Expelled (Design and the Monkey)

[thirdeyeblindislit]

So I just got through watching a new documentary called "Expelled (no intelligence allowed)" featuring Ben Stein (you know the clear eye guy.) Anyway, this movie wasn't all that great documentary wise, but it brought up some interesting points and shined a new light on situations I didn't know exsited.

The documentary was basically about Ben Stein talking to people about intelligent design and if its should be considered a science. He found that if many scholars in science publish anything having to do with the idea of intellegent design (a creating force), they lose their jobs and their reputation as a scholar. Many scholars only take evolution into consideraton when focusing on how human life began. It also focuses on how many in the science field refuse to accept intelligent design/creationism but can not give any solid ideas on how life came to be before the occurance of evolution.

Due to the laws of physics, things can not go from disorder to order without any outside interference (for this thread's sake a "higher being") An example would be that if we keep throwing car parts into a junkyard, the pieces won't magically come together to form a car. You need somebody to make that car. Events can only go from order to disorder naturally. Using this logic and other ideas I seem to agree with regarding intelligent design I believe that Intelligent design should be considered a viable theory and scholars should not be chastized for writing about it.

What do you think?

[guitrguy]

The clockmaker argument is bunk way to argue, as it relies on human constructs to explain a nonhuman existence. There really is no reason to think their is a master architect. There is a lot we don't understand about the universe. How can we even begin to suppose a master creator with out having a hint to its working, or how it got there in the first place.

[thirdeyeblindislit]

The clockmaker argument is bunk way to argue, as it relies on human constructs to explain a nonhuman existence. There really is no reason to think their is a master architect.

(playing devil's advocate)
What other explaination is there for life being so complex? I know you don't find the car analogy to be vaild but a car is much less complex than the human body. What would explain how the human race became so presicse?

*As a side note I agree with evolution, but I think there had to be something more then that.

[Iscariot]

um

http://musicianforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=555463

[Against Miik!]

"Scholars" who publish anything about creationism or the cop out that is intelligent design should lose any good reputation they have. Thats because its not a science, its as good as mysticism. Before we began looking at things scientifically, as humans, we had very odd explanations for, say, why the sun rose each day, or why crops grew better in certain places.

Basically, intelligent design is quite the oppisite of intelligent. Using religion as an explanation for anything is basically a better way of saying "I have no ****ing clue what you are talking about".

I heard there was a part in the film about Hitler and eugenics. If there is, that is the only reasonable part of the film, depending on how he explained it. I haven't seen it. For some reason though, that seems to be the part of the film that people are all up in arms about.

[pooble]

"Bueller. Bueller. Bueller."

[thirdeyeblindislit]

um

http://musicianforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=555463

I'm not sure, but that thread doesn't seem to be involving the subject of my thread. It seems to do more with Ben Stein, this thread has more to do with intelligent design, but either way sorry I didn't see it.

[Iscariot]

what are you a broken record

[thedeadwalk!]

It also focuses on how many in the science field refuse to accept intelligent design/creationism but can not give any solid ideas on how life came to be before the occurance of evolution.
Just because there's no solid understanding now doesn't mean there never will. The thing about intelligent design is that it pretty much stops the scientific process without proof.

[mattspurplepen]

Basically, intelligent design is quite the oppisite of intelligent. Using religion as an explanation for anything is basically a better way of saying "I have no ****ing clue what you are talking about".
- hahaha indeed, I enjoyed your explanation milk.

Man, in response to the intelligent design argument, I don't think it can really stand side by side with science because its basically just blind faith. There definitely could be some powerful force beyond our knowing but we don't have proof of anything right now. To just straight up believe in things because other people tell you its true/ seems a bit scary in my opinion. But viewing intelligent design in another light, I can see that it provides hope for those who cannot stand living without the center of attention being on whether they belong in a fictional place called heaven or hell. Scientists shouldn't preach about unknown ideas in the scientific field, at least i would hope not, because the whole purpose of science is to systematically discover things and test ideas.

[PerpetualBurn]

It also focuses on how many in the science field refuse to accept intelligent design/creationism but can not give any solid ideas on how life came to be before the occurance of evolution.

You have no better explanation therefore God did it is not a scientific argument.

And there's research being done on the origins of life. Evolution is not itself concerned with where the first living thing came from though.

Due to the laws of physics, things can not go from disorder to order without any outside interference (for this thread's sake a "higher being") An example would be that if we keep throwing car parts into a junkyard, the pieces won't magically come together to form a car. You need somebody to make that car. Events can only go from order to disorder naturally. Using this logic and other ideas I seem to agree with regarding intelligent design I believe that Intelligent design should be considered a viable theory and scholars should not be chastized for writing about it.


Comparing the non-living to the living is just a horrible horrible analogy.

Cars don't reproduce. And thus can never be a worthy comparison.

[Kaleid]

Ha, they 'expelled' PZ Myers from the premiere. Richard Dawkins was with him, but they didn't seem to notice him

[Linkinbassist]

why did they 'expell' him?

This film seems bunk to me.

[1338 h4x0r]

Due to the laws of physics, things can not go from disorder to order without any outside interference (for this thread's sake a "higher being") An example would be that if we keep throwing car parts into a junkyard, the pieces won't magically come together to form a car. You need somebody to make that car. Events can only go from order to disorder naturally. Using this logic and other ideas I seem to agree with regarding intelligent design I believe that Intelligent design should be considered a viable theory and scholars should not be chastized for writing about it.

what

Complexity is studied and quantified by complexity theory, not by physics. 'Entropy' in the informational sense is very different from 'entropy' in the physical sense (i.e., decreasing amount of usable energy) and creationists often get the two confused.

Furthermore, this argument doesn't hold because nature has a lot of fascinating self-organizational properties. Whether you want to attribute those to a creator or even just a spirit of the Universe is up to you, but there's no 'scientific' viewpoint either way.

[Mr. Ron]

Ugh, this just reminds me of my comparative religion professor and his "things must be intelligently designed if they are intelligible" argument."

[PerpetualBurn]

That argument offends me with its overt stupidity.

[1338 h4x0r]

Ugh, this just reminds me of my comparative religion professor and his "things must be intelligently designed if they are intelligible" argument."

Every snowflake is an example of the dihedral group D_6, so I guess each and every one is a present from God.

He was for serious?

[Mr. Ron]

That argument offends me with its overt stupidity.

"If things are to be talk about at all, they are intelligible, and for things to be intelligible there must be an intelligible force behind them"


^^^ more or less


I think he might have also said something along the lines of "if you can talk about it, it makes it real" or something. Idk, he's into metaphysics.

[1338 h4x0r]

I think he might have also said something along the lines of "if you can talk about it, it makes it real" or something. Idk, he's into metaphysics.

'Laiquendi gutter sluts' doesn't even come up in Google.

[Mr. Ron]

lol.

[1338 h4x0r]

I would have a field day with a comment like that.

[PerpetualBurn]

he's into metaphysics.

He's into being wrong.

[Mr. Ron]

He's into being wrong.

I wish some of you guys were in that class. I know he's wrong, but I've not the expertise in the subject to embarrass him.

[1338 h4x0r]

Just make a sound argument and no amount of speechifying will save him

[PerpetualBurn]

Just make a sound argument and no amount of speechifying will save him

This post tells me you don't have what it takes for a career in politics.

[Mr. Ron]

I DO make logical, and sound arguments to him, but he's just too good at rhetoric and wiggles his way out with vague statements, and plays the "mystical" card where he throws out some sort of metaphysical argument that I can't possible prove or something.

[Smokey D]

Call him out on metaphysics and say anything metaphysical he talks about is anti-intellectual, unempirical and that there is no reason to believe it other than to satisfy some vague desire to make sense in the world. Then tell him to read the Outsider or something.

[Mr. Ron]

Oh sweet christ he would cut into me if I said that. He's REALLY good at letting people have it "nicely".

I have to give it to him though, at least he said "anyone who takes the bible literally is a moron"

and he believes in evolution, so points for those.

[Linkinbassist]

Oh sweet christ he would cut into me if I said that. He's REALLY good at letting people have it "nicely".

I have to give it to him though, at least he said "anyone who takes the bible literally is a moron"

and he believes in evolution, so points for those.

Oh, he's a thinking mans theologian.

[thunderzstruck]

Due to the laws of physics, things can not go from disorder to order without any outside interference (for this thread's sake a "higher being") An example would be that if we keep throwing car parts into a junkyard, the pieces won't magically come together to form a car. You need somebody to make that car. Events can only go from order to disorder naturally.


This shows your lack of understanding right here. I read this in a book but from what I got from it you are correct but even though the universe does follow a low to high entropy state there are still random spikes of the other way around. They don't happen often but there still is a chance of you making a car from throwing the pieces. With how old and big the universe is, it's not unbelievable that life did spike here randomly. Especially since life did not start out here as complex at all

[Kaleid]

why did they 'expell' him?

This film seems bunk to me.

Because he has "nothing but contempt for ID". He registered for a seat at the premiere just like anyone else, but was ejected when spotted

[VomitStainedCretin]

The Universe is complex, the infinite threads of existence woven together immaculately as if it were the nest of a weaverbird. Therefore, the universe must have been created by a collossal weaverbird with super-voodoo powers of weaving.

[Curve]

It's actually really annoying when people don't understand evolution. It's not ****ing chance!! That's the point of evolution, it is anything but chance, it is natural >selection<.

And when people use the 'well science doesn't have the answer so I'm going to side with religion' argument that really is the dumbest argument. I mean I could give you many answers on how the universe started, but its not really about the answer per se, it's about how TRUTHFUL the ****ing answer is isn't it? Just because science doesn't know doesn't mean that religion is right by default. And atleast science is working on it...Intelligent Design really is one of the dumbest and most ridiculous things in the world today...and to think that half of Americans believe the world is only what? 10,000 years old...

[1338 h4x0r]

This post tells me you don't have what it takes for a career in politics.

I know.

I consider that a good thing, btw.

But anyway, when someone makes a ridiculous 'for all' statement like "Anything that you can think of exists", it's too tempting not to gut it

[VomitStainedCretin]

...and to think that half of Americans believe the world is only what? 10,000 years old...But, yeah so man, Bishop Ussher is totally the DEFINITIVE authority on geology...

[Akira]

You should have said "Just make a good speech and no sounds argument will save him."

[Curve]

But, yeah so man, Bishop Ussher is totally the DEFINITIVE authority on geology...

eh?

[1338 h4x0r]

You should have said "Just make a good speech and no sounds argument will save him."

Idk man

Sometimes, when I find a logical flaw in someone's argument, I repeatedly point it out to him, sinking in my teeth like a rabid dog and not moving onto anything else until he quits

[VomitStainedCretin]

eh?I was being sarcastic. Bishop Ussher, in case you don't know, calculated the age of the earth using the lifespans of characters in the Bible and placed creation at some time in Octobber, 4004 BC.

[Curve]

I was being sarcastic. Bishop Ussher, in case you don't know, calculated the age of the earth using the lifespans of characters in the Bible and placed creation at some time in Octobber, 4004 BC.

Yeah I realised all of that but it seemed slightly aggressive when it appears that you are agreeing with me

[VomitStainedCretin]

Yeah I realised all of that but it seemed slightly aggressive when it appears that you are agreeing with meI was mocking 10,000-year-old-Earth-people not you in particular.

[Smokey D]

It was directed at the half of the population who thinks the world is under 10 000 years old.

Chill out a little bit.

[Hababi]

all of this really gets blown out of proportion. We've had more threads on this than the rice shortage, the Zimbabwe election, the Kenyan presidential election, etc. all of which are much more significant and thread worthy than "OH NO WATCH OUT FOR CREATIONISTS"

[Iskandar]

'Laiquendi gutter sluts' doesn't even come up in Google.Isn't that a kind of elf?

[1338 h4x0r]

Isn't that a kind of elf?

The reclusive 'Green-elves' of Ossiriand. Read more here:

http://www.glyphweb.com/arda/l/laiquendi.html

all of this really gets blown out of proportion. We've had more threads on this than the rice shortage, the Zimbabwe election, the Kenyan presidential election, etc. all of which are much more significant and thread worthy than "OH NO WATCH OUT FOR CREATIONISTS"

What can I say, pathology on this scale is dangerous.

[gregulus]

TS is misrepresenting the laws of physics. If you want to talk about Thermodynamics, then read up on it first.

[Mr. Ron]

The reclusive 'Green-elves' of Ossiriand. Read more here:

http://www.glyphweb.com/arda/l/laiquendi.html



What can I say, pathology on this scale is dangerous.

Thats an awesome site.

/bookmarked

[1338 h4x0r]

TS is misrepresenting the laws of physics. If you want to talk about Thermodynamics, then read up on it first.

Even a self-confessed physics retard like me can understand what the Second Law of Thermodynamics means and why physical entropy is different from data entropy

(I hope to rectify some of my physics ignorance next semester, brosephs)

[Der Übermensch]

http://cache.wonkette.com/assets/resources/2007/10/stein.jpg

My roommate took that picture...

[siva_chair]

http://cache.wonkette.com/assets/resources/2007/10/stein.jpg

My roommate took that picture...

That is so very awesome....

[thirdeyeblindislit]

what are you a broken record

Sorry, don't know what happened there.

[Futue te Ipsum]

Had god created all living organisms he'd have made a much better job of it. Pretty much everywhere you look there's room for improvement.

[Futue te Ipsum]

The d0cumentary was basically about Ben Stein talking to people about intelligent design and if its should be considered a science. He found that if many scholars in science publish anything having to do with the idea of intellegent design (a creating force), they lose their jobs and their reputation as a scholar.yeah talking about stuff that's blatently incorrect has that effect
Many scholars only take evolution into consideraton when focusing on how human life began.what?It also focuses on how many in the science field refuse to accept intelligent design/creationism but can not give any solid ideas on how life came to be before the occurance of evolution.That scientists are mature enough to admit they don't know is nothing if not a positive trait.

Just because we don't know the answer doesn't mean that we wont find one. In terms of science, saying "god did it" is basically just giving up.
Due to the laws of physics, things can not go from disorder to order without any outside interference (for this thread's sake a "higher being")Or natural selection. Why entropy is lumped with evolution is beyond me : /
An example would be that if we keep throwing car parts into a junkyard, the pieces won't magically come together to form a car. You need somebody to make that car. Events can only go from order to disorder naturally. Using this logic and other ideas I seem to agree with regarding intelligent design I believe that Intelligent design should be considered a viable theory and scholars should not be chastized for writing about it.erm he is aware that if he is to argue against natural selection he should...

well, argue against natural selection? nobody is saying it's random.

[VomitStainedCretin]

Had god created all living organisms he'd have made a much better job of it. Pretty much everywhere you look there's room for improvement.Indeed, the appendix is definitive proof of our Creator's malevolence.

[Futue te Ipsum]

Indeed, the appendix is definitive proof of our Creator's malevolence.I made a thread on incompetent design once. Looking back it's sooooo poorly written, but then I guess I had no exp. of writing essays back then :p

http://www.sputnikmusic.com/forums/showthread.php?t=411837

I correct my previous comment. The writing style is abysmal.

[BridgeToSolace]

Or natural selection. Why entropy is lumped with evolution is beyond me : /
well, argue against natural selection? nobody is saying it's random.

I know exactly what you're saying and I've used the argument myself, so don't think I'm disagreeing with you.

But natural selection is only possible with some amount of randomness. Genetic malfunctions and deviations (ie. the one crab that millions of years ago got a slightly bigger claw or something. Poor example, but you know...) certainly have random factors.

Of course whether or not these random deviations are passed on is subject to the extremely non-random natural selection.

And on that note, I'm not sure what the point of this post was. There's still some randomness in evolution, I suppose.

[1338 h4x0r]

Of course whether or not these random deviations are passed on is subject to the extremely non-random natural selection.

And on that note, I'm not sure what the point of this post was. There's still some randomness in evolution, I suppose.

I'm glad we could arrive at this basic truth for the edification of the cretinists in the audience.

[Knifeboy]

http://tinyurl.com/5zpsaq

I just had to post this...


Stein: When we just saw that man, I think it was Mr. Myers [i.e. biologist P.Z. Myers], talking about how great scientists were, I was thinking to myself the last time any of my relatives saw scientists telling them what to do they were telling them to go to the showers to get gassed … that was horrifying beyond words, and that’s where science — in my opinion, this is just an opinion — that’s where science leads you.

Crouch: That’s right.

Stein: …Love of God and compassion and empathy leads you to a very glorious place, and science leads you to killing people.

Crouch: Good word, good word.

[1338 h4x0r]

hahahaha

You can't be serious

[siva_chair]

hahahaha

You can't be serious

As a concentration camp.

----------------------------
So if we can blame religion for it's misuse and subsequent atrocities, couldn't we do the same for science? Just a thought....

[1338 h4x0r]

So if we can blame religion for it's misuse and subsequent atrocities, couldn't we do the same for science? Just a thought....

The difference between religion and science is that science gives you guns to make your e-peen larger, whereas religion cannot provide that...

[siva_chair]

The difference between religion and science is that science gives you guns to make your e-peen larger, whereas religion cannot provide that...

Oh I thought that is what all those junk mails I get were for.

[1338 h4x0r]

Surgical penis enlargement also requires science.

[siva_chair]

Surgical penis enlargement also requires science.

Oh wow I never got one that talked about surgery.

So what you are saying is that all scientists want to do is make their peens bigger?

[1338 h4x0r]

Oh wow I never got one that talked about surgery.

So what you are saying is that all scientists want to do is make their peens bigger?

No, I'm saying that people who spam you with ads for penis pills are pushing a placebo.

Surgical or not, peen enhancement is just one of many uses for science.

[BridgeToSolace]

No, I'm saying that people who spam you with ads for penis pills are pushing a placebo.


Generally, they're just Viagra-esque supplements.

[Mr. Ron]

there's no way to increase your peen unless its actual surgery.

[Berner]

Ugh at ID'ers and Creationists. They once again cause me to RAGE!

[1338 h4x0r]

My thoughts, briefly (shamelessly plugging my no-comment blog)

http://eabcaecbbceacbae.blogspot.com/2008/05/ben-stein-science-implies-genocide.html

[Berner]

My thoughts, briefly (shamelessly plugging my no-comment blog)

http://eabcaecbbceacbae.blogspot.com/2008/05/ben-stein-science-implies-genocide.html

I left a comment on his guest book on his official site but something tells me they'll censor it even though it wasn't slanderous at all.

[Mr. Ron]

I like your bloggings

[1338 h4x0r]

if you like them so much, why don't you marry them?

(...or at least comment them...)

[Mr. Ron]

I don't believe in marriage

[1338 h4x0r]

Do you believe in leaving comments so it doesn't look like I have a loser blog? :)

[Mr. Ron]

just did.

[1338 h4x0r]

<33 wots of wub

[mph4ever]

Surgical penis enlargement also requires science.

it also requires 3 dicks, the owner, his member and the surgeon that operates

and apparently, it flops in the middle

[1338 h4x0r]

Well, I wasn't born with a glistening ten-inch black penis, so I had to make some surgical fix-ups before that Robert Mapplethorpe photo session.

[mph4ever]

i can't imagine any 7 pound baby being born with a ten inch glistening black penis

what with only being able to look at the men on that site, i always thought dicks were considered obscene, or maybe its because i am from a catholic ireland ip address

[Futue te Ipsum]

But natural selection is only possible with some amount of randomness.Natural selection assumes the variance is there. Whilst it requires chance events to have happened, it is not a chance event itself :p

Of course I'm being unfair here by seperating genetic drift from natural selection. Obviously they are seperate, but evolution requires both of them. You're quite correct in thinking that selection pressures are worthless without a varied gene pool.

[free_thinkers_are_dangerous]

Here's a fun fact for this thread - it IS possible to recreate the first steps towards creating life. I don't know all the details, but they have recreated simple organic compounds in a lab setting (basically you dissolve a bunch of naturally occuring minerals and stir for a while, adding a little bit of electric energy (ie "lightning") every now and then), and from there it's entirely feasible that enough trial and error (ie molecular collisions occuring for hundreds of millions of years), you'd get te basic clusters of organic molecules that would grow until they're big enough to break apart (ie "reproduce"), and from then on natural selection would play a role. At that point it still wouldn't even be life as we know it, but organic clusters growing until they break apart and then continue growing would provide the basic platform for evolution to happen.

Life starting from scratch is entirely possible. Failure to accept this only reveals that most creationists or people who believe in intelligent design refuse to accept the basic principles of organic chemistry and probability.

[1338 h4x0r]

Basic self-replicators have been made from this process

lol

[mph4ever]

forget the fact that we are but one planet circling one sun among billions

forget the fact that life exists here and we extrapolate based on probability that it must exist elsewhere

think about the idea that life never came into being on this rock

think that life never evolved into us

think that there is no life in the universe, and when you imagine a universe in which there is no life, then ask yourself, why would it exist?

if not for intelligent life, like us humans, with the ability to consider and reason, to consider its existence, then why would it exist?

[PerpetualBurn]

It wouldn't need a reason to exist that way. It just would.

[mph4ever]

ok, so, hypothetically, we have a universe without any life in it, how does anyone know if it would exist? surely things only exist because we observe them

and without life, what is the purpose of the universe? does it have a purpose?

[dei]

It exists on its own.

There is no purpose, with or without life.

[mph4ever]

It exists on its own.

There is no purpose, with or without life.

are you convinced that there is no purpose to the universe?

[dei]

Yes.

[PerpetualBurn]

ok, so, hypothetically, we have a universe without any life in it, how does anyone know if it would exist? surely things only exist because we observe them

No one knows it exists. But that doesn't matter.

Pluto existed before humans discovered it.

and without life, what is the purpose of the universe? does it have a purpose?

I just told you it doesn't need one.

are you convinced that there is no purpose to the universe?

It doesn't matter whether there's a purpose or not. One is not necessary for it to exist.

[mph4ever]

Yes.

so, in the words of peter william atkins, you regard the existence of this extraordinary universe as having a wonderful, awesome grandeur. it hangs here in all its glory, wholly and completely useless. to project onto it our human-inspired notion of purpose would, in your mind, sully and diminish it.

[dei]

123

[mph4ever]

sweet

[Mr. Ron]

why does the universe have to have a purpose or goal?

[Berner]

why does the universe have top have a purpose or goal?

TOP TOP TOP TOP TOP

[Mr. Ron]

Son Of A Bitch

[1338 h4x0r]

jesus bush

[mph4ever]

why does the universe have to have a purpose or goal?


it doesn't, i'm sure

[Berner]

Son Of A Bitch

::kisses::

[Curve]

are you convinced that there is no purpose to the universe?

no there isn't, there doesn't HAVE to be, the universe doesn't owe you anything.

[RockAndRoll]

why does the universe have to have a purpose or goal?

If there's no goal then how do we know if we won?

[thedeadwalk!]

I think it's like The Sims, but not the PlayStation version where there are goals.

[dei]

There's nothing to win.

[mph4ever]

so we are agreed, there is no purpose to the universe. can we also conclude that with no purpose to the universe then there is no need for a creator either?

[siva_chair]

I'm so glad we have this internet forum full of wise thinkers to conclude that there is no purpose to the universe.

[Smokey D]

Why do you presume a purpose in the absence of evidence?

[siva_chair]

Why do you presume a purpose in the absence of evidence?

I never said I presumed a purpose. I was just expressing my gratitude that we had these wise people telling us that there is in fact no purpose to it. I mean, they must know something I don't if they can deduce that so surely. I suppose it saves me a lot of time figuring it out for myself.

[Smokey D]

Okay but you're clearly implying a purpose . In the absence of evidence for a purpose, what is wrong with people asserting that there is no purrpose?

[siva_chair]

Okay but you're clearly implying a purpose .

No, actually I'm implying that nobody on here knows whether there is some ultimate purpose to the universe or not.

In the absence of evidence for a purpose, what is wrong with people asserting that there is no purrpose?

Oh I don't know they could just be honest and say they really have no idea. There's a thought.

[Smokey D]

Oh I don't know they could just be honest and say they really have no idea. There's a thought.

Actual agnosticism has the effect of functional atheism in all practical terms.

[siva_chair]

Actual agnosticism has the effect of functional atheism in all practical terms.

A mind that says "there is no purpose" has already stopped looking for one, whereas a mind that says "I do not know" is free to continue to look for the answer. That is the difference.

I think it is pretty a pretty arrogant claim to conclude there is no purpose. Sounds like something only an all-knowing being could really conclude.

[Smokey D]

I see no reason to expend energy looking for something for which there is no evidence. Just like I would expend no energy praying to a God or looking for invisible unicorns who may or may not be there.

[siva_chair]

I see no reason to expend energy looking for something for which there is no evidence. Just like I would expend no energy praying to a God or looking for invisible unicorns who may or may not be there.

Who says you have to expend any energy?

[Smokey D]

Actively doing anything entails an opportunity cost.

[siva_chair]

Actively doing anything entails an opportunity cost.

Observing is free.

Besides, even if you were to find evidence, how do you suppose you came about that evidence?

If you don't care to look for the answer, that is fine. But don't claim you've found the answer if you aren't willing to look.

[mph4ever]

No, actually I'm implying that nobody on here knows whether there is some ultimate purpose to the universe or not.


there are lots of people on here and everywhere who believe the universe has a purpose, but they are religious and are probably afraid to share their opinion since it inevitably leads to the

"prove there isn't a god"

debate. which is never ending. and not something anyone would want to get in to again and again and again. ultimate questions never seem to have an answer

[siva_chair]

there are lots of people on here and everywhere who believe the universe has a purpose, but they are religious and are probably afraid to share their opinion since it inevitably leads to the

"prove there isn't a god"

debate. which is never ending.

Umm ok I wasn't disputing that there are people out there that believe the universe has a purpose.

Also it usually starts out as the "Prove there is a god" debate, tbh.

[Smokey D]

Observing isn't free. It entails the opportunity cost of not doing things in the time spent observing.

Besides, even if you were to find evidence, how do you suppose you came about that evidence?

The absence of determing a purpose after millenia of trying creates a rebuttable presumption that there is no purpose.

If you don't care to look for the answer, that is fine. But don't claim you've found the answer if you aren't willing to look.

It's perfectly fine to say that without proof the presumption should be in the negative.

[mph4ever]

Also it usually starts out as the "Prove there is a god" debate, tbh.

it may sometimes start with the "prove there is a god".

it ends up with the "prove there isn't". its the only rational defence of god there is, to challenge people to prove there isn't.

[PerpetualBurn]

Challenging people to prove there isn't God proves you don't understand how to be rational.

There's an infinite number of ideas I can offer that you can't disprove, and you clearly wouldn't believe in every single one of them.

[mph4ever]

Challenging people to prove there isn't God proves you don't understand how to be rational.


thats why i find religion irrational and its followers even more so

[1338 h4x0r]

I'm sure not every religious person uses that argument

[PerpetualBurn]

thats why i find religion irrational and its followers even more so

But you just said it was a rational defence.

[siva_chair]

Observing isn't free. It entails the opportunity cost of not doing things in the time spent observing.

Hey man you can spend your time doing whatever you want.

The absence of determing a purpose after millenia of trying creates a rebuttable presumption that there is no purpose.

Or that we haven't found it yet. Sorry but I think it is pretty arrogant to assume this on prima facie evidence. Seems fairly shortsighted to me, considering the limited scope of human involvement in the totality universe.

It's perfectly fine to say that without proof the presumption should be in the negative.

Except in this case it is like looking under a rock, not finding gold, and then concluding that there is no gold anywhere. I mean, ****, there is no evidence of gold under that rock so we might as well conclude there is none anywhere, right? It is an arrogant presumption.

[siva_chair]

it may sometimes start with the "prove there is a god".

it ends up with the "prove there isn't". its the only rational defence of god there is, to challenge people to prove there isn't.

Bullshit.

[PerpetualBurn]

Except in this case it is like looking under a rock, not finding gold, and then concluding that there is no gold anywhere. I mean, ****, there is no evidence of gold under that rock so we might as well conclude there is none anywhere, right? It is an arrogant presumption.

If there were absolutely no evidence of gold anywhere available to us, and no good reason to suggest it, then this analogy would make perfect sense.

[1338 h4x0r]

You're comparing two completely different things anyway

[mph4ever]

But you just said it was a rational defence.

from a god believing person's perspective, its the only rational defence -

thats an observation, i aint god believing

[mph4ever]

Bullpoop.

why? what other defence of god is rational, that can never be disproven, what example of gods existence can anyone give that holds up to scrutiny? none. so, they, the god believes, not me, end up saying "prove there is not a god"

[PerpetualBurn]

from a god believing person's perspective, its the only rational defence -


But then you said it's not rational.

[Futue te Ipsum]

personally feeling or sensing Him.

most of the religious people I know would end up saying "it's called faith for a reason".

[PerpetualBurn]

Personally feeling or sensing something and concluding it must be God is not rational. There has to be a conscious and thoughtful way in which to convert sensation into rational belief in something.

[1338 h4x0r]

Personally feeling or sensing something and concluding it must be God is not rational. There has to be a conscious and thoughtful way in which to convert sensation into rational belief in something.

I posit there is something 'supernatural' for lengthy reasons I don't want to get into here. However, I don't believe there is a moral or personal God (or at least one who intervenes) and the question of whether there is an afterlife is kind of meaningless for me. I'm essentially a Deist. Am I still irrational?

[PerpetualBurn]

How could I possibly pass judgement on an argument you say you don't want to state?

(yes, though)

[1338 h4x0r]

Consciousness is something more than chemical activity and distinguishes an animal from a computer.

Briefly.

[mph4ever]

But then you said it's not rational.

one go.

from my perspective, religious people use their rational argument "prove that god does not exist" and i think thats an irrational thing to do

thats all

[PerpetualBurn]

Okay, but everyone who ever seriously argued anything regardless of how stupid it was thought they were being rational.

So it's stupid to say that that particular argument is rational to theists, because in that sense all their arguments are.

Consciousness is something more than chemical activity and distinguishes an animal from a computer.

Briefly.

Then I was right to gamble on a "yes".

[mph4ever]

There has to be a conscious and thoughtful way in which to convert sensation into rational belief in something.


see that where priests and bishops and, most especially, popes come in. they claim to have the inside track and convince the masses that this is so. they instill fear in people and fear of god is a sensation, albeit through the aggresively administered sermons

fear of going to hell for having a wa'nk when 13 is a very real sensation if its your mother telling you that, its even more sensational if its the priest telling you. you end up with the fear of god in you and thats a real sensation

[PerpetualBurn]

It's entirely irrational though.

[1338 h4x0r]

Then I was right to gamble on a "yes".

Explain

[peeted]

Consciousness is something more than chemical activity and distinguishes an animal from a computer.

Briefly.

How does the existence of a god follow from that?

[PerpetualBurn]

I don't see anything wrong with a naturalistic approach to consciousness.

[1338 h4x0r]

How does the existence of a god follow from that?

It doesn't

And I didn't suggest that it does

I don't see anything wrong with a naturalistic approach to consciousness.

Completely understanding consciousness is outside science because science requires empirical observation. You can't observe your self observing. It's possible to study neurochemistry, for sure, but that's different. That explains how I might be feeling or maybe even how I think about some things, but it doesn't explain the image I see in front of me, or what it is for something to taste like beef, or why a square wave sounds like a square wave, etc. ... and never will.

[PerpetualBurn]

That's a terrible argument.

I can conduct experiments on other conscious beings. I might never fully experience their perspective, but that's hardly relevant to what science can say about the existence of consciousness as having naturalistic causes.

You're saying "We can't understand it, therefore it's supernatural" and that's something I really thought beneath you, in all honesty.

[peeted]

I still dont see how this is relevent to weather there is some sort of supernatural force...

[1338 h4x0r]

I can conduct experiments on other conscious beings. I might never fully experience their perspective, but that's hardly relevant to what science can say about the existence of consciousness as having naturalistic causes.


Think of it this way. I am listening to Summoning now. I hear a drum cadence. Where is the experience of hearing the drum cadence, physically? And I don't mean the compression waves that got it into my ear, or the chemical or electrical activity in my brain. That's only electrons and charged chemicals passing around.

So, yes, I do posit something 'supernatural' behind consciousness, in the purest sense of the word. It's clearly not all physical. As much as I'd like to have a physical explanation, there is none and I'm stuck with that. However, I'm definitely not what you'd call a mystic and don't pay this conjecture a lot of mind in daily life.

[mph4ever]

Think of it this way. I am listening to Summoning now. I hear a drum cadence. Where is the experience of hearing the drum cadence, physically? And I don't mean the compression waves that got it into my ear, or the chemical or electrical activity in my brain. That's only electrons and charged chemicals passing around.

So, yes, I do posit something 'supernatural' behind consciousness, in the purest sense of the word. It's clearly not all physical. As much as I'd like to have a physical explanation, there is none and I'm stuck with that. However, I'm definitely not what you'd call a mystic and don't pay this conjecture a lot of mind in daily life.

are you saying that there is an almost detached awareness of the self, as if who you are is not part of your physical make up, yet in this dimension cannot exist without the physical

[PerpetualBurn]

Think of it this way. I am listening to Summoning now. I hear a drum cadence. Where is the experience of hearing the drum cadence, physically? And I don't mean the compression waves that got it into my ear, or the chemical or electrical activity in my brain. That's only electrons and charged chemicals passing around.

We have a good understanding of the processes through which the ear and brain interpret sound.

I don't see why you're supposing it must be something more than physical, even if we don't fuly understand it yet.

So, yes, I do posit something 'supernatural' behind consciousness, in the purest sense of the word. It's clearly not all physical. As much as I'd like to have a physical explanation, there is none and I'm stuck with that. However, I'm definitely not what you'd call a mystic and don't pay this conjecture a lot of mind in daily life.

You've done it again though.

"I don't fully understand this, therefore it has a supernatural element"

Which, again, is something I thought below someone of your nature.

[1338 h4x0r]

are you saying that there is an almost detached awareness of the self, as if who you are is not part of your physical make up, yet in this dimension cannot exist without the physical

Yes.

We have a good understanding of the processes through which the ear and brain interpret sound.

Why does a trumpet sound like a trumpet? Think about it. (And don't say because it gives off a modified sawtooth wave.)

I don't see why you're supposing it must be something more than physical, even if we don't fuly understand it yet.

The nature of consciousness, at the most basic level, is and always will be outside the domain of science and in the domain of philosophy. There is no frame of reference to observe your own reality or anyone else's.

[mph4ever]

The nature of consciousness, at the most basic level, is and always will be outside the domain of science and in the domain of philosophy. There is no frame of reference to observe your own reality or anyone else's.

do you think apes or whales have some similar sense of consciousness or are we alone in this dimension?

[1338 h4x0r]

Well some apes have tool use and can (almost) use grammar in sign language. I don't know about whales.

[mph4ever]

consciousness evolved. if we assume that evolution continues, then one day we might have other conscious entities on earth.............nah thats just stupid, we killed off the last lot, the poor old neanderthals.

it puts an end to the computer artifical intelligence argument though, because unless one of them places a bit on a disk and it gets a magical spark and starts to divide then it aint going to evolve and if it doesn't evolve then it won't gain consciousness and you just can't write conscious code!

[RockAndRoll]

No, actually I'm implying that nobody on here knows whether there is some ultimate purpose to the universe or not.
I'm not even sure what an "ultimate purpose" would entail. When someone asks what the purpose of the universe is, what does that even mean? Are they asking what we have to do to get the credit screen to pop up? Are they asking what God's will is?

Could you help me out here?

[1338 h4x0r]

consciousness evolved. if we assume that evolution continues, then one day we might have other conscious entities on earth.............nah thats just stupid, we killed off the last lot, the poor old neanderthals.

No one exactly knows what killed off the Neanderthals. It certainly wasn't because they were inferior to humans: they were physically hardier on average, and as intelligent. But that's another story.


it puts an end to the computer artifical intelligence argument though, because unless one of them places a bit on a disk and it gets a magical spark and starts to divide then it aint going to evolve and if it doesn't evolve then it won't gain consciousness and you just can't write conscious code!

This is why I thought The Age of Spiritual Machines was bullshit. I suppose it's possible that a computer might one day pass the Turing test, but I seriously doubt computers will ever be able to contend with humans in anything that isn't strictly algorithmic.

Are they asking what we have to do to get the credit screen to pop up?

I LOLed at this. I believe the purpose of life is to make it onto the high score list (a.k.a. Valhalla).

[PerpetualBurn]

Why does a trumpet sound like a trumpet? Think about it. (And don't say because it gives off a modified sawtooth wave.)


But that's the answer.

The nature of consciousness, at the most basic level, is and always will be outside the domain of science and in the domain of philosophy. There is no frame of reference to observe your own reality or anyone else's.

We can observe consciousness in other people in the same we can observe anything. Indirectly, maybe, but who gives a crap about that?

[132WalrusesInMexico]

Intelligent design is drawing evidence based on a conclusion. Science is drawing a conclusion based on evidence.

This isn't something I came up with, but I heard it somewhere and I agree with it.

[1338 h4x0r]

But that's the answer.

Could it be that, for a race of aliens who come into contact with Earth and have a similar hearing range, that a trumpet sounds more like a tuba? If so, what would account for that difference in perception? If not, why would they be the same?

We can observe consciousness in other people in the same we can observe anything. Indirectly, maybe, but who gives a crap about that?

Observing that someone is awake =/= explaining why nerves can have real sensations and wires can't

[Det_Nosnip]

So THAT is what that movie is about? Jeesh! Thanks for the heads up...won't be wasting my money on that garbage.

[peeted]

This thread needs more Thomas Nagel:
http://members.aol.com/NeoNoetics/Nagel_Bat.html

[PerpetualBurn]

Could it be that, for a race of aliens who come into contact with Earth and have a similar hearing range, that a trumpet sounds more like a tuba? If so, what would account for that difference in perception? If not, why would they be the same?

Because of the physical make up of the creature. That only stands as a problem if we allow you the random assertion that consciousness is supernatural.

Observing that someone is awake =/= explaining why nerves can have real sensations and wires can't

I didn't say that.

[Mr. Ron]

This thread needs more Thomas Nagel:
http://members.aol.com/NeoNoetics/Nagel_Bat.html

Oooo, I'm e-mailing that to my comparative religion professor.

[sweboy]

This is why I thought The Age of Spiritual Machines was bullpoop. I suppose it's possible that a computer might one day pass the Turing test, but I seriously doubt computers will ever be able to contend with humans in anything that isn't strictly algorithmic.


Well, the thing is, that the human brain is also strictly algorithmic.

[Smokey D]

Could it be that, for a race of aliens who come into contact with Earth and have a similar hearing range, that a trumpet sounds more like a tuba? If so, what would account for that difference in perception? If not, why would they be the same?

Of course it's possible because the information that the modifed sawtooth wave conveys to the brain depends on the interface of specific physical characteristics of the sound wave and the human ear. In the same way it's likley a trumpet blast doesn't sound the same to me as it does to you. But there's nothing supernatural in that.

[1338 h4x0r]

Because of the physical make up of the creature. That only stands as a problem if we allow you the random assertion that consciousness is supernatural.

What allows a mass of nerve cells to create sensations that don't actually exist anywhere?

Well, the thing is, that the human brain is also strictly algorithmic.

lolol

Of course it's possible because the information that the modifed sawtooth wave conveys to the brain depends on the interface of specific physical characteristics of the sound wave and the human ear. In the same way it's likley a trumpet blast doesn't sound the same to me as it does to you. But there's nothing supernatural in that.

Well, that's not quite what I was getting at.

For a different example, it's theorized that we perceive the color green in nature as pleasing because we've evolved to prefer environments that look healthy. Maybe on another planet, most of the light of their star(s?) is on a different wavelength and whatever photosynthetic organisms are there have a pigmentation that allows them to absorb that light best.

Assuming the people there also appreciate an area with a lot of photosynthetic life for the same reasons as we do, would they perhaps see a plant that would appear a sickly yellow-green in our eyes as a full-on verdant green? Or just associate good things with the yellow-green that looked the same? And why is the color palette the way it is anyway?

btw, I was thinking about linking to the "What Is It Like To Be A Bat?" article earlier but someone beat me to it :)

[PerpetualBurn]

What allows a mass of nerve cells to create sensations that don't actually exist anywhere?


The sensations are a physical reaction to actual stimuli.

[1338 h4x0r]

The sensations are a physical reaction to actual stimuli.

Where do these senses exist, physically?

In short, I'm not convinced that passing charged particles back and forth is the only thing that makes consciousness. As a CS major I find this very hard to believe.

[PerpetualBurn]

Where do these senses exist, physically?

A stimulus triggers a series of responses through the body which are received and interpreted via the brain. I'm not sure what more you want.

In short, I'm not convinced that passing charged particles back and forth is the only thing that makes consciousness. As a CS major I find this very hard to believe.

Ok.

But it's still a fallacy to say therefore it's supernatural.

[1338 h4x0r]

A stimulus triggers a series of responses through the body which are received and interpreted via the brain. I'm not sure what more you want.

What acts beneath them? How can a lump of carbon-based compounds be 'aware' of itself?



Ok.

But it's still a fallacy to say therefore it's supernatural.

'Non-physical' if you like that term better.

[free_thinkers_are_dangerous]

Where do these senses exist, physically?

In short, I'm not convinced that passing charged particles back and forth is the only thing that makes consciousness. As a CS major I find this very hard to believe.

c'mon, don't be a moron. you must've taken at least 2 or 3 biology classes on your way to CS.

[1338 h4x0r]

c'mon, don't be a moron. you must've taken at least 2 or 3 biology classes on your way to CS.

Yes, in fact I took everything up to AP Bio in high school and am going to specialize in bioinformatics when I transfer to Lehigh.

So, tell me, where are the images and sounds of the mind? If it's true that they consist entirely of changing electric potentials in the brain, is it possible for a computer, which works along the same lines, to do the same?

[Smokey D]

Well, that's not quite what I was getting at.

For a different example, it's theorized that we perceive the color green in nature as pleasing because we've evolved to prefer environments that look healthy. Maybe on another planet, most of the light of their star(s?) is on a different wavelength and whatever photosynthetic organisms are there have a pigmentation that allows them to absorb that light best.

Assuming the people there also appreciate an area with a lot of photosynthetic life for the same reasons as we do, would they perhaps see a plant that would appear a sickly yellow-green in our eyes as a full-on verdant green? Or just associate good things with the yellow-green that looked the same? And why is the color palette the way it is anyway?

I don't see how this is a different thing. Whatever colour they see their photosynthetic lifeforms is dependent on the specific and idiosyncratic interface of their senses with the information being conveyed to them by their environment. The details are quite irrelevant.

And I still don't see why this necessitates a supernatural force.

Where do these senses exist, physically?

In the physical (re electrical and chemical) responses of the neural system to certain stimuli. A sensation is the particular configuration of physical elements translated into useful information by the brain.


So, tell me, where are the images and sounds of the mind? If it's true that they consist entirely of changing electric potentials in the brain, is it possible for a computer, which works along the same lines, to do the same?

A sufficiently complex computer could probably do it. I see no reason to assume why it couldn't, at any rate.

[Grand Admiral Exodus]

btw, I was thinking about linking to the "What Is It Like To Be A Bat?" article earlier but someone beat me to it :)

i just read this the other day in a phil anth of essays, 50% i didnt understand

[free_thinkers_are_dangerous]

So, tell me, where are the images and sounds of the mind? If it's true that they consist entirely of changing electric potentials in the brain, is it possible for a computer, which works along the same lines, to do the same?

The images are in whatever part of your brain processes them. The feeling you're seeing "out of your eyes" is mostly just your brain's way of making sense of the images it's getting, much in the same way your nerve endings tell you you're being touched at point A even though the signal is being processed somewhere in your brain.

I'm not sure what you mean when you ask if it's possible to teach a computer to process sights and sounds the same way a human does, but I'd imagine that if we ever figured out the brain to the point where we could figure out "if X happens, the brain will do Y and Z will result" for any given sensory input, then yeah, we could probably program a computer to think like a human. Unfortunately we'll probably never get a good enough grasp on the enormous number of variables that go into a decision as simple as "is this girl hot," or "is this a good song," so it's unlikely that we'll ever be able to fully recreate a brain in an algorithm. I'd imagine some thought processes will eventually be recreated or approximated (improvements in facial recognition technology would be a good example) if that's what you mean. You probably know all this already, so maybe I misunderstood the question.

[siva_chair]

If there were absolutely no evidence of gold anywhere available to us, and no good reason to suggest it, then this analogy would make perfect sense.

Some people suggest that the very fact that we have the ability and are in a unique position to observe and learn about the universe suggests some sort of purpose. Not to mention the fact that the mathematical chances of us even coming to be are incredibly slim. While none of these are conclusive evidence that there is some sort of higher purpose, it isn't exactly something that should be so easily dismissed either.

I know you don't see that as adequate evidence to keep searching, but then again you pretty much think everyone except yourself and some sort of elite group are the only rational individuals on the face of the earth so there really isn't anything anyone can say to convince you. You are just going to keep being a smug choad and telling people they are irrational.

why? what other defence of god is rational, that can never be disproven, what example of gods existence can anyone give that holds up to scrutiny? none. so, they, the god believes, not me, end up saying "prove there is not a god"

Actually I was calling bullshit on that being the only defense all theists use.

Explain

See, you don't believe exactly as he does, so he thinks you are irrational.

I don't see anything wrong with a naturalistic approach to consciousness.

You mean besides the fact that it can't really tackle the hard problems of consciousness?

That's a terrible argument.

I can conduct experiments on other conscious beings. I might never fully experience their perspective, but that's hardly relevant to what science can say about the existence of consciousness as having naturalistic causes.

You're saying "We can't understand it, therefore it's supernatural" and that's something I really thought beneath you, in all honesty.

Except no empirical measure exists to test for the presence of consciousness.

I'm not even sure what an "ultimate purpose" would entail. When someone asks what the purpose of the universe is, what does that even mean? Are they asking what we have to do to get the credit screen to pop up? Are they asking what God's will is?

Could you help me out here?

I have no idea what the "ultimate purpose" would entail, either. I don't think anyone with our limited scope of perception does. This is why I think it is pretty arrogant to dismiss it as having or not having one. No one ****ing knows so they shouldn't pretend to. That was kinda my point.

So, tell me, where are the images and sounds of the mind? If it's true that they consist entirely of changing electric potentials in the brain, is it possible for a computer, which works along the same lines, to do the same?

Exactly.

Keep in mind that brain states are essentially non-local. Science is still at a loss of how the brain puts all these random sensory stimulus together as a coherent whole. There is no one place in the brain where it all comes together.

Also, brain activity correlating with conscious perception apparently occurs too late (150 to 500 msec after impingement on our sense organs) to account for actions initiated or completed within 100 msec.

[Smokey D]

Keep in mind that brain states are essentially non-local. Science is still at a loss of how the brain puts all these random sensory stimulus together as a coherent whole. There is no one place in the brain where it all comes together.

Sure but that doesn't mean it doesn't come together. A lack of understanding is only that. It doesn't introduce the supernatural as a necessity.



Also, brain activity correlating with conscious perception apparently occurs too late (150 to 500 msec after impingement on our sense organs) to account for actions initiated or completed within 100 msec.

1) What sort of actions would those be?
2) What source do you have?
3) What about the brain calculating a response based on likelihood even before a situation actually occurs (ie we recognise when something is likely even before it happens and prime our response for it)?

[siva_chair]

Sure but that doesn't mean it doesn't come together. A lack of understanding is only that. It doesn't introduce the supernatural as a necessity.

Oh I never said anything about inherently supernatural. What am I rejecting is the mind being simply a biological turning machine.

I have always been of the belief that it is only supernatural because we don't understand it. "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." if you will.

1) What sort of actions would those be?

-The preparation of spoken words responding to heard speech during normal conversation.
-Hitting a 90mph+ fastball.
-Others I don't remember offhand.

2) What source do you have?

It was some study in one of my mom's medical publications (she does MRIs, CT scans, PET scans, ect.). I read it a while back and remembered it because I thought it was very interesting and had never read about it before.

3) What about the brain calculating a response based on likelihood even before a situation actually occurs (ie we recognise when something is likely even before it happens and prime our response for it)?

They addressed that fact and the thing with that (using the baseball pitch for example) is that it takes a certain amount of time for the eye to see the ball and send the image to the brain, to recognize where the pitch is going to be, how fast it is travelling, when to start the swing, ect.

I don't exactly remember all the specifics offhand. Sorry. Needless to say it showed that brain activity occurs too late.

[Smokey D]

Oh I never said anything about inherently supernatural. What am I rejecting is the mind being simply a biological turning machine.

I see no reason not to think of it as such.


It was some study in one of my mom's medical publications (she does MRIs, CT scans, PET scans, ect.). I read it a while back and remembered it because I thought it was very interesting and had never read about it before.

Hrm. I'd like to see a documented source before I give it too much credit. Though you could be right.

Though we should remember that medical journals aren't always right. Even if it's true, I'd like to see the responses to it.


They addressed that fact and the thing with that (using the baseball pitch for example) is that it takes a certain amount of time for the eye to see the ball and send the image to the brain, to recognize where the pitch is going to be, how fast it is travelling, when to start the swing, ect.


Maybe the brain interprets how the pitcher is moving and makes calculations even before the ball is perceived about where it is likely to be.

[RockAndRoll]

I have no idea what the "ultimate purpose" would entail, either. I don't think anyone with our limited scope of perception does. This is why I think it is pretty arrogant to dismiss it as having or not having one. No one ****ing knows so they shouldn't pretend to. That was kinda my point.

I didn't ask what the ultimate purpose is. I'm asking what the question actually means. If someone asks me what the blonde girl in the corner's name is, I may not know it, but I understand the question. This one I do not, so I was hoping you could help clarify.

[siva_chair]

I see no reason not to think of it as such.

Well then you go ahead and keep thinking of it that way.

Hrm. I'd like to see a d0cumented source before I give it too much credit. Though you could be right.

Well if I was at home right now I might be able to find it, but I can't really gaurentee anything because she might have thrown it away by now.

Though we should remember that medical journals aren't always right. Even if it's true, I'd like to see the responses to it.

No I know they aren't always right. But until it is disputed I see no reason not to believe it was done scientifically and is sound.

Maybe the brain interprets how the pitcher is moving and makes calculations even before the ball is perceived about where it is likely to be.

This may be but the batter still has to interpret all of that stuff to determine whether or not to swing. If you know anything about pitches in baseball, there are a good many of them that are deceptive from the initial release of the ball. I do know they addressed this point in detail.

I'll try to find it when I get home if I remember.

[Smokey D]

No I know they aren't always right. But until it is disputed I see no reason not to believe it was done scientifically and is sound.


That's why I said I'd like to see how the medical community responded to it. Lots of crazy **** has been published in respectable journals before.


This may be but the batter still has to interpret all of that stuff to determine whether or not to swing. If you know anything about pitches in baseball, there are a good many of them that are deceptive from the initial release of the ball. I do know they addressed this point in detail.

Sure but the batter doesn't always hit the ball does he?

[siva_chair]

I didn't ask what the ultimate purpose is. I'm asking what the question actually means. If someone asks me what the blonde girl in the corner's name is, I may not know it, but I understand the question. This one I do not, so I was hoping you could help clarify.

I'm guessing it probably means whether there is some grand plan for the universe that is above the subjective purposes human beings tend to give it. Something greater than ourselves, if you will.

I don't know and I don't really pretend to know.

[siva_chair]

That's why I said I'd like to see how the medical community responded to it. Lots of crazy **** has been published in respectable journals before.

Well that I cannot tell you offhand.

Sure but the batter doesn't always hit the ball does he?

No but I don't see how that really invalidates the study, though.

There is much more to being a good hitter than just swinging the bat and hoping you make contact. The fact that batters let some go by is evidence that there are moments of judgement within the batter's mind after the pitch is released. I doubt you will find many batters that say they can anticipate whether a pitch is going to be a ball or a strike just by the pitchers windup.

[RockAndRoll]

I'm guessing it probably means whether there is some grand plan for the universe that is above the subjective purposes human beings tend to give it. Something greater than ourselves, if you will.

I don't know and I don't really pretend to know.

For someone who doesn't know what the question is asking you seem to have a lot to say on the matter.

[siva_chair]

For someone who doesn't know what the question is asking you seem to have a lot to say on the matter.

Just that people shouldn't pretend to know when they don't.

That is all I really have ever said.

[RockAndRoll]

Just that people shouldn't pretend to know when they don't.

That is all I really have ever said.

But if you don't even know what the question is asking how can you possibly tell if they know the answer or not?

[Smokey D]

No but I don't see how that really invalidates the study, though.


No, I'm just positing potential ways the brain might work stuff out before it's actually happened.

There is much more to being a good hitter than just swinging the bat and hoping you make contact. The fact that batters let some go by is evidence that there are moments of judgement within the batter's mind after the pitch is released. I doubt you will find many batters that say they can anticipate whether a pitch is going to be a ball or a strike just by the pitchers windup.

My idea is that maybe the brain sees cues in the behavior of the pitcher that bypass conscious thought but nonetheless prime a muscle memory response that is executed without thinking about it. If this is the case, there's not hitting and hoping about it. It would be an instinctive response

[siva_chair]

But if you don't even know what the question is asking how can you possibly tell if they know the answer or not?

Because the question implies knowlege outside of simple human perception.

[RockAndRoll]

I saw Jay Ingram give a presentation at RIM a while ago. He talked about an experiment where someone was supposed to choose something and indicate the time at which they chose it. What the study found was that the brain activity indicating that the choice was made actually came significantly before the time that people indicated they made the choice. I thought it was interesting. But I don't know much about neurology.

[RockAndRoll]

Because the question implies knowlege outside of simple human perception.

What knowledge? How do you know where the knowledge lies if you don't know what knowledge the question is looking for?

[Smokey D]

It seems to me that realising you have made a choice (ie becoming consciously aware of it) could quite conceivably occur after having actually made the choice. It seems like a whole new level of cognition to think "Hey I am aware I just made a choice to hit that ball" compared to just hitting it based purely on instinct.

But like you I don't know much about neurology and I don't know if Siva's study didn't address that issue.

[RockAndRoll]

It seems to me that realising you have made a choice (ie becoming consciously aware of it) could quite conceivably occur after having actually made the choice. It seems like a whole new level of cognition to think "Hey I am aware I just made a choice to hit that ball" compared to just hitting it based purely on instinct.

But like you I don't know much about neurology and I don't know if Siva's study didn't address that issue.

Mhmm, I think the suggestion was made that the choices that we think we made consciously aren't actually made consciously at all, but rather that after the decision is made subconsciously our conscious becomes aware of the decision. In other words I think it was suggesting that this might support a physically determined view of consciousness that just feels like it's doing all this important stuff.

but this was from a while ago, so I can't actually remember if that suggestion was made or if I just made that up.

[siva_chair]

No, I'm just positing potential ways the brain might work stuff out before it's actually happened.

Fair enough.

My idea is that maybe the brain sees cues in the behavior of the pitcher that bypass conscious thought but nonetheless prime a muscle memory response that is executed without thinking about it. If this is the case, there's not hitting and hoping about it. It would be an instinctive response

That may very well be.

I don't think either one of us are really qualified to say with anything resembling absolute certainty on the issue. Neurobiology and neurophysiology are very complex and involved studies. Besides, there are lots of differing opinions on the issue even within the field of study.

[siva_chair]

What knowledge? How do you know where the knowledge lies if you don't know what knowledge the question is looking for?

The word "ultimate" pretty much implies "all-encompassing."

I don't know of any humans that possess that level of knowlege. Do you?

[RockAndRoll]

The word "ultimate" pretty much implies "all-encompassing."

I don't know of any humans that possess that level of knowlege. Do you?

I know quite a number who possess the knowledge that there's no ultimate square root of popeye.

[siva_chair]

I know quite a number who possess the knowledge that there's no ultimate square root of popeye.

That's nice but what does that have to do with an ultimate purpose to the universe?

[Smokey D]

That square root of Popeye line was PB's best contribution to the forums in all the years I've been here.

[Mr. Ron]

what is the square root of popeye?

[sweboy]

Well, the thing is, that the human brain is also strictly algorithmic.


lolol


Well it is. The human brain, like everything else, follows the laws of nature and is a deterministic system, so I think it makes sense to say that the brain is algorithmic.

So, tell me, where are the images and sounds of the mind? If it's true that they consist entirely of changing electric potentials in the brain, is it possible for a computer, which works along the same lines, to do the same?

I see no reason why not.

[1338 h4x0r]

A sufficiently complex computer could probably do it. I see no reason to assume why it couldn't, at any rate.

I can't say 'yes' or 'no' but I highly doubt there will ever be a conscious computer

Well it is. The human brain, like everything else, follows the laws of nature and is a deterministic system, so I think it makes sense to say that the brain is algorithmic.

No free will?

[sweboy]

Correct, free will is a supernatural concept that really makes no sense.

[PerpetualBurn]

I think I've done better than the popeye line.

[Mr. Ron]

Correct, free will is a supernatural concept that really makes no sense.

That always sort of disturbed me

are we just biological robots?

[1338 h4x0r]

That always sort of disturbed me

are we just biological robots?

I guess it's not out of the question, but I doubt it. Although it is true that any sufficiently complex system will have behaviors that can appear random.

[sweboy]

Well we are "just biological robots", but that formulation has a negative ring to it, which is understandable but perhaps not necessary, depending on how you look at it. To me it makes existance even more ungraspable and wondrous. We are not just independent beings placed in an amazing universe equipped with standalone minds that enables us to kind of observe it objectively, like kids in a zoo, but we are in every way part of the amazing universe, and so is our consciousness and our every thought, sensation and emotion. It doesn't get more mind-****ing than trying to make sense out of how we can reflect over our own thoughts and emotions but still are not actually agents or entities different, or really distinguishable, from all the other matter and energy in the universe.

[Mr. Ron]

Well we are "just biological robots", but that formulation has a negative ring to it, which is understandable but perhaps not necessary, depending on how you look at it. To me it makes existance even more ungraspable and wondrous. We are not just independent beings placed in an amazing universe equipped with standalone minds that enables us to kind of observe it objectively, like kids in a zoo, but we are in every way part of the amazing universe, and so is our consciousness and our every thought, sensation and emotion. It doesn't get more mind-****ing than trying to make sense out of how we can reflect over our own thoughts and emotions but still are not actually agents or entities different, or really distinguishable, from all the other matter and energy in the universe.

I can see the implications of this, though. Would this mean that all of those amazing moments in life, or the woman you are head over heals in love with are just examples of mere chemicals firing off?

[sweboy]

Yeah but when you use words like "implications", "just" and "mere" you make it sound like a bad thing, like the natural is somehow inferior to the supernatural, which is an extremely common view in the west, likely because of Christian influence. But another view can be that the natural is amazing in itself. Personally I think a strictly natural view makes the world even more amazing, with it's ungraspable lack of purpose and meaning - like, no one intended for us to so greatly enjoy music, yet we do... just, like, for no reason at all. That to me is much more amazing than if there was an intelligent purpose or supernatural meaning behind our enjoyment.

[Futue te Ipsum]

evolution is more than just a genetically based concept. Dawkins explained it quite well with the meme, if you're interesting in looking into it.

[Mr. Ron]

Yeah but when you use words like "implications", "just" and "mere" you make it sound like a bad thing, like the natural is somehow inferior to the supernatural, which is an extremely common view in the west, likely because of Christian influence. But another view can be that the natural is amazing in itself. Personally I think a strictly natural view makes the world even more amazing, with it's ungraspable lack of purpose and meaning - like, no one intended for us to so greatly enjoy music, yet we do... just, like, for no reason at all. That to me is much more amazing than if there was an intelligent purpose or supernatural meaning behind our enjoyment.
I agree, I think its my society's view on the whole thing that is making me feel this way.

[RockAndRoll]

That's nice but what does that have to do with an ultimate purpose to the universe?

It shows that the world ultimate doesn't necessitate that humans don't know the answer to a question. So equally the appearance of the word ultimate in the question "what is the ultimate purpose?" doesn't necessarily mean that we can't know the answer. So how do you know that they don't know what the answer is if you don't even understand the question?

That square root of Popeye line was PB's best contribution to the forums in all the years I've been here.
I quite liked it. But I'm not sure if saying it's his best work is a compliment or an insult.

I have a book of philosophical writings and one of the ones on logic gives examples like that, I quite enjoyed some of them, but I can't remember any off the top of my head, and can't find the book right now.

[PerpetualBurn]

I didn't say that.

I'm suing for libel.

[RockAndRoll]

I didn't say that.

I'm suing for libel.

Of course you did smokey. Don't be ridiculous.

[siva_chair]

It shows that the world ultimate doesn't necessitate that humans don't know the answer to a question. So equally the appearance of the word ultimate in the question "what is the ultimate purpose?" doesn't necessarily mean that we can't know the answer. So how do you know that they don't know what the answer is if you don't even understand the question?

I understand that the question implies a greater or final goal of the universe than what we currently give it. I also understand that there are too many things about the universe that we don't know, and thus I say we cannot currently know if there is a greater/ultimate/final goal or purpose to the universe.

When I said I don't understand the question I meant I don't pretend to know what specifically the question entails. I think it is clear to see that when someone says "There is no ultimate purpose to the universe" they mean that there is no purpose above what we decide to subjectively give it.

Besides, if they say there is no purpose, there is certainly no way for them to validate that statement. This leads me to believe it is not factual knowlege but just an opinion.

[Curve]

'Whats the meaning of mountains? Whats the point? I mean I know how they were made and the geological processes that happened to create them, but whats their purpose? Some questions don't deserve answering.'

-Someone better than me

[mph4ever]

Yeah but when you use words like "implications", "just" and "mere" you make it sound like a bad thing, like the natural is somehow inferior to the supernatural, which is an extremely common view in the west, likely because of Christian influence. But another view can be that the natural is amazing in itself. Personally I think a strictly natural view makes the world even more amazing, with it's ungraspable lack of purpose and meaning - like, no one intended for us to so greatly enjoy music, yet we do... just, like, for no reason at all. That to me is much more amazing than if there was an intelligent purpose or supernatural meaning behind our enjoyment.

thats a cool way to put it. i don't think it is just a christian thing, it may be more an abrahamic thing.

i feel the similar way about time. we are always reflecting on the past, history, even immediate history, is so to the fore. our need to learn from the past so that we can develop our future prohibits us from enjoying the present. appreciating what is around you today, presently, is a much more bountiful existence since tomorrow may never happen. day-dreaming with your eyes open is such a fulfiling experience. we won't have this day again, so enjoy it.

[VomitStainedCretin]

The issue of free will boils down to whether or not choice is an illusion or not and what factors regulate decision-making: are our minds merely a set of scales that will always select the 'weightier' option or is there a random element meaning that there is a chance our inner arbiter will sometimes pick a less justified option?

[fingers mccoy]

i dont have a problem thinking that my entire brain is what dictates the choices i make, rather than just the conscious

[Jude]

That always sort of disturbed me

are we just biological robots?

yes

No matter how you think about it, there is no way that free will exists. Fortunately the illusion is comfortable enough for me.

[mph4ever]

that really sad, personality and choice is hardwired

so there is some basis for thinking that some people are born to vote dem and some gop, weird

[fingers mccoy]

no there's not, we decide that ****

[mph4ever]

so you believe in free will

[fingers mccoy]

well yeh, what external influence is there outside heritage

it's been proven that the human brain makes a decision seconds before we even consider choice consciously but that doesn't mean a thing for free will, just means that we're quite often unaware of what we think

[mph4ever]

i like the idea of free will. and with regard to external influence, surely they are everywhere, tv, radio, newspapers, chats in the street, forums like this, all influence people and their decisions.

[fingers mccoy]

well no we can't ignore our environment but that is all just information; something we use to make informed decisions

[peeted]

well yeh, what external influence is there outside heritage

it's been proven that the human brain makes a decision seconds before we even consider choice consciously but that doesn't mean a thing for free will, just means that we're quite often unaware of what we think

You talking about the libet experements? All they show is that the brain is prepared for action before a consious descision is made. But the brain would be ready for a certain type of action if you had been put in a lab and were instructed that you had to press a button within a certain amount of time. The results dont really show anything.

This is the trouble with reductionist theories of mind, its impossible to reduce mental states to physical phenomenon because we cant see the content of the other mind, so its impossible to draw a direct corrolation between brain states and mental states.

[mph4ever]

well yeh, what external influence is there outside heritage

it's been proven that the human brain makes a decision seconds before we even consider choice consciously but that doesn't mean a thing for free will, just means that we're quite often unaware of what we think

second half of this was added after i had responded. in this context, what do you use heritage to represent?

[fingers mccoy]

well genes

[Smokey D]

Predestined is quite different to hardwired.

Predestined is that everything we depends on what happened before it.

Hardwiring is that our brains do not have a capacity to learn and change. It's pretty clear that our brains change even though they change in accordance with predestined factors.

[joshmay]

Due to the laws of physics, things can not go from disorder to order without any outside interference (for this thread's sake a "higher being") An example would be that if we keep throwing car parts into a junkyard, the pieces won't magically come together to form a car. You need somebody to make that car. Events can only go from order to disorder naturally. Using this logic and other ideas I seem to agree with regarding intelligent design I believe that Intelligent design should be considered a viable theory and scholars should not be chastized for writing about it.

What do you think?


the theory is that things tend toward disorder, while an increase in order is improbable, it is not impossible.


also, on the subatomic level, smashing clock parts together sometimes does result in whole, functioning (metaphorical) clocks.

[free_thinkers_are_dangerous]

the input of energy is enough to increase order. there is plenty of energy in our universe.

[Volumnius Flush]

To understand tolerance we have to understand when the idea of tolerance came about and why.

For centuries, the Catholics, Muslims, French, and English were notorious for their intolerance of other people's. It happened to the Huguenots, to the Protestants, Jews, and many other peoples. The idea of tolerance first came about during the exodus to the Americas by the Puritans. They failed in their experiment with tolerance when they slaughtered the Indians and shut out Roger Williams. Roger Williams was the first true example of a legitimate democratic form of democracy.

It is like a boat. The Christians built the boat of tolerance. Then they let Jews, Europeans, Hindus, Buddhists, and finally the last one's to get on the boat were the atheists and liberals. The atheists and liberals (scientists), they began kicking the Christians off the boat to make room for the rest of the scientists.

We were on the boat first, now we're getting kicked off to make extra room!

So the scientists are very intolerant, yes.

[BridgeToSolace]

It is like a boat. The Christians built the boat of tolerance.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Jews_under_Muslim_rule

In the Iberian Peninsula, under Muslim rule, Jews were able to make great advances in mathematics, astronomy, philosophy, chemistry and philology.[9] This era is sometimes referred to as the Golden age of Jewish culture in the Iberian Peninsula.[10]

During early Islam, Leon Poliakov writes, Jews enjoyed great privileges, and their communities prospered. There was no legislation or social barriers preventing them from conducting commercial activities. Many Jews migrated to areas newly conquered by Muslims and established communities there. The vizier of Baghdad entrusted his capital with Jewish bankers. The Jews were put in charge of certain parts of maritime and slave trade. Siraf, the principal port of the caliphate in the 10th century CE, had a Jewish governor.[11]

It's a little silly to say that Christians invented religious tolerance. I hope you're just phrasing this oddly and you mean something entirely different :)

[free_thinkers_are_dangerous]

i think he's saying science shouldn't disprove christianity in the name of tolerance :amaze:

[Smokey D]

There was no legislation or social barriers preventing them from conducting commercial activities.

Except the jizya.

Medieval Islam was certainly a lot nice than Christendom, but it didn't treat Muslims and infidels equally.

But also, the Puritans didn't invent tolerance. There are plenty of examples of Calvinists burning people.

[joshmay]

Christians built the boat of tolerance.


:lol:


:chug:

[BridgeToSolace]

Except the jizya.

Sounds like a silly porn movie. JIZZ YA! It'd be kind of like the Jamie Kennedy Experiment, but with...you know...

Under Islamic law, jizya or jizyah is a per capita tax levied on the state's non-Muslim citizens. The tax was levied on able bodied men of military age,[1] (with some exemptions,[2][3]In return, non-Muslim citizens were permitted to practice their faith, to enjoy a measure of communal autonomy, to be entitled to Muslim protection from outside aggression, to be exempted from military service and taxes levied upon Muslim citizens.[6][7][8]

Sounds like a good deal to me. It limited, but also liberated at the same time.

[Berner]

It is like a boat. The Christians built the boat of tolerance. Then they let Jews, Europeans, Hindus, Buddhists, and finally the last one's to get on the boat were the atheists and liberals. The atheists and liberals (scientists), they began kicking the Christians off the boat to make room for the rest of the scientists.

We were on the boat first, now we're getting kicked off to make extra room!

So the scientists are very intolerant, yes.

Worst metaphor ever.

[Volumnius Flush]

Worst metaphor ever.

Worst post ever ^^^ :chug:

:lol:


:chug:

Well at least someone got it...

i think he's saying science shouldn't disprove christianity in the name of tolerance :amaze:

Something like that....


It's a little silly to say that Christians invented religious tolerance. I hope you're just phrasing this oddly and you mean something entirely different

Oh did I forget to mention I'm a revisionist historian?

[Smokey D]

Sounds like a silly animal photographs movie. JIZZ YA! It'd be kind of like the Jamie Kennedy Experiment, but with...you know...

Under Islamic law, jizya or jizyah is a per capita tax levied on the state's non-Muslim citizens. The tax was levied on able bodied men of military age,[1] (with some exemptions,[2][3]In return, non-Muslim citizens were permitted to practice their faith, to enjoy a measure of communal autonomy, to be entitled to Muslim protection from outside aggression, to be exempted from military service and taxes levied upon Muslim citizens.[6][7][8]

Sounds like a good deal to me. It limited, but also liberated at the same time.

Well for one protection from Muslim aggression was certainly never a guarantee despite the jizya -- see al-Hakim's destruction of the Holy Sepulchre.

Secondly, "[Jizya] is conducive to an arrogance that can easily descend into a lack of respect or concern for the well-being or dignity of non-Muslims. When this arrogant orientation is coupled with textual sources that exhort Muslims to fight against unbelievers (kuffar), it can produce a radical belligerency.[82]"



Sounds like a good deal to me. It limited, but also liberated at the same time.

Well really it meant that because of your faith you were subjected to different treatment to Muslims.

[siva_chair]

to be exempted from military service and taxes levied upon Muslim citizens.[6][7][8][/I]

Sounds like a good deal to me. It limited, but also liberated at the same time.

Interestingly enough, Israel has a very similar practice towards Arabs.

[RockAndRoll]

I understand that the question implies a greater or final goal of the universe than what we currently give it. I also understand that there are too many things about the universe that we don't know, and thus I say we cannot currently know if there is a greater/ultimate/final goal or purpose to the universe.
But that's a complete non-sequitur; We don't know everything therefore we don't know this.


Besides, if they say there is no purpose, there is certainly no way for them to validate that statement.
How do you figure there's no way for them to validate that statement?

[siva_chair]

But that's a complete non-sequitur; We don't know everything therefore we don't know this.

You are still on this?

I'd say to conclude (particularly so matter-of-factly) that the universe has no greater purpose than to which we give it would require us to know those unknowns.

It is like me concluding that life absolutely doesn't exist on some other planet because we haven't found it yet, so it certainly doesn't exist.

How do you figure there's no way for them to validate that statement?

Because they can't and haven't.

[RockAndRoll]

I'd say to conclude (particularly so matter-of-factly) that the universe has no greater purpose than to which we give it would require us to know those unknowns.
Yeah, I know you'd say that because you've already said it like five times. I'm looking for a reason to conlcude that.

It is like me concluding that life absolutely doesn't exist on some other planet because we haven't found it yet, so it certainly doesn't exist.

Actually no, it's not like that, no one said "I know there is no ultimate purpose because we haven't found it yet" so it's really not like that at all.

Because they can't and haven't.
That's not a reason, that's you restating the same thing with the word "because" in front of it.

[siva_chair]

Yeah, I know you'd say that because you've already said it like five times. I'm looking for a reason.

That is the reason. Too many unknowns.

Actually no, it's not like that, no one said "I know there is no ultimate purpose because we haven't found it yet" so it's really not like that at all.

That is exactly what is being implied. "We haven't found some ultimate purpose, therefore there must not be one" or "I don't think there is some ultimate purpose, therefore there must not be one."

That's not a reason, that's you restating the same thing with the word "because" in front of it.

Actually it is a great reason. No one has validated the statement any further than it being their own opinion. Opinions aren't facts.

[mph4ever]

well no we can't ignore our environment but that is all just information; something we use to make informed decisions

i agree, we can't ignore our environment. however, our environment, over long periods of time, can cause us to react a particular way, removing free will or certainly diminishing the role of free will in our decision making.

[RockAndRoll]

That is the reason. Too many unknowns.
Which specific unknowns prevent us from being able to answer the question? That there are a lot of things we don't know doesn't mean that we can't know anything, so you're going to have to explain what we don't know that we would need to know to answer the question.


That is exactly what is being implied. "We haven't found some ultimate purpose, therefore there must not be one" or "I don't think there is some ultimate purpose, therefore there must not be one."
No, you don't get to make up other people's arguments. No one said that.


Actually it is a great reason. No one has validated the statement any further than it being their own opinion. Opinions aren't facts.
Haven't=/= Can't.

You said they can't validate their opinion, that there is no way that they could. That no one has is an entirely different matter. What you're saying is "I haven't seen anyone validate it, therefore it can't be done." It is like me concluding that life absolutely doesn't exist on some other planet because we haven't found it yet, so it certainly doesn't exist, and can't!

[peeted]

"That is exactly what is being implied. "We haven't found some ultimate purpose, therefore there must not be one" or "I don't think there is some ultimate purpose, therefore there must not be one."

Thats not the argument, the argument is "i dont have any reason to believe there is any ultimate purpose, therefore untill someone shows me convincingley that there is an ultimate purpose i wont believe that there is one. Its a perfectley good argument.

[siva_chair]

Which specific unknowns prevent us from being able to answer the question?

Are we the highest order of intelligence in the universe, are we some cosmic accident, how did the conscious world develop, ect. There are probably tons of unanswered questions we haven't even begun to even concieve of.

That there are a lot of things we don't know doesn't mean that we can't know anything, so you're going to have to explain what we don't know that we would need to know to answer the question.

I never said we couldn't know anything.

The universe is an all-encompassing thing. In any unknown that exists within it, there is the possibility of purpose. To conclude that there is in fact no purpose to be found within the universe, is to ignore all the possibilities that the said unknowns have to offer. I think that is a pretty silly thing to do, really.

No, you don't get to make up other people's arguments. No one said that.

Well I'm not making anyone's arguments up. This whole stupid discussion started because I made the comment that I'm glad we have the enlightening minds of MX to conclude for us all that there is no purpose to the universe. The only reasoning anyone has provided for concluding this has implied what I said it did.

Haven't=/= Can't.

You said they can't validate their opinion, that there is no way that they could. That no one has is an entirely different matter. What you're saying is "I haven't seen anyone validate it, therefore it can't be done." It is like me concluding that life absolutely doesn't exist on some other planet because we haven't found it yet, so it certainly doesn't exist, and can't!

I don't really feel that it is possible for anyone to logically conclude that there is no purpose as long as unknowns exists (where in the possibility of purpose exists) in the universe.

"That is exactly what is being implied. "We haven't found some ultimate purpose, therefore there must not be one" or "I don't think there is some ultimate purpose, therefore there must not be one."

Thats not the argument, the argument is "i dont have any reason to believe there is any ultimate purpose, therefore untill someone shows me convincingley that there is an ultimate purpose i wont believe that there is one. Its a perfectley good argument.

No that was not the original argument. The original argument sprang from me responding to this:

so we are agreed, there is no purpose to the universe. can we also conclude that with no purpose to the universe then there is no need for a creator either?

with:

I'm so glad we have this internet forum full of wise thinkers to conclude that there is no purpose to the universe.

[mph4ever]

No that was not the original argument. The original argument sprang from me responding to this:




so we are agreed, there is no purpose to the universe. can we also conclude that with no purpose to the universe then there is no need for a creator either?



with:



I'm so glad we have this internet forum full of wise thinkers to conclude that there is no purpose to the universe.

me too

[peeted]

Well for one purpose implies intention which is an entirley human concept so its hard to see how the universe could have a purpose. And secondley it makes perfect sense to conclude that there isnt something if we have to reason to belive there is. For example i dont belive in invisible dwarves that run around and make electricity work. Now there are still many unknowns so should i be agnostic about it? hell no, i have no reason to think that its the case at all.

[RockAndRoll]

Are we the highest order of intelligence in the universe, are we some cosmic accident, how did the conscious world develop, ect. There are probably tons of unanswered questions we haven't even begun to even concieve of.
Why do we need to be able to answer those questions to know if there is an ultimate purpose.


I never said we couldn't know anything.
Yeah, I know, but thanks for the heads up anyways.

The universe is an all-encompassing thing. In any unknown that exists within it, there is the possibility of purpose. To conclude that there is in fact no purpose to be found within the universe, is to ignore all the possibilities that the said unknowns have to offer. I think that is a pretty silly thing to do, really.
I don't even understand what it would mean for purpose to be found in some unknown aspect of the universe. Could you please explain that to me?


Well I'm not making anyone's arguments up. This whole stupid discussion started because I made the comment that I'm glad we have the enlightening minds of MX to conclude for us all that there is no purpose to the universe. The only reasoning anyone has provided for concluding this has implied what I said it did.
k, well I must have missed that part of thread or something. but either way, one bad argument for knowing something doesn't mean that we can't know it.

I don't really feel that it is possible for anyone to logically conclude that there is no purpose as long as unknowns exists (where in the possibility of purpose exists) in the universe.
Okay, that's nice, but argument from personal incredulity is a fallacy.