REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

Evolution, science, faith- lightening rod - II

POSTED BY: SIGNYM
UPDATED: Monday, July 30, 2007 08:50
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 8295
PAGE 3 of 4

Thursday, July 19, 2007 2:16 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


AntiM

"the concept (of god) was invented out of thin air, simultaneously by every culture in the world, coincidentally from the dawn of recorded history"

Where does the concept of god come from? I've heard a convincing argument that the development of language can itself trigger the concept of god(s). Also, to say that it's universal is quite mistaken - I don't think the Chinese had a concept of god, they believed in ancestral spirits. And other peoples until very recent history didn't believe in god, they believed in various spirits as well.

"so is their such a thing as moral absolutes ...?"
Not in the way you think of them. The Romans for example had a very different concept of good and evil.

" i wonder where that leaves established moral and ethical standards, since science has no bearing on the matter"
I think science is at the point where it can be quite a good, though preliminary, guide to morality. The vast majority of people can mirror other people's feelings - have empathy. That tells us that empathy, as selected through evolution - is a trait to be encouraged in our social, economic, and 'moral' structures. The vast majority of people have rewarding brain chemicals during cooperation - that tells us that that this is a normal trait selected for by evolution, and that our societies should reflect and support that inbuilt characteristic. The vast majority of people express damaging stress hormones during conflict - that tells us in the converse way that cooperation and trusting relations with others is a vital human trait. And so on.

I think it's possible to determine whether human mores are 'good' or 'bad' by whether or not they lead to healthy or unhealthy biochemistry. And it would then be possible to encourage those mores through social structures.


***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, July 19, 2007 2:19 PM

CITIZEN


Quote:

Originally posted by rue:
To put my ideas this way - if something is outside of our physical universe, then by definition it doesn't interact with it in any way. And the existence or non-existence of such a thing is immaterial (pun intended) because by its nature it will not impact the physical universe, or us, in any way. So while it would be impossible to prove or disprove such a thing, it would also be completely meaningless. That is what I think of as the realm of god.

Indeed, but that doesn't mean that it doesn't exist, or that it is merely imaginary.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, July 19, 2007 2:21 PM

CITIZEN


Quote:

Originally posted by SignyM:
We cannot "perceive" electrons directly, but we can perceive their effects on magnets, wires, droplets of oil, presumed "photons" and other secondary observations. Many scientitifc concepts do not make much inutitive sense. What is a "negative" charge, other than being opposite of a "positive" charge? what is "spin"? What is "strangeness"? Is a fifth, sixth and seventh dimension any weirder than that?

An electron is four dimensional. Higher dimensions are outside of our four dimensional world, in the same way that the dimension of hieght is outside of the two dimensions of length and width.



More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, July 19, 2007 2:27 PM

FLETCH2


Quote:

Originally posted by SignyM:
We cannot "perceive" electrons directly, but we can perceive their effects on magnets, wires, droplets of oil, presumed "photons" and other secondary observations. Many scientitifc concepts do not make much inutitive sense. What is a "negative" charge, other than being opposite of a "positive" charge? what is "spin"? What is "strangeness"? Is a fifth, sixth and seventh dimension any weirder than that?



No, but then we dont really know what an electron is either, is it a particle, a wave, a "wavicle" or a point charge that has certain probabilistic properties?

For all we know it could be none of the above and prior to the 1700's nobody had any incling that it even existed. We have no idea what might be out there until we get the technology that let's us look.

That's why this entire line of argument is pointless. The one thing science knows without doubt is how little it knows. Every model we make, every inference, every theory is subject to revision or replacement as new data and new ideas. To say at this stage that we know the nature (or existance or none existance) of anything is setting ourselves up for a fall. Remember scientists believed there was an "ether" once, because they thought EM waves needed a propogation medium, now we know (or believe) that isn't the case.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, July 19, 2007 2:38 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Quote:

You say that we can only have evidence for materially existing things, and never ever for immaterially existing things.
What is evidence?

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, July 19, 2007 2:42 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Quote:

An electron is four dimensional. Higher dimensions are outside of our four dimensional world, in the same way that the dimension of hieght is outside of the two dimensions of length and width.
Who says our world IS four-dimensional? Maybe we're like the flatman observing a three-dimensional-being: we can only see the part that intersects our plane.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, July 19, 2007 2:46 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Quote:

No, but then we dont really know what an electron is either, is it a particle, a wave, a "wavicle" or a point charge that has certain probabilistic properties?

For all we know it could be none of the above and prior to the 1700's nobody had any incling that it even existed. We have no idea what might be out there until we get the technology that let's us look.

That's why this entire line of argument is pointless. The one thing science knows without doubt is how little it knows. Every model we make, every inference, every theory is subject to revision or replacement as new data and new ideas. To say at this stage that we know the nature (or existance or none existance) of anything is setting ourselves up for a fall. Remember scientists believed there was an "ether" once, because they thought EM waves needed a propogation medium, now we know (or believe) that isn't the case.

Of course. ALL of our "scientific" ideas are provisional. The big difference is that we bang those ideas against evidence. And now it's your turn to explain "evidence".

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, July 19, 2007 2:49 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Quote:

Indeed, but that doesn't mean that it doesn't exist, or that it is merely imaginary.
Just wholly (holy?) irrelevant.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, July 19, 2007 3:15 PM

ANTIMASON


Quote:

Originally posted by rue:

Where does the concept of god come from? I've heard a convincing argument that the development of language can itself trigger the concept of god(s).



alright, lets hear it? im open

Quote:

Also, to say that it's universal is quite mistaken - I don't think the Chinese had a concept of god, they believed in ancestral spirits. And other peoples until very recent history didn't believe in god, they believed in various spirits as well.


well.. thats splitting hairs IMO; you are missing the themes. is their an afterlife? is there a set of morals, or values which are absolute, and pure and right? do our actions have eternal consequences? we can debate whether my God is the right one or not, but what really matters is that THERE ARE ultimate truths. the 7 deadly sins is the perfect example, because we all know greed, or pride or envy are and lead to negative behavior, we know this to be right and true, in our guts.. so why? if we're just another species of animal, why is murder wrong? is it immoral for a predator to 'prey'?

Quote:

"so is their such a thing as moral absolutes ...?"

Not in the way you think of them. The Romans for example had a very different concept of good and evil.



alright, but from my perspective they believed in 'gods', not God the Creator. many beliefs encompass the broader picture.. maybe this is something you should consider

Quote:

" i wonder where that leaves established moral and ethical standards, since science has no bearing on the matter"

I think science is at the point where it can be quite a good, though preliminary, guide to morality.



what ever science is capable of, it will do. cloning, genetic modification, weaponization, or just twisted experimentation.. it seems more like a slippery slope if you ask me. politically, that type of mindset would let the UN seize all the worlds oil supplies, for consumption purposes, so that the current consensus on global warming could be satisfied, irregardless of the consequences. but, maybe thats something youd agree with

Quote:

The vast majority of people can mirror other people's feelings - have empathy. That tells us that empathy, as selected through evolution -


how did that characteristic evolve?

this is how i see it:what makes a tree a tree? what seperates a cat from a snake? you can tell me the specific detail of how a tree forms, and grows.. or how the species of cat has evolved(mind you, within its archetype).. but beyond a certain point, you cant 'devolve' something without reaching the hardware; what makes it what it is. a tree comes from a seed. where did the seed start? did it grow itself? those are philosophical questions directly related to the understanding of science.. are they not?

Quote:

The vast majority of people have rewarding brain chemicals during cooperation - that tells us that that this is a normal trait selected for by evolution, and that our societies should reflect and support that inbuilt characteristic. The vast majority of people express damaging stress hormones during conflict - that tells us in the converse way that cooperation and trusting relations with others is a vital human trait. And so on.


and it all self willed itself into existence. the brain needed these chemicals to do this, so it did it. in fact, thats where we began right, billions of years ago.. when we were inanimate matter that chose to become something more. thats some strange logic.. it seems to me that the processes were designed to operate the way they do, as intelligently as they do

Quote:

I think it's possible to determine whether human mores are 'good' or 'bad' by whether or not they lead to healthy or unhealthy biochemistry. And it would then be possible to encourage those mores through social structures.


maybe.. but if thats what you intend to fall back on, in this religious free utopia of yours, good luck maintaining any kind of order or rule of law. you need something a little more 'absolute' then what feels good


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, July 19, 2007 3:27 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


Causal

Well, we could go around and around all night. So I'll try and lay out my ideas as clearly as possible.

***************************************

"Is "singleness" imaginary?"

I thought I was clear - "one" - "singleness" is a model. It's a product of our timescale, senses and brain logic.

For example, suppose our senses let us "see" all attractive and repulsive forces. Since everything would be connected to everything else, I'm not sure we'd be able to model the concept of "one". Or suppose our brains weren't capable of separating out visual objects from background (a complex ability). Or suppose our timescale let us see before/ during/ after all at once. Those too might limit out ability to sense "one" - "singleness".

Singleness isn't an ideal property shadowed onto an imperfect world. It's a partial model invented by our brains for inviolate reality.

***************************************

"When I talk about the existence of non-physical things, you argue that it's just really hard to talk about what exists. But when you talk about physical things, you don't seem to have any problem with it."

I can put all sorts of words together which don't mean anything. I can say there is something which is both completely and only apple and completely and only orange both at the same time. Or I can define existence as that and only that which is real, and then say that there exist things which aren't real. Neither one satisfies logic.

Since I START with the assumption that things which exist are real, and things which are real exist, I don't accept that things can exist which aren't real, and the other way around

To go alllll the way back - no can prove this universe exists. Even "Je pense, donc je suis", which at first seems so convincing and simple, falls to the proposal that I'm just a unknowing dream of someone or something else.

As SignyM explained elsewhere, science makes a priori assumptions. As I recall, they were: There is a real existence - an objective reality. It operates by consistent rules. (Now that I think about it, this, in its bare-bones form, has similarities to Dao. I digress ...) Our senses tell us something (though in a limited way) about this existence. We can learn about this objective reality by observation, experimentation and thought.

I start out with the idea that there is an objective reality, and that it encompasses all that we think 'exists'. And that it is the province of science.

***************************************

"You say that we can only have evidence for materially existing things, and never ever for immaterially existing things. To which I ask: how can you prove that?"
It's a matter of definition. (see above)

"Your position is closely akin to that of Logical Positivism, a failed philosophical movement which collapsed under its own weight. The key assumption of Logical Positivism is that nothing can count as knowledge unless it can be empirically verified. The trouble, obviously, is that that key assumption can't be empirically verified!"
See a priori assumption, above


***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, July 19, 2007 4:17 PM

FLETCH2


Quote:

Originally posted by SignyM:
The big difference is that we bang those ideas against evidence. And now it's your turn to explain "evidence".




I have never mentioned evidence, I think you're confused again.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, July 19, 2007 5:16 PM

CAUSAL


Quote:

Originally posted by rue:
Causal

Well, we could go around and around all night. So I'll try and lay out my ideas as clearly as possible.

***************************************

"Is "singleness" imaginary?"

I thought I was clear - "one" - "singleness" is a model. It's a product of our timescale, senses and brain logic.

For example, suppose our senses let us "see" all attractive and repulsive forces. Since everything would be connected to everything else, I'm not sure we'd be able to model the concept of "one". Or suppose our brains weren't capable of separating out visual objects from background (a complex ability). Or suppose our timescale let us see before/ during/ after all at once. Those too might limit out ability to sense "one" - "singleness".

Singleness isn't an ideal property shadowed onto an imperfect world. It's a partial model invented by our brains for inviolate reality.

***************************************

"When I talk about the existence of non-physical things, you argue that it's just really hard to talk about what exists. But when you talk about physical things, you don't seem to have any problem with it."

I can put all sorts of words together which don't mean anything. I can say there is something which is both completely and only apple and completely and only orange both at the same time. Or I can define existence as that and only that which is real, and then say that there exist things which aren't real. Neither one satisfies logic.

Since I START with the assumption that things which exist are real, and things which are real exist, I don't accept that things can exist which aren't real, and the other way around

To go alllll the way back - no can prove this universe exists. Even "Je pense, donc je suis", which at first seems so convincing and simple, falls to the proposal that I'm just a unknowing dream of someone or something else.

As SignyM explained elsewhere, science makes a priori assumptions. As I recall, they were: There is a real existence - an objective reality. It operates by consistent rules. (Now that I think about it, this, in its bare-bones form, has similarities to Dao. I digress ...) Our senses tell us something (though in a limited way) about this existence. We can learn about this objective reality by observation, experimentation and thought.

I start out with the idea that there is an objective reality, and that it encompasses all that we think 'exists'. And that it is the province of science.

***************************************

"You say that we can only have evidence for materially existing things, and never ever for immaterially existing things. To which I ask: how can you prove that?"
It's a matter of definition. (see above)

"Your position is closely akin to that of Logical Positivism, a failed philosophical movement which collapsed under its own weight. The key assumption of Logical Positivism is that nothing can count as knowledge unless it can be empirically verified. The trouble, obviously, is that that key assumption can't be empirically verified!"
See a priori assumption, above



Well, I congratulate you on your perfectly nesting set of presupositions. Have fun with that ball.

________________________________________________________________________

- Grand High Poobah of the Mythical Land of Iowa, and Keeper of State Secrets
- Captain, FFF.net Grammar Police

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, July 20, 2007 5:03 AM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


WOW that was snarky. Was that the best you could come up with? Did you have problems replying to a perfectly logical, polite and upfront post ?

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, July 20, 2007 5:46 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Quote:

I have never mentioned evidence, I think you're confused again- Fletch2

You're right, it was Causal who said
Quote:

You say that we can only have evidence for materially existing things, and never ever for immaterially existing things. ... Yet AGAIN, you cannot merely presume that only physical evidence counts as evidence. You must give a cogent argument for such a proposition.
So now Causal, please define "evidence" for us.

BTW Fletch2- did you really think you would throw me off by saying we don't know what an "electron" is? Such a trivial point! I hope you didn't spend TOO much time grinding your gears on that one! I note that you have not answered my point about banging concepts against evidence. You must be confused... still.

---------------------------------
I can be snarky tooisall.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, July 20, 2007 5:59 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Quote:

Well, I congratulate you on your perfectly nesting set of presupositions. Have fun with that ball.
Snark is what people resort to when they've run out of ideas.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, July 20, 2007 6:33 AM

FLETCH2


Quote:

Originally posted by SignyM:


BTW Fletch2- did you really think you would throw me off by saying we don't know what an "electron" is? Such a trivial point! I hope you didn't spend TOO much time grinding your gears on that one! I note that you have not answered my point about banging concepts against evidence. You must be confused... still.



You missed the point. We don't "know" what an electron is, we know some of it's properties and we have models that describe it but we don't "know" what it is. The list I gave you was what we have "known" it to have been at various points in the last 100 years. If you "know" what it is absolutely, please let know so we can raise you to the level of Newton and Rutherford.


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, July 20, 2007 7:29 AM

FREDGIBLET


Quote:

Originally posted by antimason:
Quote:

Also, to say that it's universal is quite mistaken - I don't think the Chinese had a concept of god, they believed in ancestral spirits. And other peoples until very recent history didn't believe in god, they believed in various spirits as well.


is there a set of morals, or values which are absolute, and pure and right?



Most religions have them, but they vary quite a bit too.

Quote:

do our actions have eternal consequences?


The only people who know aren't talking

Quote:

we can debate whether my God is the right one or not, but what really matters is that THERE ARE ultimate truths. the 7 deadly sins is the perfect example, because we all know greed, or pride or envy are and lead to negative behavior, we know this to be right and true, in our guts.


Do we? Lust is a deadly sin but I almost never see anyone feeling guilty over it, Gluttony is a deadly sin but the only people who feel bad about eating too much are fat people. Indeed the entire reason why the Seven Deadly Sins exist is because people don't tend to have a problem with most of them.

Quote:

if we're just another species of animal, why is murder wrong?


Because we are a social species, we have gained our dominant position by teamwork and altruism. Murder, in most cases, is an inherently anti-social activity in a species that thrives because of social interaction and thus shouldn't be allowed.

Quote:

is it immoral for a predator to 'prey'?


Of course not. For one the species in question don't know any better, they function on an instinctual basis. Second, in species that succeed with teamwork combat within the social unit is usually confined to hierarchical issues, they don't usually kill others of their social unit randomly. Third, predation is usually between two different species, cannibalism isn't particularly common except in times of shortage.

Quote:

what ever science is capable of, it will do. cloning, genetic modification, weaponization, or just twisted experimentation


The implication being that cloning and genetic modification are inherently wrong, I'd be interested in seeing that backed up.

As for weaponization, we are a warlike species (apparently God wants us to kill each other else he wouldn't have made us this way) and everyone wants their own group to survive. Scientists make new weapons because they want their people to survive, this is perfectly normal, wouldn't you fight to protect your family? Your country? Your religion? what's the difference between you killing some people to protect your country and the scientist making a new weapon for you to use?

Twisted experimentation? Care to elaborate?

Quote:

politically, that type of mindset would let the UN seize all the worlds oil supplies, for consumption purposes, so that the current consensus on global warming could be satisfied, irregardless of the consequences.


Where's the quizzical raised eyebrow emoticon when you need it?

Quote:

Quote:

The vast majority of people can mirror other people's feelings - have empathy. That tells us that empathy, as selected through evolution -


how did that characteristic evolve?



Social interaction is much easier when you can understand the emotions that others are going through, thus people with empathetic abilities are better adapted and able to function better in teams.

Quote:

this is how i see it:what makes a tree a tree?


Could you be a little more specific? Do you want morphological or genetic? Either way your best bet is to ask a biologist, chances are no one here can give a complete answer.

Quote:

what seperates a cat from a snake?


Cats are part of of the class Mammalia, for a list of the distinguishing characteristics of Mammalia look here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mammal

Snakes are a member of the Class Sauropsida, a list of distinguishing characteristics here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sauropsid

The short answer is a whole hell of a lot, the long answer is that a long ass time ago, some reptiles evolved into mammals while others stayed reptiles, the two groups diverged and went their separate ways, went through an enormous amount more evolution and ended up as snakes and cats. A longer answer would be a book.

Quote:

you can tell me the specific detail of how a tree forms, and grows.. or how the species of cat has evolved(mind you, within its archetype).. but beyond a certain point, you cant 'devolve' something without reaching the hardware; what makes it what it is. a tree comes from a seed. where did the seed start?


A tree does not evolve from a seed, seeds are manufactured by trees. If you want to know why seeds evolved I can't say for sure but I can make some guesses, seeding plants spread easier then non-seeding plants and tend to survive the spreading process better as well.

Quote:

did it grow itself?


No more so then sperm manufacture themselves, seeds are grown by plants.

Quote:

those are philosophical questions directly related to the understanding of science.. are they not?


I would go with not philosophical actually.

Quote:

Quote:

The vast majority of people have rewarding brain chemicals during cooperation - that tells us that that this is a normal trait selected for by evolution, and that our societies should reflect and support that inbuilt characteristic. The vast majority of people express damaging stress hormones during conflict - that tells us in the converse way that cooperation and trusting relations with others is a vital human trait. And so on.


and it all self willed itself into existence. the brain needed these chemicals to do this, so it did it.



Um...no. The creatures who had that response sought out those activities which, astonishingly enough, turned out to be beneficial. So those creatures were more successful and bred more often and evolved to desire even more cooperation etc. etc.

Quote:

in fact, thats where we began right, billions of years ago.. when we were inanimate matter that chose to become something more.


No. Biochemistry makes it not only unsurprising but expected that complex molecules form spontaneously. It has been demonstrated that given the right conditions amino acids and nucleotides can form spontaneously.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, July 20, 2007 8:49 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Quote:

You missed the point. We don't "know" what an electron is, we know some of it's properties and we have models that describe it but we don't "know" what it is. The list I gave you was what we have "known" it to have been at various points in the last 100 years. If you "know" what it is absolutely, please let know so we can raise you to the level of Newton and Rutherford.
Some people can't take "yes" for an answer. Are you one of them? This is one of those instances where I agree with you.


---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, July 20, 2007 9:11 AM

CITIZEN


Quote:

Originally posted by SignyM:
Quote:

An electron is four dimensional. Higher dimensions are outside of our four dimensional world, in the same way that the dimension of hieght is outside of the two dimensions of length and width.
Who says our world IS four-dimensional? Maybe we're like the flatman observing a three-dimensional-being: we can only see the part that intersects our plane.

The Flatmans world IS two dimensional, the fact that there are other dimensions, places them outside of his two dimensional existance.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, July 20, 2007 9:14 AM

CITIZEN


Quote:

Originally posted by SignyM:
Just wholly (holy?) irrelevant.

The reasons behind why we entered Iraq are wholly irrelivant to what we do now we are there, yet people seem to spend more time worrying about the why than the what.



More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, July 20, 2007 9:49 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Quote:

The Flatmans world IS two dimensional, the fact that there are other dimensions, places them outside of his two dimensional existance.
You seemed to be saying a few posts ago that higher dimensions cannot be perceived, and could perhaps serve as a paradigm for the non-existential. My point was that the flatlander can still perceive higher-dimensional objects, just not in their entirety. You would have to posit a set of dimensions that is orthogonal to everything in our universe and therefore we could NEVER sense it (or its effects). Under those circumstances, it remains irrelevant. BTW- I really don't have problem with the concept of multiple dimensions, altho I've heard it wreaks havoc with physics calculations. All a dimension is an independent characteristic. I can create a five-dimensional universe right now: color, mass, odor, temperature, and texture. Voila.

I sometimes wonder if the reason why physics runs into such difficulty is that the dimensions are wrong. X,Y, and Z are really the same, and m is just another expression of e. I'm not enough of a physicist to take this anywhere, tho. I leave that to the profesisonals- I guess I'm just a nitpicker.
Quote:

The reasons behind why we entered Iraq are wholly irrelivant to what we do now we are there, yet people seem to spend more time worrying about the why than the what.
There is the issue of time. Iraq is a situation in which what we did affects what we will do. As long as something is possible in the future- for example the seven-dimensional object comes crashing thru our solar system or "god" comes down to separate the good from the bad- then it is relevant because could become "sensible". But if there is another dimensional universe that can *never* interact with ours then it is still irrelevant.


---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, July 20, 2007 10:09 AM

CITIZEN


Quote:

Originally posted by SignyM:
You seemed to be saying a few posts ago that higher dimensions cannot be perceived, and could perhaps serve as a paradigm for the non-existential. My point was that the flatlander can still perceive higher-dimensional objects, just not in their entirety.

But they don't. They only ever percieve two dimensions, that there is a third dimension is unknown to them, and inconsequential to thier two dimensional existance.
Quote:

You would have to posit a set of dimensions that is orthogonal to everything in our universe and therefore we could NEVER sense it (or its effects). Under those circumstances, it remains irrelevant. BTW- I really don't have problem with the concept of multiple dimensions, altho I've heard it wreaks havoc with physics calculations.
In so much as higher dimensions turn Maxwells field equations, from a complex mess into an elegant, simple, single equation, yes higher dimensions wreak havoc on physics equations. Higher dimensions seem to be the most promising prospect for the 'theory of everything'.
Quote:

All a dimension is an independent characteristic. I can create a five-dimensional universe right now: color, mass, odor, temperature, and texture. Voila.
Erm no. None of those are inherent base properties, mass is a function of density, and quantity, colour a wholly infered property, odour also, merely a detection of chemical composition, Temperature is atomic excitation. The point is, that they are not fundemental.
Quote:

I sometimes wonder if the reason why physics runs into such difficulty is that the dimensions are wrong. X,Y, and Z are really the same, and m is just another expression of e. I'm not enough of a physicist to take this anywhere, tho and I realize its easy to criticize from the outside.
I don't think so, all objects, no matter what they are, in our four dimensional existance have an expression of the spatial dimensions, and of time.



More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, July 20, 2007 10:16 AM

FLETCH2


Quote:

Originally posted by SignyM:
Quote:

The Flatmans world IS two dimensional, the fact that there are other dimensions, places them outside of his two dimensional existance.
You seemed to be saying a few posts ago that higher dimensions cannot be perceived, and could perhaps serve as a paradigm for the non-existential. My point was that the flatlander can still perceive higher-dimensional objects, just not in their entirety.



But it's extremely unlikely that the flatlander could actually properly determine the nature of what, he's seeing it would appear to him to be a 2 dimensional object that varies its shape in what appears to be a random way. It would prove impossible for the flatlander to visualise the object as it is, because it includes a dimension he is unable to perceive directly. So if you, a 3 dimensional sort-of-sentient passed through his universe you would be at best an observed phenomenon at least until enough observations have been taken and the quantum leap made to infer you are 3 dimensional from the observed data. Even then he probably wouldn't know you were sentient. So with the tools and the science at his disposal he wouldn't know you were an intelligent lifeform, even though you can interact with his world.


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, July 20, 2007 10:20 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Quote:

You seemed to be saying a few posts ago that higher dimensions cannot be perceived, and could perhaps serve as a paradigm for the non-existential. My point was that the flatlander can still perceive higher-dimensional objects, just not in their entirety.

But they don't. They only ever perceive two dimensions, that there is a third dimension is unknown to them, and inconsequential to their two dimensional existance.

As I read it, let's assume that a three-dimensional cone intersects with Flatland. When it's parallel to the plane it looks like a triangle, when it's at right angles it looks like a circle and when it's between these orientations it looks like an ellipse. Sometimes it gets bigger, sometimes smaller, and sometimes it disappear altogether (when it moves off the plane). The part that intersects with Flatland can appear and disappear and assume unpredictable shapes and sizes but it is still sensible (in a limited way) to the flatlanders. A brilliant Flatlander might surmise that there is a third dimension which accounts for all of this unpredictability and may even derive the "shape" of the object although it will never make intuitive sense.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, July 20, 2007 10:28 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


DANG! X-posted!

Nonetheless, there would be evidence a Flatlander could point to and say: "I don't understand this." The Flatlander would not be pointing to non-evidence ("That I see nothing means something is there") and would be using observation and reason, not faith.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, July 20, 2007 10:41 AM

FLETCH2


But there are lots of things we see and can't explain, a lot of things we see, think we can explain and prove to be wrong. There could be evidence of transdemnsional space passing through 4 dimensional time space that we simply don't recognise.

In addition your "flatland" is just a cartoon version of 2 dimensional space one where 4 dimensional objects passing through it are just missing the characteristic of "height." In reality 2D world would not have linear time like we have and the photons they perceive would lack certain characteristics.

The 4D objects we work with are considered to possess the other dimensions but have them at a infinately small amount (ie in flatlander terms they have height but it's very small. What would a photon look like if it had more than unitary values for it's extra dimensions, could we detect it? Would we see only the 4 dimensions that we share or would it be shifted in some way. Would it appear like a 4D photon or would the extra dimensions give it additional spooky properties?

Could dark matter be x dimensional space that is slicing though our universe? If part of that was sentient would we even know?

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, July 20, 2007 10:48 AM

CAUSAL


Quote:

Originally posted by rue:
WOW that was snarky. Was that the best you could come up with? Did you have problems replying to a perfectly logical, polite and upfront post ?



"Logical" would be if you provided arguments. What you're stating are axioms. Axioms can't be argued against because they're rules of thinking that are considered by the holder of the axiom to be beyond the need of proof (as, for example, the law of contradiction), even if they really aren't (as, for instance, material reductionism). In consequence, the holder of the axiom often can't see how it might be the case that anyone would disagree with them, and so declines to offer actual cogent logical (in the sense of depending on chains of inferential reasoning) arguments. You've stated and restated your position, and in that sense, your post was, indeed, polite and upfront.

But "logical" would be a label that I would dispute. It's not that you're illogical per se--the trouble is that I can't tell because each time I request an argument, you restate your axiomatic beliefs in different form. "Everything real exists and everything that exists is real" might be a true statement, but it is also a tautology and therefore not very informative. I'd love to discuss your views if you're willing to talk and argue (in the sense of offering deductive/inductive chains of reasoning that proceed according to the rules of logical inference), but thus far, I haven't seen you doing that. I've just seen you stating and restating your axial beliefs. That is good as far as it goes. I actually have some respect for the fact that you think that your beliefs cohere--that's at least a pretty good start. But at the end of the day, I want to argue (that is, engage in chains of logical inference) and you seem to want to explain (that is, make clear your position) and the two are not well suited to one another. And since I'm only becoming frustrated by your seeming unwillingness to actually defend your position apart from stating yet more of your axial beliefs, I'm just not interested in further discussion with you. And yes, you're right, there is a fair bit of snark in there, because from my perspective you just repeatedly ignored requests for arguments in favor of reasserting your presuppositions.

________________________________________________________________________

- Grand High Poobah of the Mythical Land of Iowa, and Keeper of State Secrets
- Captain, FFF.net Grammar Police
- Vote JonnyQuest/Causal, for Benevolent Co-Dictator of Earth; together, toward a brighter tomorrow!

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, July 20, 2007 11:02 AM

CAUSAL


Quote:

Originally posted by SignyM:
...it was Causal who said
Quote:

You say that we can only have evidence for materially existing things, and never ever for immaterially existing things. ... Yet AGAIN, you cannot merely presume that only physical evidence counts as evidence. You must give a cogent argument for such a proposition.
So now Causal, please define "evidence" for us.



Typically, philosophers take evidence to be that which makes justified a belief. Of course, "evidence" can take any number of forms, on that reading. A logically sound argument could count. Obviously, direct physical proof would count. But I would argue that many, many other types of things should have evidentiary value over and about direct physical proof. E.g., how do I know my wife loves me? I can't directly physically observe love beams or love particles coming out of her and toward me, but I when I turned 30, she bent over backward preparing a birthday party for me, when she really didn't--strictly speaking--have to. So I take her behavior to be evidence of something that isn't available for my direct examination. That is, I take her behavior as something that justifies my belief that my wife loves me.

The key question, I suppose, is this: what should count as evidence (in the sense of making justified beliefs).

________________________________________________________________________

- Grand High Poobah of the Mythical Land of Iowa, and Keeper of State Secrets
- Captain, FFF.net Grammar Police
- Vote JonnyQuest/Causal, for Benevolent Co-Dictator of Earth; together, toward a brighter tomorrow!

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, July 20, 2007 11:05 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Yes Fletch, there are a lot of things we see and can't explain. But what about things that we never see? Are we supposed to explain them too?

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, July 20, 2007 11:07 AM

CITIZEN


Quote:

Originally posted by SignyM:
As I read it, let's assume that a three-dimensional cone intersects with Flatland. When it's parallel to the plane it looks like a triangle, when it's at right angles it looks like a circle and when it's between these orientations it looks like an ellipse. Sometimes it gets bigger, sometimes smaller, and sometimes it disappear altogether (when it moves off the plane). The part that intersects with Flatland can appear and disappear and assume unpredictable shapes and sizes but it is still sensible (in a limited way) to the flatlanders. A brilliant Flatlander might surmise that there is a third dimension which accounts for all of this unpredictability and may even derive the "shape" of the object although it will never make intuitive sense.

That's right. But that stops their existance being two dimensional, and the third dimension being outside that existance, how? Seems to rather support it.



More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, July 20, 2007 11:08 AM

CITIZEN


Quote:

Originally posted by SignyM:
Nonetheless, there would be evidence a Flatlander could point to and say: "I don't understand this." The Flatlander would not be pointing to non-evidence ("That I see nothing means something is there") and would be using observation and reason, not faith.

I didn't say it does exist because we have no evidence, I said we have no evidence it does not.



More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, July 20, 2007 11:15 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Quote:

That's right. But that stops their existance being two dimensional, and the third dimension being outside that existance, how? Seems to rather support it.
Which was my original point. Just because we can't intuitively grasp a seventh dimension does not mean that we're not embedded in a n-dimensional world.



---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, July 20, 2007 11:18 AM

CAUSAL


Quote:

Originally posted by SignyM:
Quote:

Well, I congratulate you on your perfectly nesting set of presupositions. Have fun with that ball.
Snark is what people resort to when they've run out of ideas.



Or what they resort to when it becomes clear that meaningful dialogue is no longer possible (see above).

And might I complement you on the delicious snarkiness of your reply to my snarkiness. Nice to meet you, Mr. Pot; I'm Mr. Kettle.

I suppose that I should also add at this point that the refusal to continue dialogue isn't sufficient for the inference that one has run out of ideas. Snark might be a necessary condition for having run out of ideas, but it is certainly not a sufficient condition. Hell, there are plenty of people on this board who are snarky but not out of ideas. Case in point:

Quote:

Snark is what people resort to when they've run out of ideas.


So I'm not sure you've got yourself a valid inference there. You may be right that snark indicates something but I'm not sure you can claim that it indicates, in every case, a lack of ideas.

It seems to be the case that what is really going on in this thread is a discussion--amongst a group of people who mostly agree with one another on crucial metaphysical issues-- of the minutiae of the matter at hand. That being the case, it seems that some of you aren't terribly interested in having your crucial metaphysical commitments challenged and, consequently, feel justified in not arguing for those commitments, but merely reasserting them in ever brassier language. That was the point of my response to Rue. She doesn't seem interested in debating whether or not it really is the case that there are only physical things; she wants to take that as axiomatic and argue from there. And if that's the case, that's fine. But that will also mean that a meaningful dialogue between her and I is impossible, because I'm not willing to stipulate the truth of her axioms. I meant what I said most literally, but here is what I intended: "Your belief-system coheres quite nicely. You must be happy with that. Enjoy your debate, because it is clear that I am considered to have nothing meaningful to add to it." Perhaps I could have said that less snarkily (snarky-as-adverb?) but it rankles me when one claims to be involved in logical dispute, but is, in reality, involved in explanation of axiom--and then accuses me of not engaging in logical dispute.

________________________________________________________________________

- Grand High Poobah of the Mythical Land of Iowa, and Keeper of State Secrets
- Captain, FFF.net Grammar Police
- Vote JonnyQuest/Causal, for Benevolent Co-Dictator of Earth; together, toward a brighter tomorrow!

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, July 20, 2007 11:20 AM

FLETCH2


Quote:

Originally posted by SignyM:
Yes Fletch, there are a lot of things we see and can't explain. But what about things that we never see? Are we supposed to explain them too?



I lived in a village in Holland that was devistated by German tanks during the war, do I see tanks? No, because they and I are seperated by the dimension of time. I know they exist because people that were there tell me, but I doubt I could prove it from first principles. So just because you can't see something doesnt prove that it doent exist. I can't see a man named Jerry Posner, but I can't use that fact to prove he doesnt exist. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.


And like I said, there are lots of things we see that we can't explain, whose to say that that isn't the evidence you are looking for and you sinply can't understand it. Case in point, static electricity has been known about since the Greeks, back then it was seen as some unexplained phenomenom, we now know that it is explained by electrons. Looking back it seems that the evidence for the electron has been around for a long long time, just that nobody understood what they were seeing.


Science can reasonably ask believers in God to provide evidence and in the absence of that evidence infer that he doesnt exist, but it can't prove that he doesnt exist by direct means in part because since the properties of God are not really understood it's hard to construct an experiment to test them. If the blessing of science is what you are after then your belief that God doesnt exist is as bogus as the faithful's belief that he does. Science has no way to test for it.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, July 20, 2007 11:26 AM

CITIZEN


Quote:

Originally posted by SignyM:
Quote:

That's right. But that stops their existance being two dimensional, and the third dimension being outside that existance, how? Seems to rather support it.
Which was my original point. Just because we can't intuitively grasp a seventh dimension does not mean that we're not embedded in a n-dimensional world.

So the flatlanders are, despite living 2-dimensionally, existing 2 dimensionally, and having no third dimension, really three dimensional because a third dimension exists?



More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, July 20, 2007 11:35 AM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


Causal

I should have spent more words on my post. By showing (I hope) that even my own existence is beyond proof to myself (despite "je pense, donc je suis"), I was hoping to indicate that in order to get anywhere, one must make certain assumptions. I just made mine up front.

The other thing I really wanted to get across is that things that we intuitively think are true and have inherent meaning ("one") may be entirely derived from our physical nature and brain function.

Anyway, I have to go so I hope we'll continue later.


***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, July 20, 2007 12:14 PM

CAUSAL


Quote:

Originally posted by rue:
Causal

I should have spent more words on my post. By showing (I hope) that even my own existence is beyond proof to myself (despite "je pense, donc je suis"), I was hoping to indicate that in order to get anywhere, one must make certain assumptions. I just made mine up front.

The other thing I really wanted to get across is that things that we intuitively think are true and have inherent meaning ("one") may be entirely derived from our physical nature and brain function.

Anyway, I have to go so I hope we'll continue later.



I suppose our last few posts are proof that there's life after snarky!

Actually, I'm not sure that I can agree that one can't prove one's own exist. Because something is having the mental event, "I can't prove my own existence." The cogito (which is how philosophers refer to your "je pense, donc je suis") is true everytime it is thought in virtue of the fact that something is thinking it. To deny that that's the case is to fly in the face not only of ancient and modern philosophical concensus, but also common sense (as it seems to be the case that no one really doubts their own existence). Hell, you might be able to make a convincing argument for solipsism, but I'd like to know why you deny the cogito and not just that you deny it.

Also, the idea that there are things that we "inuitively think" that are therefore true is an argument that can cut both ways. Just as you claim that you "inuitively think" that only physical things exist, I could claim that I intuitively think that God exists. So how could we establish which of our intuitively thought inherent truths is the one that corresponds with reality? Or do you deny not just the cogito but the Law of Contradiction, and the Correspondence Theory of truth, as well?

Furthermore, what is it about "intuitive thought" that guarantees truth? And how would you account for the fact that thousands of years ago, nearly every human being on the planet "intuitively thought" that there were gods? How would you account for the vast, vast differences in moral opinions, in light of your view that intuitive thinking leads to inherent truth? Wouldn't both sides of the abortion debate claim that their view is the result of "intuitive thinking"?

In short, in virtue of what does intuitive thinking leading to indisputable truth, and how would you defend this claim in light of vast differences of opinion around the world?

Also, I wanted to specifically comment on this:

Quote:

In order to get anywhere, one must make certain assumptions. I just made mine up front.


Well, I guess that's the real source of irritation for me. I appreciate the fact that you made your assumptions up front. The trouble is that I don't agree that your assumptions are true, and I want to dispute the truth of those assumptions. But I'm not sure you want to do that, because mostly what I've seen you doing in order to defend your assumptions is to restate those assumptions in other terms or to assert certain other assumptions. Case in point: you seem to take it as axiomatic that only pysical things exist. I don't think that's the case, so I want to dispute that point. But you didn't make an argument to the effect that only physical things exist, you restate the case and offered the "anything real exists, etc" tautology. I'm more than happy to dispute about the epistemic value of intuitive thinking. But that's going to require us both to make arguments for our respective cases.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Editted to add: is it not the case that you intuitively think that you exist? And if so, doesn't that, according to your epistemology, mean that it is "inherently true"? And if, according to your epistemology, it is inherently true that you exist (in virtue of the fact that you "intuitively think" that you do) doesn't this contradict your epistemological belief that there's no way to prove that you exist?

Take the following argument, based on your epistemology:
1) Intuitive thinking is sufficient for something's being inherently true
2) Causal intuitively thinks that he exists
3) Therefore, Causal's existence is inherently true.

Doesn't that prove that I exist? And if so, it is apparently not the case that one cannot prove one's own existence. If your epistemology is correct, then there is a way to prove one's own existence: one must merely intuitively think it. And if that's the case, then you must eject either the epistemic value of intuitive thinking, or the assertion that one cannot prove one's own existence.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Re-edit: Also, what is meant by "inherent truth"?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Re-re-edit:
SignyM: how's that for someone who is "out of ideas"?

________________________________________________________________________

- Grand High Poobah of the Mythical Land of Iowa, and Keeper of State Secrets
- Captain, FFF.net Grammar Police
- Vote JonnyQuest/Causal, for Benevolent Co-Dictator of Earth; together, toward a brighter tomorrow!

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, July 20, 2007 12:19 PM

LEADB


Quote:

Originally posted by rue:
Causal

I should have spent more words on my post. By showing (I hope) that even my own existence is beyond proof to myself (despite "je pense, donc je suis"), I was hoping to indicate that in order to get anywhere, one must make certain assumptions. I just made mine up front.

The other thing I really wanted to get across is that things that we intuitively think are true and have inherent meaning ("one") may be entirely derived from our physical nature and brain function.

I know, not addressed to me; perhaps I can put what Causal said in a different way... It's fine to have assumptions (and good you state them up front); but if the other person does not agree that the assumption is valid, then it is difficult to have a "logical" discussion on the topic.

====
Please vote for Firefly hourly: http://richlabonte.net/tvvote/index.html

Consider $5/year to support FFF: http://s1.amazon.com/exec/varzea/pay/T39WWCGS4JYCV4

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, July 20, 2007 1:27 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Quote:

So the flatlanders are, despite living 2-dimensionally, existing 2 dimensionally, and having no third dimension, really three dimensional because a third dimension exists?
Wow, howdis conversation get so bollixed? I must not be making myself clear, or maybe what I'm trying to say is inherently unclear. A two-dimensional world is inherently emebedded within a three-dimensional world, just as a four-dimensional world may be "part of" a higher dimsenional space.


---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, July 20, 2007 1:28 PM

CAUSAL


Quote:

Originally posted by leadb:
I know, not addressed to me; perhaps I can put what Causal said in a different way... It's fine to have assumptions (and good you state them up front); but if the other person does not agree that the assumption is valid, then it is difficult to have a "logical" discussion on the topic.



Right-right! You've done it again, Lead: said what I was trying to say, but with fewer words and more panache. *sigh*

Anyway, the only disagreement I have is this: if one person discloses their assumption, and the other disagrees, debate can still take place, but only if both are open to the idea that their beliefs stand in need of justification. And I just wasn't seening that. And that was the problem.

________________________________________________________________________

- Grand High Poobah of the Mythical Land of Iowa, and Keeper of State Secrets
- Captain, FFF.net Grammar Police
- Vote JonnyQuest/Causal, for Benevolent Co-Dictator of Earth; together, toward a brighter tomorrow!

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, July 20, 2007 3:24 PM

ANTIMASON


Quote:

posted by Fredgiblet- Do we? Lust is a deadly sin but I almost never see anyone feeling guilty over it, Gluttony is a deadly sin but the only people who feel bad about eating too much are fat people. Indeed the entire reason why the Seven Deadly Sins exist is because people don't tend to have a problem with most of them.


so what is right and wrong? how do you decide? i want to know.. absent 'absolute truths', what are you left with?

Quote:

Because we are a social species, we have gained our dominant position by teamwork and altruism. Murder, in most cases, is an inherently anti-social activity in a species that thrives because of social interaction and thus shouldn't be allowed.


ok, we both understand that our social and emotional characteristics come from our DNA, which was hard wired that way.. so did the 'code' write itself? im not sure you can accurately explain every aspect of human nature, simply by making inferences of natural selection processes and environmental factors.

Quote:

Of course not. For one the species in question don't know any better, they function on an instinctual basis. Second, in species that succeed with teamwork combat within the social unit is usually confined to hierarchical issues, they don't usually kill others of their social unit randomly. Third, predation is usually between two different species, cannibalism isn't particularly common except in times of shortage.


so morality doesnt exist, it is relative to environmental factors?

Quote:

The implication being that cloning and genetic modification are inherently wrong, I'd be interested in seeing that backed up.


no.. the implication is that absent established ethical asbolutes, morality is irrelevant. should we clone humans? or does it even matter.. we clone sheeps and dogs, so whats the difference? as for GM food, it is being shown to be quite dangerouis, showing a number of negative side effects(on test animals anyways)... my guess being because 'creation' need not be tampered with by imperfect beings, since things like corn and wheat were designed by God, with a purpose, to function accordingly.

Quote:

As for weaponization, we are a warlike species (apparently God wants us to kill each other else he wouldn't have made us this way) and everyone wants their own group to survive.


to be fair, the judeo/christian God created us to be in harmony with our surroundings, but we 'fell' from this grace, and have forsaken that which brought us into existence. thats how i explain murder and death, its due to our denial of our relationship to our Creator.. i dont believe its due to our role as members of the animal kingdom

Quote:

The short answer is a whole hell of a lot, the long answer is that a long ass time ago, some reptiles evolved into mammals while others stayed reptiles, the two groups diverged and went their separate ways, went through an enormous amount more evolution and ended up as snakes and cats. A longer answer would be a book.


youre right, a whole lot separates the two species... like a completely different design, for one. you can make the inference that at one point nothing seperated these species, but thats a guess as far as im concerned, since we have yet to see any of these hypothetical cross species that evolutionists rely on to explain the origins of life

Quote:

A tree does not evolve from a seed, seeds are manufactured by trees.


yes.. so where did this first tree come from? wasnt it a seed? if not, was this first 'seed' an exception? this is like the chicken or egg argument, and its still valid.. you want me to believe things spontanously decide for themselves what shape and form they take, such as the first tree seed

Quote:

If you want to know why seeds evolved I can't say for sure but I can make some guesses, seeding plants spread easier then non-seeding plants and tend to survive the spreading process better as well.


that doesnt tell me where the first seed came from

Quote:

No. Biochemistry makes it not only unsurprising but expected that complex molecules form spontaneously. It has been demonstrated that given the right conditions amino acids and nucleotides can form spontaneously.


scientists, in all their glory, have yet to create life from non life, despite their vast combined 'intelligence'. but nevermind that.. all life on earth originated on its own, by accident and chance.. no intelligence necessary? amino acids and nucleotides were already in existence.. where did they originate, and what defined their functions?

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, July 20, 2007 4:49 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


"if one person discloses their assumption, and the other disagrees, debate can still take place, but only if both are open to the idea that their beliefs stand in need of justification."

I tried to do that - the justification - but perhaps what I need is still more words.

I'm sure you remember some of your dreams from when you sleep. How can you logically prove they aren't real ? And when you wake up, how can you prove that the person in your dreams is not remembering your waking life as if it was a dream ? So to start, I can't prove what's real. I can't even prove which one of me is real, the dream one or the other one. And I can even imagine me as a character in someone else's dream, thinking I am real.

When it gets right down to it, you can't prove anything is real, not even yourself.

So, I start out by saying I assume the world is real and I exist in it. If you don't start there, you can't get anwyhere else.

Is this a good starting point for you ?

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, July 20, 2007 5:12 PM

FLETCH2


Quote:

Originally posted by SignyM:
Quote:

So the flatlanders are, despite living 2-dimensionally, existing 2 dimensionally, and having no third dimension, really three dimensional because a third dimension exists?
Wow, howdis conversation get so bollixed? I must not be making myself clear, or maybe what I'm trying to say is inherently unclear. A two-dimensional world is inherently emebedded within a three-dimensional world, just as a four-dimensional world may be "part of" a higher dimsenional space.





You created the problem. Your basic premise is that if something is real you should be able to find evidence for its existance. Arguments have been made to show that that may not be nescessarily true for a number of reasons.

1) There is no evidence at the time you chose to look
2) evidence exists that you don't recognise as evidence and so ignore
3) Given the nature of the way our instrumentation and minds work there may be evidence that we simply can't detect.

The multidimensional question has been used to demonstrate 2, and 3 from the above list.

The problem is that your hypothesis breaks down at the most basic level. We all know that there are millions of people we have not met and for which we have no direct evidence. While we can't say for sure that any individual does exist we can't say for sure that they don't, lack of evidence cuts both ways.

What's especially annoying is that such a possition is unnescessary. If I claim that the pasta God exists it is up to me to provide colaborative evidence to prove it, not for you to try to find evidence to disprove it. Say again, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

So your argument is flawed, that's why we have difficulty dealing with it. You should instead put the onus on others to prove their point and revel in the incresed probability that you are right when they can't.


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, July 20, 2007 5:12 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


NO! OF COURSE NOT! I assume the word is NOT real and nothing exists! Nyah nyah nayh!

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, July 20, 2007 5:21 PM

FLETCH2


Quote:

Originally posted by SignyM:
NO! OF COURSE NOT! I assume the word is NOT real and nothing exists! Nyah nyah nayh!



That position would at least be internally consistant. Let's take a tangent, do you believe that there is intelligent life elsewhere in the universe right now?

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, July 20, 2007 5:23 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


What is "intelligence" anyway?

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, July 20, 2007 5:26 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Quote:

You created the problem. Your basic premise is that if something is real you should be able to find evidence for its existance. Arguments have been made to show that that may not be nescessarily true for a number of reasons.
Whoa, did YOU miss my point! MY argument was that if something is "real" but doesn't intersect our universe in any sense it's irrelevant. It only becomes relevant when/ if it does intersect our universe.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, July 20, 2007 5:31 PM

FLETCH2


Quote:

Originally posted by SignyM:
Quote:

You created the problem. Your basic premise is that if something is real you should be able to find evidence for its existance. Arguments have been made to show that that may not be nescessarily true for a number of reasons.
Whoa, did YOU miss my point! MY argument was that if something is "real" but doesn't intersect our universe in any sense it's irrelevant.




Saw that, but it's irrelevant. We got into the transdimensional argument to show that things can exist for which you can find no evidence, we even showed why. That segway was to show that lack of evidence doesn't prove that something doesnt exist, which was your original argument.

Now all you need to do is accept that that's not really a good test to prove something doesn't exist and we can move on. You are close to having a great argument but for some reason you want to argue it backwards.Trust me we want you to win, but not over the dead body of basic logic.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, July 20, 2007 5:39 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Quote:

That segway was to show that lack of evidence doesn't prove that something doesnt exist, which was your original argument.
It was? Where did I say THAT??? I must have been drunk! Where, where, where....?


---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, July 20, 2007 5:40 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


I think the argument was that though you may not be able to perceive a thing directly, if it's real it will have an observable effect. Just trying to keep track of the loose ends.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

YOUR OPTIONS

NEW POSTS TODAY

USERPOST DATE

OTHER TOPICS

DISCUSSIONS
Punishing Russia With Sanctions
Mon, March 18, 2024 21:40 - 495 posts
Russian losses in Ukraine
Mon, March 18, 2024 21:25 - 981 posts
In the garden, and RAIN!!! (2)
Mon, March 18, 2024 19:27 - 3338 posts
I'm surprised there's not an inflation thread yet
Mon, March 18, 2024 19:09 - 709 posts
Elections; 2024
Mon, March 18, 2024 19:08 - 1982 posts
Grifter Donald Trump Has Been Indicted And Yes Arrested; Four Times Now And Counting. Hey Jack, I Was Right
Mon, March 18, 2024 19:06 - 753 posts
MO AG Suing Large Nationwide Child Sex-slave Trafficker
Mon, March 18, 2024 15:24 - 2 posts
New Peer-Reviewed Research Finds Evidence of 2020 Voter Fraud
Mon, March 18, 2024 15:21 - 7 posts
RCP's No Toss-Up State Map (3-15-2024)
Mon, March 18, 2024 15:19 - 2 posts
Russia Invades Ukraine. Again
Mon, March 18, 2024 08:03 - 6091 posts
Israeli War
Mon, March 18, 2024 01:27 - 31 posts
CNN: Is the US on the brink of another civil war?
Mon, March 18, 2024 01:22 - 1 posts

FFF.NET SOCIAL