that it is preserved by natural selection over generations. Kin altruism, for instance, may play its role in immortalising certain genetic combinations in the evolution of a species. There is a reason why Dawkins wishes he had listened to the senior publisher Tom Maschler when this one suggested that the book should be titled "The Immortal Gene." It would have been less confusing.
When it comes to Dawkins, you appear to be ignorant of most of his ideas.The expressiveness and recessiveness of genes; genetic coding for embryology; phenotypes; extended phenotypes; and let's not forget memes! The end result determines how the creature is likely to fair in the world. Don't make assumptions about his literature -- read it! His scientific and philosophical kernel is worth digesting as it's extensive and expansive. You should stand corrected (by Deschain) instead of trying to save face by watching pertinent Youtube videos at the last minute as a means to mask your ignorance in the hope to dissemble your previous solecism.
I don't see how Deschain implies that the gene itself is intelligently deciding anything. This is what you implicated with your irrationality earlier, Buildit. Deschain's message was perspicuous enough: Genes can cause selfish as well as altruistic behaviours in individuals. You are either reading too much into what was said (as though Deschain implied genes are conscious agents) or you're deliberately misrepresenting his explanations and hoping to flim-flam him into thinking he wasn't coherent enough with your casuistry. :-)
[ Post made via Android ] Image
If that's what you think, buildit, fine. You're a cynic like Summerlander said. Just don't try to bring Dawkins down to your level; Dawkins is no cynic, he's a scientist, and as I've demonstrated you misrepresented his views. That's all.
"To become altruistic the individual must perceive a benefit from their actions even if the benefit is on a scale that includes improving society such that the environment or culture of the population is a better place for survival or breeding potentials."
It certainly isn't on such a large scale for most organisms. Altruism does not necessarily denote benefiting an entire species. It is simply some behavior that benefits an individual or population other than the individual doing the benefit. Like a bird calling a predator away from the rest of the flock, at the risk that the predator will be able to perceive its location and kill it. Dawkins provides many other examples in his book. This is becoming circular.
But I'm sorry... did you say that symbiotic relationships are altruistic? Oh, my. Let me define a few terms. Symbiosis: a mutually beneficial relationship between two organisms. Altruism: one helps another in a way that doesn't simultaneously help oneself or is actually disadvantageous to oneself. I don't think I need to point out the problem here.
[ Post made via iPhone ] Image
It took a semantic iteration from Deschain to finally snuff out that derisory -- and persistent! -- oxymoron of yours, Buildit. Get "The Selfish Gene." PLEASE! :-D
[ Post made via Android ] Image
So with a lot of weekend travel I had time to listen to the online version of the Selfish gene. Since you obviously like to simply twist my words to mean what you want them to say, as you did with my comment about symbiotic relationship of bacteria in the gut, I'll just say Dawkins doesn't back up what you say. In fact he says' he anthropomorphizes genes for the purposes of illustration.
The point is that individual organisms are not intrinsically selfish, as cynicism would hold. We observe altruism as well--how does cynicism explain this? And Dawkins obviously acknowledges this, and wrote a whole book explaining that genes, not individuals, are the intrinsically selfish operators in nature.
Several times he explains the personification of genes is for illustrative purposes only. So he is only attributing selfishness to genes to clarify the roll of evolution in the deterministic progression of the traits carried forward by DNA. Human altruism is in fact attributed for the good of the gene and is why he attributes the selfishness to the gene. This is a personification so in reality the selfishness is ours, the cynicism is ours. Dawkins says' in his first version "let us teach altruism" because even he had issues separating the vehicle from the operator. This is all fine and well for illustrative purposes. Look at the cost benefit model he uses to account for altruistic behavior. While he acknowledges that individual organisms do not necessarily calculate this for their actions the accounting predicts what we see in nature. If it is to the benefit of the individual then that is the course followed weather it is feeding young or letting a runt die. We follow self interested nature that cost benefit analysis confirms. Unlike a computer whose base programming can't change animals can alter their behavior on the fly based upon perceived benefits. The genes base commands predetermine an animals instinct but intelligence can over ride that. So being selfish by the nature of the base instructions from our genes doesn't mean we cannot find value in altruistic behavior and change. I might argue that intelligence has evolved because it allows for vessels to overcome genetic predisposition for selfishness finding better ways to ensure their genes are passed on.
In the end I found it a boring book with few insights not widely discussed and accepted already in many naturalist and genetic fields. It is a product of its time, where Jane Goodall was still wowing the world with insight into primate behavior, breaking down human preconceptions of our primate cousins being less like us than we would otherwise admit.
Here is the link to the audio book--> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=drCcUbP79AU
deschainXIX wrote:
"It's not really difficult to understand. Personification is a device used here to describe the "selfish" mechanism in nature, the component upon whom natural selection operates."
Did you... skim over this, buildit? Maybe read slower next time. Of course a gene is not literally sentient, and I never indicated that in the slightest. :lol:
You still don't seem to recognize that there is everywhere behavior that is not for the good of the individual, but good for the extenuation of the genotype. Or maybe you have, and you're just wriggling to make biology out to be "cynicism." But you're absolutely right that most of the time a selfish gene will produce a "survival machine" that is selfish. That doesn't mean, of course, that an organism is by definition egocentric. That's pure absurdity.
[ Post made via iPhone ] Image
That doesn't mean, of course, that an organism is by definition egocentric. That's pure absurdity.
Well, can you reason out the need people have for a personal deity if they if they are not inherently selfish? :lol:
It is difficult to discern whether that's a serious argument or you're just joshing with me. If it's serious, then you're making the ludicrous error of equating "every organism" to every human (and actually humans don't need a divine patriarch or regnant big brother, at the very least not on any intrinsic, biological level). Obviously if some other species had won the evolutionary lottery and become the intellectually-dominant organism on earth, it's improbable that it would evolve the human tendency to subjugate itself before centralized authority. Indeed, a critical criterion of biospheric dominance is the ability of a particular species to form a community within itself in which altruism is the scepter of society (though I cede that altruism in the form of society-building is merely masked self preservation). Consider the nature of the entomological world, for example. The social and/or legal system of arthropods like ants and bees is in essence an autocracy, with the individual as nothing, and the good of the (genotypic) population as everything; the bee's sting in defense of the hive mother is of course lethal to the individual. How would a cynical surveillance of biology support organisms like this?
[ Post made via iPhone ] Image
deschainXIX wrote: It is difficult to discern whether that's a serious argument or you're just joshing with me.
Totally joking if not poking you in the ribs with it due to the irony. :lol: I still disagree and put the primal basic nature of life as being selfish.
Consider the nature of the entomological world, for example. The social and/or legal system of arthropods like ants and bees is in essence an autocracy, with the individual as nothing, and the good of the (genotypic) population as everything; the bee's sting in defense of the hive mother is of course lethal to the individual. How would a cynical surveillance of biology support organisms like this?
I suppose you have to consider the effect that pheromones have on an individual will in insects. Like druging a human and making them a slave they have no free will thru external control. In fact the control thru chemicals aspect plays out all over the world and is even supported by genealogy which is now reliant upon it. I say philosophically the only way to overcome the selfish nature of life is intelligence. I think Dawkins had it right the first time when he said we need to teach altruism. I mean the ideas used are fine for the analogy of the evolution of genotypes but it isn't an all encompassing work and certainly is dated by modern papers that go far further. Dawkins surely understands this reality as he planted his flag into the holes Darwin left unfilled. ;) You might enjoy Why Big Fierce Animals Are Rare by Paul Colinvaux though. I read that my freshman year for my Ecology class and remember it was enlightening.
We tried, Deschain.
Buildit, what sort of intelligent designer (such as your dear Yahweh) would create beings who squander millions of sperm cells every time they ejaculate (whether it's onanism or copulation, the waste is guaranteed)? Why don't we only produce a few effective seeds guaranteed to successfully fertilise women? If God exists He must me retarded if this is what He intended, because, from where I'm standing, He'd do Himself a favour if He said the cosmos is an experiment gone wrong. He better be the Creator described in deism if He is to avoid any embarassment. And please take your time reading The Selfish Gene.
[ Post made via Android ] Image
I guess the same God who forgot to fill all of space with breathable air so we could fly to new worlds without fear of suffocation. :roll:
Especially when one considers how insistent Yahweh is upon sexual asceticism. So much fertile sperm ... for so little use--it's like some absurd practice joke! :D
[ Post made via iPhone ] Image
deschainXIX wrote: Especially when one considers how insistent Yahweh is upon sexual asceticism. So much fertile sperm ... for so little use--it's like some absurd practice joke! :D
I'm confused about why you think this world should be perfect?
Only a weird, sadomasochistic psychopath wouldn't wish for a perfect world. The answer to this question is a simple one, and there is no room for quasi-humorous, guerrilla wriggling. And there are those pseudo-intellectuals who, to make themselves out to have unique, radical, or interesting perspectives, claim that a perfect world could not exist. This is idiocy. When you posit an omnipotent, omniscient, totally-benevolent deity, then the rational next question is, What, was he drunk when he created the universe? We're not even necessarily asking for a "perfect world" (you're the one who brought that up, buildit), but even a high schooler like myself could design an infinitely better one. And those dreary, regressive stoics who cantillate on about how "Suffering is a necessary evil" are (and I say this seriously) so stupid they don't know they're alive, so don't mention it.
[ Post made via iPhone ] Image
Amen, brother... Amen. ^^
(Yahweh is a joker) :-D
[ Post made via Android ] Image
deschainXIX wrote: Only a weird, sadomasochistic psychopath wouldn't wish for a perfect world. The answer to this question is a simple one, and there is no room for quasi-humorous, guerrilla wriggling. And there are those pseudo-intellectuals who, to make themselves out to have unique, radical, or interesting perspectives, claim that a perfect world could not exist. This is idiocy. When you posit an omnipotent, omniscient, totally-benevolent deity, then the rational next question is, What, was he drunk when he created the universe? We're not even necessarily asking for a "perfect world" (you're the one who brought that up, buildit), but even a high schooler like myself could design an infinitely better one. And those dreary, regressive stoics who cantillate on about how "Suffering is a necessary evil" are (and I say this seriously) so stupid they don't know they're alive, so don't mention it.
[ Post made via iPhone ] Image
I guess it would make more sense if god were an experimental scientist and considered us his bacteria which should produce repeatable results. Scientifically life is an interesting thing to study in all its complexity. Would that be your worst fear, that god is just a superior intelligence which pushed the "make life" button and is now waiting to see what happens? The meaning of life--> "A galactic experiment allowed to run to completion for the interest of a vastly superior being who's intentions are not understood." :D
I have to say that the discussion has become, to me, without point. My belief in God doesn't effect my ability to study or understand science, not that I am a church going, tithing Christian either. In fact were religious promoters to try and dissuade our public education from teaching evolution I would be the one calling them nuts. I'd be the same way if they wanted biblical, creationist or intelligent design taught as none of those meet criteria for understanding science. Arguing faith to me is a societal and cultural issue. Science can contribute to the discussion but it will never, on its own, cause the elimination of beliefs.