Religion and Ethics Forum
Religion and Ethics Discussion => Philosophy, in all its guises. => Topic started by: Sriram on July 23, 2018, 03:45:14 PM
-
Hi everyone,
Here is a short video about death...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=080yK-xBqOs
Hope you like it.
Cheers.
Sriram
-
Here is a short video about death...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=080yK-xBqOs
Hope you like it.
Why should we take anything he says at all seriously? He doesn't even attempt to justify his assertions.
-
Why should we take anything he says at all seriously? He doesn't even attempt to justify his assertions.
15 seconds of that was quite enough for me! The immediate assumption is that those who do not believe in something immortal must be in fear.
Definitely does not apply to me!
-
It starts with a basic premise which is entirely without foundation, at least in my case. I don't fear death at all. I might well have an element of fear associated with the manner of my passing and might well regret the upset that my death may cause to my loved ones but the fact that I will die is not infused with a feeling of fear at all.
The rest of his spiel is based upon assumptions and assertions which he obviously believes but which have no significance for me because I find them totally unevidenced. He further clouds his credibility by attempting to align his views with science without, for me, any good reason at all. I also find his didactic style to be totally pointless in my case, and his reference to karma as being as factual as gravity I find rather ridiculous.
All in all, I suggest that he continues his journey of self realization somewhat further than it seems to have taken him so far.
-
15 seconds of that was quite enough for me! The immediate assumption is that those who do not believe in something immortal must be in fear.
Definitely does not apply to me!
Almost everyone fears death. Even those of us that believe in an afterlife. It is a fear of the unkown.
-
Almost everyone fears death. Even those of us that believe in an afterlife. It is a fear of the unkown.
But based on the actual evidence we have, death is just not existing. I've already spent at least 13.5 billion years (or thereabouts) not existing and it really wasn't so bad.
-
Almost everyone fears death. Even those of us that believe in an afterlife. It is a fear of the unkown.
More's the terrible pity that people do not see life, death and reality as it is and for which science has provided just about all the objective evidence that is necessary.
-
More's the terrible pity that people do not see life, death and reality as it is and for which science has provided just about all the objective evidence that is necessary.
eh? Science has never proved what is beyond death.
-
eh? Science has never proved what is beyond death.
Since zero observations are available for any kind of spirit drifting about somewhere and since all the physical evidence shows absolutely clearly what happens to a physical body not cremated,. and since bodies are not cremated unless dead, etc, then no guesswork can be stated, let alone any hypothesis created, about any such an idea as an afterlife.
-
Almost everyone fears death. Even those of us that believe in an afterlife. It is a fear of the unkown.
I fear the process - I don't want to suffer - but I don't fear death itself. I just would prefer it not to happen soon, mostly because of the responsibilities that I have.
-
Almost everyone fears death.
Sounds like an assertion standing in need of backing to me.
-
Sounds like an assertion standing in need of backing to me.
I thought that belief did away with all that fear stuff.
-
I thought that belief did away with all that fear stuff.
No it doesn't. Or at least not necessarily. Faith conquers death, yet for those who have it not all have it in the same measure. Death still holds a certain unkown.
-
Since zero observations are available for any kind of spirit drifting about somewhere and since all the physical evidence shows absolutely clearly what happens to a physical body not cremated,. and since bodies are not cremated unless dead, etc, then no guesswork can be stated, let alone any hypothesis created, about any such an idea as an afterlife.
But that's not proof. I dodn't say I or anyone else can prove anything either. Nor did I say anything about spirits or souls either way. All I said is death is the great unkown. That's where the fear lies for almost everyone, of faith or no faith.
-
eh? Science has never proved what is beyond death.
Science doesn't do proof, it does evidence. All the evidence is that consciousness requires a functioning brain. No functioning brain, no consciousness and hence no afterlife.
-
Almost everyone fears death. Even those of us that believe in an afterlife. It is a fear of the unkown.
I do not fear death at all. I do fear the transition from life to death in case it’s painful or degrading.
-
But that's not proof. I dodn't say I or anyone else can prove anything either. Nor did I say anything about spirits or souls either way. All I said is death is the great unkown. That's where the fear lies for almost everyone, of faith or no faith.
Anecdotal evidence from people who care for the dying (medical professionals in hospitals; those who care for the elderly etc.) suggests that it's the religious who die 'worse' than nonbelievers; that's to say, are more fearful of death, more anxious and uneasier in mind.
-
Anecdotal evidence from people who care for the dying (medical professionals in hospitals; those who care for the elderly etc.) suggests that it's the religious who die 'worse' than nonbelievers; that's to say, are more fearful of death, more anxious and uneasier in mind.
First of all, suddenly anecdotal evidence suddenly becomesacceptable when ,of course , it is favourable to antitheism. I never thought atheists couyld get sub cesspit low on this forum...Trust Shaker to have ACHIEVED IT.
On the other hand by the time death is reached I can believe the atheist conscience and psyche to be well blunted.
-
Well, which one is it?
-
I do not fear death at all. I do fear the transition from life to death in case it’s painful or degrading.
Why should those be a consideration after you've voluntarily signed up to the Religionethics forum?
-
Why should those be a consideration after you've voluntarily signed up to the Religionethics forum?
Well, it is painful reading your posts and watching you degrade common sense into nonsense!
::)
-
The way I think of death is like when having to have an injection of something or another, you don't think to yourself coo, woopie I'm about to have an injection nor do you particularly fear having it.
If I could have a choice I'd like to go to bed one night and wake up the next morning and find myself dead, it has to happen some time to all of us so going to bed and not waking up the next morning would be a good option.
ippy
-
I want to die peacefully in my sleep, like my grandad - not screaming in terror like the passengers in his bus.
-
The way I think of death is like when having to have an injection of something or another, you don't think to yourself coo, woopie I'm about to have an injection nor do you particularly fear having it.
If I could have a choice I'd like to go to bed one night and wake up the next morning and find myself dead, it has to happen some time to all of us so going to bed and not waking up the next morning would be a good option.
ippy
Many people say that, but I do wonder. Not knowing that you're going to die spares you certain things, but some people feel that you miss out on other stuff. Christopher Hitchens, who as is well known had oesophageal cancer and certainly knew he was going to die months in advance, said that he wanted to die in the active sense - by that I guess he meant preparing and planning as far as possible since he was a husband and father and had a literary estate to wind up. A sudden death may sound attractive in prospect from the point of view of the deceased, but can be a double nightmare for those left behind who have to tidy up the remnants of a life. I know whereof I speak: my dad died back in February (not especially suddenly) and although he had about the simplest life imaginable, five months on I'm still tying up loose ends and finding stray little things that need to be done.
Many people think that being aware of your own impending death must be about the worst thing imaginable, but I'm not so sure. It allows for a certain amount of control, I suppose - not over the death itself, which is inescapable for us all, but for other things. It also allows - if you're lucky at any rate - for you to come to terms with your life, say your goodbyes (in some cases settle scores, no doubt) and wind up your affairs, none of which are possible if you sleep your life away one night. Montaigne (I think) was right when he said that death should find us in harness (i.e. still active with our plans and projects and doings), but the ancients thought that there was such a thing as the ars moriendi, the art of dying, which we have pretty well comprehensively lost.
-
Well, it is painful reading your posts and watching you degrade common sense into nonsense!
::)
Aren't there any TED talks on how to be funny in your area, Toe?
-
Aren't there any TED talks on how to be funny in your area, Toe?
That would have worked Vlad,......if TED talks were not actually accessed online as the norm!
Here is a lesson for you. See if you can use it to improve.
https://tinyurl.com/VladsFunnyLessonsPart1of225
-
I for one, am looking forward to death as the next great adventure. A new world or perhaps, back home again! Both ways it is fine. There are enough NDE's to suggest a happy after-life...and maybe even some purpose beyond that. Rebirth is also a real possibility though I wish I do not get reborn. Hope I develop sufficiently in this birth such that I can avoid rebirth.
Some people seem to take science too seriously. Just because you can't see a soul or spirit doesn't mean it isn't there. Hard physical realities do not automatically eliminate subtler aspects of life.
There is no conflict between what science has discovered and the possibilities of an after-life or karma or reincarnation.
Life is a spectrum with hard physical and measurable reality at one end which slowly becomes more and more subtle towards the other end.
-
No it doesn't. Or at least not necessarily. Faith conquers death, yet for those who have it not all have it in the same measure. Death still holds a certain unkown.
That phrase, 'fear conquers death', is a meaningless one. Explain exactly what it means and why anyone should take any notice of it.
*********************
It occurs to me that Science should take much of the credit for an apparently greater awareness of death and its finality all round the world. It is not hidden away, or mysterious, or not spoken about nowadays. And a good thing too.
-
There are enough NDE's to suggest a happy after-life...and maybe even some purpose beyond that.
Near death experiences can tell us nothing about an afterlife.
Just because you can't see a soul or spirit doesn't mean it isn't there.
There is no conflict between what science has discovered and the possibilities of an after-life or karma or reincarnation.
Much like invisible pink unicorns.
Hard physical realities do not automatically eliminate subtler aspects of life.
Life is a spectrum with hard physical and measurable reality at one end which slowly becomes more and more subtle towards the other end.
Claims of an afterlife and souls are not subtle aspects of life, they are definite, concrete claims about things existing.
-
Some people seem to take science too seriously.
Trying to find out how the world actually is and how it works, instead of concocting airy-fairy fantasies, is a serious business. It ought to be.
Just because you can't see a soul or spirit doesn't mean it isn't there.
I was getting worried; I hadn't seen the NPF for several hours. Phew.
-
I for one, am looking forward to death as the next great adventure. A new world or perhaps, back home again! Both ways it is fine. There are enough NDE's to suggest a happy after-life...and maybe even some purpose beyond that. Rebirth is also a real possibility though I wish I do not get reborn. Hope I develop sufficiently in this birth such that I can avoid rebirth.
Some people seem to take science too seriously. Just because you can't see a soul or spirit doesn't mean it isn't there. Hard physical realities do not automatically eliminate subtler aspects of life.
There is no conflict between what science has discovered and the possibilities of an after-life or karma or reincarnation.
Life is a spectrum with hard physical and measurable reality at one end which slowly becomes more and more subtle towards the other end.
Dream on me old matie at least either way you won't/can't be disappointed!
Regards ippy
-
Near death experiences can tell us nothing about an afterlife.
Much like invisible pink unicorns.
Claims of an afterlife and souls are not subtle aspects of life, they are definite, concrete claims about things existing.
"Near death experiences can tell us nothing about an afterlife".
Why not? The 'Near' is just a term someone used.
-
"Near death experiences can tell us nothing about an afterlife".
Why not? The 'Near' is just a term someone used.
The term does what it says on the tin : it gives us some insight into what it can be like to be nearly dead. Being nearly dead is actually still alive and 'being like' something is a characteristic property of living things. Being dead is not consistent with 'being like' something, just as also it is not consistent with metabolism or replication or playing backgammon. If these things are still going on then you aren't dead at all.
-
"Near death experiences can tell us nothing about an afterlife".
Why not? The 'Near' is just a term someone used.
...as was 'death' and 'experience'!
-
The term does what it says on the tin : it gives us some insight into what it can be like to be nearly dead. Being nearly dead is actually still alive and 'being like' something is a characteristic property of living things. Being dead is not consistent with 'being like' something, just as also it is not consistent with metabolism or replication or playing backgammon. If these things are still going on then you aren't dead at all.
You assume that after death we cannot have any experiences.... and then conclude that NDE's cannot be real after death experiences because we cannot experience anything after death. ::) ::)
-
It occurs to me that Science should take much of the credit for an apparently greater awareness of death and its finality all round the world. It is not hidden away, or mysterious, or not spoken about nowadays. And a good thing too.
[/quote]
What utter crap.
No mention of science taking credit for industrial and global ways of annihilating people zyklon B HBombs Internal combustion engines.
-
You assume that after death we cannot have any experiences.... and then conclude that NDE's cannot be real after death experiences because we cannot experience anything after death. ::) ::)
We conclude that NDE's cannot be real after death experiences because they are real near death experiences. If the patients actually die they cannot relate their experiences afterwards because dead people do not talk much.
-
You assume that after death we cannot have any experiences.... and then conclude that NDE's cannot be real after death experiences because we cannot experience anything after death. ::) ::)
I'm on the fourth floor of a building as I type this and I am near the external wall. I'm two feet away in fact. So I am having a near plummeting to my death experience. I could even climb out of the widow and stand precariously on the ledge, which would be very scary. I still don't think that any of these experiences are anything like actually plummeting to my death though.
Near death is one form of being alive. There's no way it can be described as the same as being actually dead.
-
We conclude that NDE's cannot be real after death experiences because they are real near death experiences. If the patients actually die they cannot relate their experiences afterwards because dead people do not talk much.
There you go again! ::) You are assuming what no one has yet confirmed.
How do you know that people who are dead cannot come back and relate their experiences?!
-
There you go again! ::) You are assuming what no one has yet confirmed.
How do you know that people who are dead cannot come back and relate their experiences?!
How do you know that people who claimed to be dead and related their experiences, actually were dead, as in dead?
-
There you go again! ::) You are assuming what no one has yet confirmed.
How do you know that people who are dead cannot come back and relate their experiences?!
If they came back to relate their experiences then they weren't really dead in the first place. Or at least not fully dead. We used to think of death as an event, which OK, it often is; but clinicians now view it more as a process. We are collections of trillions of living things and not all parts die simultaneously, but there is a point of no return beyond which the system as a whole cannot recover when the damage is too catastrophic. If people come back and relate their experiences of near death then clearly they weren't fully dead, maybe the heart had stopped but there was sufficient oxygenation in the blood to maintain brain function for a while.
It's interesting that we get anecdotal stories of what it is like to be in such a condition but it would be foolish to use such testimony as evidence for an entire radically different view of reality. We have learned the hard way not to trust anecdotal evidence very much - in clinical trials it is now routine to use randomised double blind trials because we have learned that witness testimony is never reliable, even in people in perfect health, never mind people people under the severe stress of dying.
-
If they came back to relate their experiences then they weren't really dead in the first place. Or at least not fully dead. We used to think of death as an event, which OK, it often is; but clinicians now view it more as a process. We are collections of trillions of living things and not all parts die simultaneously, but there is a point of no return beyond which the system as a whole cannot recover when the damage is too catastrophic. If people come back and relate their experiences of near death then clearly they weren't fully dead, maybe the heart had stopped but there was sufficient oxygenation in the blood to maintain brain function for a while.
It's interesting that we get anecdotal stories of what it is like to be in such a condition but it would be foolish to use such testimony as evidence for an entire radically different view of reality. We have learned the hard way not to trust anecdotal evidence very much - in clinical trials it is now routine to use randomised double blind trials because we have learned that witness testimony is never reliable, even in people in perfect health, never mind people people under the severe stress of dying.
I've wondered if there is a part of the brain which detects the passage of time, a part which experiences existential angst or peace and a part which keeps that angst or bliss under control for the purposes of carrying out mundane tasks.
Were it our sense of the passing of time that shut down first we would experience eternal heaven and hell by not having the apparatus for a sense of an ending.
-
If they came back to relate their experiences then they weren't really dead in the first place. Or at least not fully dead. We used to think of death as an event, which OK, it often is; but clinicians now view it more as a process. We are collections of trillions of living things and not all parts die simultaneously, but there is a point of no return beyond which the system as a whole cannot recover when the damage is too catastrophic. If people come back and relate their experiences of near death then clearly they weren't fully dead, maybe the heart had stopped but there was sufficient oxygenation in the blood to maintain brain function for a while.
It's interesting that we get anecdotal stories of what it is like to be in such a condition but it would be foolish to use such testimony as evidence for an entire radically different view of reality. We have learned the hard way not to trust anecdotal evidence very much - in clinical trials it is now routine to use randomised double blind trials because we have learned that witness testimony is never reliable, even in people in perfect health, never mind people people under the severe stress of dying.
You are again making the mistake of concluding what death is, even before investigating it. If we begin with the conclusion that 'death is the end'....then any clue about it through anecdote will only mean "Well...it can't really be death can it?"....which is a circular way of approaching it.
Doctors and investigators have confirmed that many of the NDE patients had indeed been dead in medical terms, and later came back alive for whatever reason. The patients have also seen and heard many activities and conversations during the time they were dead.....which have been confirmed.
My point is that, if we assume that NDE's are only due to some activity in the brain, then there is no way of ever investigating the phenomenon at all.
Double blind tests cannot be the only way of establishing real experiences...because such trials are not possible in all cases.
-
Doctors and investigators have confirmed that many of the NDE patients had indeed been dead in medical terms, and later came back alive for whatever reason. The patients have also seen and heard many activities and conversations during the time they were dead.....which have been confirmed.
Nope.
If the patients could see and hear then, by definition, they were not dead.
My point is that, if we assume that NDE's are only due to some activity in the brain, then there is no way of ever investigating the phenomenon at all.
Well, I don't believe that to be true because we are inventing better and better ways to monitor brain activity all the time. Anyway, even if it was true, you are indulging in the fallacy of adverse consequences. The fact that you want an explanation and there's no way to find one does not make it OK to make one up.
-
Doctors and investigators have confirmed that many of the NDE patients had indeed been dead in medical terms, and later came back alive for whatever reason. The patients have also seen and heard many activities and conversations during the time they were dead.....which have been confirmed.
The claim that people hear and see whilst dead indicates they are not dead. Just as nonsensical as to claim a patient is dead whilst displaying all the vital signs of life, breathing, beating heart, respiration. If these things are happening clearly they aren't dead.
-
My point is that, if we assume that NDE's are only due to some activity in the brain, then there is no way of ever investigating the phenomenon at all.
Of course they can be investigated. Unless you are desperate to believe in an afterlife, then NDEs are of some interest but it's hardly earth-shattering that people have odd and sometimes similar experiences in these extreme circumstances.
Thinking it's about an afterlife is going way beyond the evidence; an exercise in desperate straw-clutching.
-
You are again making the mistake of concluding what death is, even before investigating it. If we begin with the conclusion that 'death is the end'....then any clue about it through anecdote will only mean "Well...it can't really be death can it?"....which is a circular way of approaching it.
Doctors and investigators have confirmed that many of the NDE patients had indeed been dead in medical terms, and later came back alive for whatever reason. The patients have also seen and heard many activities and conversations during the time they were dead.....which have been confirmed.
My point is that, if we assume that NDE's are only due to some activity in the brain, then there is no way of ever investigating the phenomenon at all.
Double blind tests cannot be the only way of establishing real experiences...because such trials are not possible in all cases.
Cessation of the heartbeat and loss of blood circulation can be described as clinical death.
However it might be instructive to note Sam Parnia's take on this subject.(Sam Parnia who has conducted extensive research into NDEs)
The overall goal of the AWARE Study is to study the processes that take place in the brain and also the cognitive and mental processes in people who have had a cardiac arrest and have therefore by definition died for a period of time.
As you probably realised from my lecture at Goldsmiths, the evidence is now suggesting that mental and cognitive processes may continue for a period of time after a death has started. This of course makes sense when we understand the process of death better, which is that it is essentially a global stroke of the brain. Therefore like any stroke process one would not expect the entity of mind / consciousness to be lost immediately.
http://forum.mind-energy.net/skeptiko-podcast/1458-aware-update-dr-parnia.html
A person who has experienced a genuine NDE(e.g. whilst having a a cardiac arrest) has almost certainly gone through three main stages
1) Consciousness in the moments before the brain activity flatlines
2) The period when brain activity flatlines
3) Consciousness in the moments following No 2
This whole event is a process, and there is no evidence that NDEs are even or only a phenomenon related to No 2.
For me, I would require substantive evidence in the following areas:
1) There would have to be convincing evidence that either a)the brain plays no part in the whole NDE experience or b) the brain is simply the receiver of the NDE experiences.
2) It could be demonstrated exactly where, when and how the 'afterlife' world communicates with the physical body.
3) Experimental evidence would be produced which demonstrates such communication, and which is capable of falsification.
4) There would have to be objective, clear and convincing evidence of identical NDE experiences as the norm.
In response to these:
I have seen no evidence whatsoever that confirms No 1.
I have seen no evidence whatsoever that confirms no 2.
Any attempts at no 3 have so far produced negative or inclusive results.
As for no 4, There is a large body of evidence which clearly suggests that such experiences are not at all identical. Even general traits, such as out of body experiences or feelings of peace, seem to be dependent on cultural influences. Out of 11 non western studies, involving 7 countries, only China and Japan seemed to show feelings of peace during an NDE. OBEs were absent from studies in Zambia and the Congo,
As far as veridical NDE research goes, two areas have dominated.
1) The retrospective, which depends on the quality and accuracy of the data revealed in a subsequent investigation of the near death episode. This is, by its very nature, anecdotal. Unfortunately many instances are open to wide interpretation and even the best of these instances are hotly debated on both sides of this debate(e.g. Pam Reynolds, Maria's shoe). Unfortunately anecdotal evidence does not sit well with scientific method.
2) The prospective field study. There have been at least six such studies where perceptual targets have been used(mainly visual). Unfortunately, so far, these studies have been disappointing. No researcher has produced anything but negative results, including the latest extensive Aware study.
I think that it is interesting that in an exchange of emails with Bruce Greyson in 2006, NDE researcher, Professor Kenneth Ring said this:
There is so much anecdotal evidence that suggests(experiencers) can. at least sometime, perceive veridically during their NDEs ....but isn't it true that in all this time, there hasn't been a single case of a veridical perception reported by an NDEr under controlled conditions? I mean, thirty years later, it's still a null class(as far as I know). Yes, excuses, excuses-I know. But, really, wouldn't you have suspected more than a few cases at least by now??..
All this, of course, does not mean that your take on NDEs is wrong. You are quite entitled to your beliefs. All it means is that there is a lack of any significant evidence in the study of NDEs which suggests that you are right.
-
I agree that nothing has been established conclusively through research. But that does not by itself mean much considering the nature of the phenomenon.
When doctors have, case after case, confirmed that the patient was dead in terms of all medical parameters....and the patients state that they were nevertheless alive and conscious, why should anyone doubt it? It may not be a scientifically proven conclusion, but we don't always wait for scientifically proven conclusions do we? There are so many areas where we work on conjecture or a working hypothesis.
We need not accept an after-life as an established fact just as we still don't accept parallel universes as an established fact....but it is definitely a possibility given the evidence.
-
The claim that people hear and see whilst dead indicates they are not dead. Just as nonsensical as to claim a patient is dead whilst displaying all the vital signs of life, breathing, beating heart, respiration. If these things are happening clearly they aren't dead.
The idea that Consciousness is independent of the body is a well established idea is religious and spiritual fields. So, hearing and seeing while being outside the body is nothing new.
NDE's are evidence of just that. That science could take its time to establish this as fact...is neither here nor there.
-
That science could take its time to establish this as fact...is neither here nor there.
It is if you're bothered about fact rather than fantasy.
-
When doctors have, case after case, confirmed that the patient was dead in terms of all medical parameters....and the patients state that they were nevertheless alive and conscious, why should anyone doubt it?
For the reasons already given that you've ignored.
It may not be a scientifically proven conclusion, but we don't always wait for scientifically proven conclusions do we?
There is no such animal as "scientifically proven", there is only conjecture, hypothesis, theory, and evidence that supports or falsifies them.
The idea of an afterlife is lacking even a coherent scientific conjecture, let alone the hint of a smidgen of actual evidence.
We need not accept an after-life as an established fact just as we still don't accept parallel universes as an established fact....but it is definitely a possibility given the evidence.
There is no evidence of an afterlife.
The idea that Consciousness is independent of the body is a well established idea is religious and spiritual fields.
So there are stories about it - in what way is that of any relevance?
So, hearing and seeing while being outside the body is nothing new.
In fiction.
NDE's are evidence of just that.
No they are not, for all the reasons given that you've ignored.
-
So, hearing and seeing while being outside the body is nothing new.
Hearing and seeing using what to hear and see with, exactly?
-
The idea that Consciousness is independent of the body is a well established idea is religious and spiritual fields. So, hearing and seeing while being outside the body is nothing new.
NDE's are evidence of just that. That science could take its time to establish this as fact...is neither here nor there.
Where you say:
"The idea that Consciousness is independent of the body is a well established idea is religious and spiritual fields".
Yes you're right but that doesn't make that statement true, if it were true you should be able to show how this is so.
Regards ippy
-
Where you say:
"The idea that Consciousness is independent of the body is a well established idea is religious and spiritual fields".
Yes you're right but that doesn't make that statement true, if it were true you should be able to show how this is so.
Regards ippy
Probably an impossibility to demonstrate this as an objective truth, which is why most 'spiritual' practices are dedicated to revealing it as an inner 'state' of being. If you want to know, then it becomes a do it yourself job otherwise it will remain as an idea, belief or disbelief.
-
Probably an impossibility to demonstrate this as an objective truth, which is why most 'spiritual' practices are dedicated to revealing it as an inner 'state' of being. If you want to know, then it becomes a do it yourself job otherwise it will remain as an idea, belief or disbelief.
Which is about my indication conveyed in the post of mine you seem to be replying to?
Regards ippy
-
The idea that Consciousness is independent of the body is a well established idea is religious and spiritual fields. So, hearing and seeing while being outside the body is nothing new.
NDE's are evidence of just that. That science could take its time to establish this as fact...is neither here nor there.
Doesn't make sense though. Hearing and seeing outside the body makes no sense. Hearing and seeing are activities that living bodies with brains do. If consciousness can happen independently of mind and body to procure the characteristic experiences of minds and bodies then that would render brains redundant. If brains were redundant they would not have evolved and would not have been conserved. Hearing and seeing are characteristic bodily functions. Sound is not something that is out there, it is a very particular form of experience created by brains. You need a brain to experience sound.
-
Doesn't make sense though. Hearing and seeing outside the body makes no sense. Hearing and seeing are activities that living bodies with brains do. If consciousness can happen independently of mind and body to procure the characteristic experiences of minds and bodies then that would render brains redundant. If brains were redundant they would not have evolved and would not have been conserved. Hearing and seeing are characteristic bodily functions. Sound is not something that is out there, it is a very particular form of experience created by brains. You need a brain to experience sound.
If AI and robotics have shown us anything,...it is that our faculties can be duplicated in many ways. Robots can hear and see through microphones and cameras...does that mean that the biological mechanisms of hearing and seeing cannot exist? How can hearing and seeing exist if microphones and cameras don't exist?
Th point is that they can!
Our ears and eyes are not the only way to hear or see. These and other faculties are basic faculties that are a part of Consciousness.
-
If AI and robotics have shown us anything,...it is that our faculties can be duplicated in many ways. Robots can hear and see through microphones and cameras...does that mean that the biological mechanisms of hearing and seeing cannot exist? How can hearing and seeing exist if microphones and cameras don't exist?
Th point is that they can!
Our ears and eyes are not the only way to hear or see. These and other faculties are basic faculties that are a part of Consciousness.
Microphones and cameras are physical means to capture light and sound. What are the equivalents in "conciousness"?
-
Our ears and eyes are not the only way to hear or see. These and other faculties are basic faculties that are a part of Consciousness.
What's the point of us having ears and eyes, then?
-
If AI and robotics have shown us anything,...it is that our faculties can be duplicated in many ways. Robots can hear and see through microphones and cameras...does that mean that the biological mechanisms of hearing and seeing cannot exist? How can hearing and seeing exist if microphones and cameras don't exist?
Th point is that they can!
Our ears and eyes are not the only way to hear or see. These and other faculties are basic faculties that are a part of Consciousness.
I can talk to my voice activated Echo and it 'understands' and responds appropriately. That doesn't mean that it is having conscious auditory experience though. My car can 'see' obstacles through its parking sensors, but that doesn't mean that it is having conscious visual experience though. The very best of our AI falls way way short of that currently. So it is a misleading comparison to liken camera technology etc to visual experience and then claim that seeing can happen without the complex perceptual systems that brains have evolved. Vision is the product of a complex visual system. The things we see do not have visual properties, the sense of inner vision is all created by subliminal processes of mind. There is no way some disembodied structureless consciousness is going to have the elaborate processing complexity required to create vision. Even if that were feasible then it would render the perceptual systems in our brains redundant. Why bother with 500 million years of evolution if your consciousness can see just like that, by itself. Makes zero sense.
-
If AI and robotics have shown us anything,...it is that our faculties can be duplicated in many ways. Robots can hear and see through microphones and cameras...does that mean that the biological mechanisms of hearing and seeing cannot exist? How can hearing and seeing exist if microphones and cameras don't exist?
Th point is that they can!
Our ears and eyes are not the only way to hear or see. These and other faculties are basic faculties that are a part of Consciousness.
How do we see without eyes?
-
I can talk to my voice activated Echo and it 'understands' and responds appropriately. That doesn't mean that it is having conscious auditory experience though. My car can 'see' obstacles through its parking sensors, but that doesn't mean that it is having conscious visual experience though. The very best of our AI falls way way short of that currently. So it is a misleading comparison to liken camera technology etc to visual experience and then claim that seeing can happen without the complex perceptual systems that brains have evolved. Vision is the product of a complex visual system. The things we see do not have visual properties, the sense of inner vision is all created by subliminal processes of mind. There is no way some disembodied structureless consciousness is going to have the elaborate processing complexity required to create vision. Even if that were feasible then it would render the perceptual systems in our brains redundant. Why bother with 500 million years of evolution if your consciousness can see just like that, by itself. Makes zero sense.
The point is not 'how' Consciousness can see or hear. The point is that it can. 'How' is something that is beyond us.
The whole idea of a soul is that it is conscious and has all faculties like memory, sight, hearing, movement and so on. Born blind people have had NDE's and have been able to see like normal people.
The soul IS what we are. The human body is only an extension or projected (and severely limited) form of the soul/spirit. It is like a space suit or a diving suit which we use to get into another medium that is normally inaccessible to us.
If you have seen the movie 'Avatar', Cameron brings out how even if the avatar (projected part) dies the original person can continue to live with all faculties. That is the idea.
-
The point is not 'how' Consciousness can see or hear. The point is that it can. 'How' is something that is beyond us.
The whole idea of a soul is that it is conscious and has all faculties like memory, sight, hearing, movement and so on. Born blind people have had NDE's and have been able to see like normal people.
The soul IS what we are. The human body is only an extension or projected (and severely limited) form of the soul/spirit. It is like a space suit or a diving suit which we use to get into another medium that is normally inaccessible to us.
If you have seen the movie 'Avatar', Cameron brings out how even if the avatar (projected part) dies the original person can continue to live with all faculties. That is the idea.
Brain activity, such as dreams, memories etc are not the same thing as the sense of sight which requires eyes. If you want to use a wider definition of seeing to cover such things then this needs to be clear and understood.
-
The point is not 'how' Consciousness can see or hear. The point is that it can. 'How' is something that is beyond us.
The whole idea of a soul is that it is conscious and has all faculties like memory, sight, hearing, movement and so on. Born blind people have had NDE's and have been able to see like normal people.
The soul IS what we are. The human body is only an extension or projected (and severely limited) form of the soul/spirit. It is like a space suit or a diving suit which we use to get into another medium that is normally inaccessible to us.
If you have seen the movie 'Avatar', Cameron brings out how even if the avatar (projected part) dies the original person can continue to live with all faculties. That is the idea.
The idea makes no sense and is not true to the evidence though. The sight we have and the hearing we have is neurological activity, the claim of a disembodied consciousness having sight and hearing implies that disembodied consciousness is having neurological activity exactly the same as happens in a brain. How can anything mirror brain function without having a brain ? If that were possible then we wouldn't need brains. This idea is jaw droppingly bizarre, typical of the logical absurdities people get into by trying to shoehorn spurious concepts like 'souls' into the frame.
-
How can anything mirror brain function without having a brain ? If that were possible then we wouldn't need brains. This idea is jaw droppingly bizarre, typical of the logical absurdities people get into by trying to shoehorn spurious concepts like 'souls' into the frame.
How can a self Suffer from the illusion that it exists?
-
How can a self Suffer from the illusion that it exists?
All experience is construction of mind and that includes our sense of self; the founding principle underlying constructions of mind is 'whatever keeps us alive', not epistemic truth or revelation of fundamental objective reality.
-
The idea makes no sense and is not true to the evidence though. The sight we have and the hearing we have is neurological activity, the claim of a disembodied consciousness having sight and hearing implies that disembodied consciousness is having neurological activity exactly the same as happens in a brain. How can anything mirror brain function without having a brain ? If that were possible then we wouldn't need brains. This idea is jaw droppingly bizarre, typical of the logical absurdities people get into by trying to shoehorn spurious concepts like 'souls' into the frame.
I really don't know how people can live their daily lives with these daft ideas, and then to keep putting them into print ... ... well, the mind boggles.
-
The point is not 'how' Consciousness can see or hear. The point is that it can. 'How' is something that is beyond us.
The whole idea of a soul is that it is conscious and has all faculties like memory, sight, hearing, movement and so on.
If the soul can do all this stuff, what are brains, eyes, and ears for?
-
All experience is construction of mind and that includes our sense of self; the founding principle underlying constructions of mind is 'whatever keeps us alive', not epistemic truth or revelation of fundamental objective reality.
No all survival functions could be and some here suggest are carried out by preconscious elements in the brain.
There is no need for consciousness for survival and you have effectively listed functions that have no survival value not least the sense of self which you seem desperate to want to dismiss as trivial anyway.
-
No all survival functions could be and some here suggest are carried out by preconscious elements in the brain.
There is no need for consciousness for survival and you have effectively listed functions that have no survival value not least the sense of self which you seem desperate to want to dismiss as trivial anyway.
Presumably consciousness and a sense of self are conserved because they do have survival value. An individual suffering from Cotard's is going to be at a competitive disadvantage against an individual with a normal healthy functioning sense of self. Likewise with various forms of dementia in which the person inside is eroded. If you don't see the survival value of a sense of self, just look to the various pathologies that affect it - that would be our normal state if we hadn't evolved a strong sense of self.
-
Yes, I knew someone who woke up having forgotten who she was. Anyone doubting the requirement for a sense of self should have watched the desperate efforts of her family to get medical help - which they did, and she recovered..
-
Presumably consciousness and a sense of self are conserved because they do have survival value. An individual suffering from Cotard's is going to be at a competitive disadvantage against an individual with a normal healthy functioning sense of self. Likewise with various forms of dementia in which the person inside is eroded. If you don't see the survival value of a sense of self, just look to the various pathologies that affect it - that would be our normal state if we hadn't evolved a strong sense of self.
Your opening word makes your theory mere presumption.
Cotards where there is confusion over self does not sound like absence of self. Neither does erosion of self......how can you erode an illusion..............cotards, the delusion of the illusion.
How is A Cotards sufferer at a competitive disadvantage anyway.
You are left with believing that all survival functions are preconscious and that consciousness has survival function
-
The point is not 'how' Consciousness can see or hear. The point is that it can. 'How' is something that is beyond us.
The whole idea of a soul is that it is conscious and has all faculties like memory, sight, hearing, movement and so on. Born blind people have had NDE's and have been able to see like normal people.
The soul IS what we are. The human body is only an extension or projected (and severely limited) form of the soul/spirit. It is like a space suit or a diving suit which we use to get into another medium that is normally inaccessible to us.
If you have seen the movie 'Avatar', Cameron brings out how even if the avatar (projected part) dies the original person can continue to live with all faculties. That is the idea.
I couldn't help noticing this part of your post where you referred to the Avatar film as follows:
"If you have seen the film 'Avatar', Cameron brings out how even if the avatar (projected part) dies the original person can continue to live with all faculties. That is the idea".
Of course Sriram, now go back into your darkened room see nurse and make sure she is giving you the correct tablets and whatever you do don't worry.
Regards ippy
-
I couldn't help noticing this part of your post where you referred to the Avatar film as follows:
"If you have seen the film 'Avatar', Cameron brings out how even if the avatar (projected part) dies the original person can continue to live with all faculties. That is the idea".
Of course Sriram, now go back into your darkened room see nurse and make sure she is giving you the correct tablets and whatever you do don't worry.
Regards ippy
Ok... :D
But if you have seen the movie, the hero does live on even when his 'avatar' (the Navi) dies. Cameron has understood the idea of an avatar correctly. So, what exactly is your point on that, besides considering the idea as bizarre, I mean?! :D
Many of our Hindu heroes are avatars of God....in more or less the same way as in the film. God is said to have come down in human form. In fact, all humans are also believed to be little avatars of God, in the sense that He exists in all of us at a deeper level.
You disagree?!!!
-
Your opening word makes your theory mere presumption.
Cotards where there is confusion over self does not sound like absence of self. Neither does erosion of self......how can you erode an illusion..............cotards, the delusion of the illusion.
How is A Cotards sufferer at a competitive disadvantage anyway.
You are left with believing that all survival functions are preconscious and that consciousness has survival function
Clearly Cotard's sufferers are disadvantaged by their condition; how else would this condition have come to our attention but for the fact that such people have presented to their GP seeking help.
-
Presumably consciousness and a sense of self are conserved because they do have survival value. An individual suffering from Cotard's is going to be at a competitive disadvantage against an individual with a normal healthy functioning sense of self. Likewise with various forms of dementia in which the person inside is eroded. If you don't see the survival value of a sense of self, just look to the various pathologies that affect it - that would be our normal state if we hadn't evolved a strong sense of self.
And why should anything survive at all?!
-
And why should anything survive at all?!
Not sure what the 'should' means there. Things having a competitive advantage will survive at the expense of rivals. 'Should' doesn't come into it.
-
You are taking the survival instinct for granted.
-
Not sure where you're going. We observe a survival instinct; it's ubiquitous; it's unlikely any species without it would survive, for obvious reasons.
-
Deleted as don't want to bother!
-
Not sure where you're going. We observe a survival instinct; it's ubiquitous; it's unlikely any species without it would survive, for obvious reasons.
Yes...that is why I ask. Why do organisms have this survival instinct? We tend to take it for granted.
-
Deleted as don't want to bother!
I didn't mean to ignore you Maeght. Sorry!
I normally hold a conversation with one person. If others throw in their varied questions and comments at random, I find it difficult to stay on subject....and it also often leads to adhominem remarks sooner or later.
-
I didn't mean to ignore you Maeght. Sorry!
I normally hold a conversation with one person. If others throw in their varied questions and comments at random, I find it difficult to stay on subject....and it also often leads to adhominem remarks sooner or later.
No problem. Just decided I didn't have the time or inclination to get involved in this discussion so deleted what I had said - especially as not sure it was relevant.
-
Yes...that is why I ask. Why do organisms have this survival instinct? We tend to take it for granted.
Ha, I see your tactic, trying to change the subject now you see your line of reasoning on seeing and hearing is unsustainable.
Extant species have a survival instinct because any lacking it have not survived.
-
Ha, I see your tactic, trying to change the subject now you see your line of reasoning on seeing and hearing is unsustainable.
Extant species have a survival instinct because any lacking it have not survived.
No...there is no change in subject. You talked about survival value of a 'self'. I am only questioning that.
Why survive at all?!
-
No...there is no change in subject. You talked about survival value of a 'self'. I am only questioning that.
Why survive at all?!
We want to survive because individuals lacking that desire tend not to pass their genes on to the next generation.
-
No...there is no change in subject. You talked about survival value of a 'self'. I am only questioning that.
Why survive at all?!
Do you think the earth and the solar system would have been a better place if the human species have not evolved? That would mean of course that you would not be here to ask that question.
-
Do you think the earth and the solar system would have been a better place if the human species have not evolved? That would mean of course that you would not be here to ask that question.
I don't think the solar system (generally) would be any different. That's an awfully large field.
The Earth, yes, over all, I think.
-
We want to survive because individuals lacking that desire tend not to pass their genes on to the next generation.
So what?! You are not questioning the very fundamental need to survive.
-
So what?! You are not questioning the very fundamental need to survive.
You seem to be confusing the need to survive as an individual organism with the survival of a species generally.
-
So what?! You are not questioning the very fundamental need to survive.
We exhibit the desires necessary to our defacto existence. If these desires had not evolved we would not be here to discuss why we have the desires.
-
Clearly Cotard's sufferers are disadvantaged by their condition; how else would this condition have come to our attention but for the fact that such people have presented to their GP seeking help.
But it is not actually loss of self but a delusion held by the self...in your scheme we could describe it as the illusion is suffering from delusion.
-
So what?! You are not questioning the very fundamental need to survive.
It is not a 'need', it is an in`evitable result of natural laws which have led, via a few billion years of evolution, to the present condition of the human species.
-
Born blind people have had NDE's and have been able to see like normal people.
I find this hard to believe. Can you provide details of specific cases?
-
Oh, noooo; don't encourage him
-
I find this hard to believe. Can you provide details of specific cases?
https://www.near-death.com/science/evidence/people-born-blind-can-see-during-nde.html
http://www.nderf.org/index.htm
-
https://www.near-death.com/science/evidence/people-born-blind-can-see-during-nde.html
http://www.nderf.org/index.htm
Or, alternatively,
http://www.skepticforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=21805
https://www.psychologytoday.com/gb/blog/dream-factory/201712/do-blind-people-see-in-their-dreams
-
Yes...that is why I ask. Why do organisms have this survival instinct? We tend to take it for granted.
If you haven't already read Richard Dawkins book 'The Selfish Gene' Sriram, get on to it pronto.
I love the things about the reality of life where if you go back far enough we are all, every one of us humans, related to each other, my distant cousin Sriram, has a good ring to it don't you think?
Information from the real world is so much more satisfactory than the head in the clouds stuff.
Regards ippy
-
So what?! You are not questioning the very fundamental need to survive.
Evolution by natural selection necessarily produces things that are good at surviving. If you'd bothered to understand natural selection, you wouldn't be asking the question.
-
ippy,
That we all are children of the same heavenly Father also has a nice ring to it!! ;)
Actually, genetics (and Dawkins) is not saying anything that was not known earlier. It only outlines the biological mechanism.
But what death is and why we are here and why we have developed into complex beings is not answered by genetics or evolution. These are still open to question.
And NDE's are real experiences....not imaginary.
-
Actually, genetics (and Dawkins) is not saying anything that was not known earlier. It only outlines the biological mechanism.
In The Selfish Gene he makes the case for the gene being the unit of selection (rather than the organism or group). You really do need to read something on evolution because you clearly don't understand it.
Oh, and if you read The Selfish Gene you can correct the nonsense on your site about memes too.
But what death is and why we are here and why we have developed into complex beings is not answered by genetics or evolution.
Death is when organisms stop functioning. and evolution does answer the question of why we've developed into complex beings.
And NDE's are real experiences....not imaginary.
::)
-
And why are you prowling around my site?!! :o
Either you are a secret admirer or you are taking points....Tut..Tut!!!! ;)
-
And why are you prowling around my site?!! :o
Either you are a secret admirer or you are taking points....Tut..Tut!!!! ;)
You know I looked at your site, you invited people to and we briefly discussed (http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=15109.msg719076#msg719076) your pages on evolution.
This time I was actually reading it to respond to your thread about Evil (http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=15843.0) but by the time I got to the section on memes I was bored so thought I'd see what you had to say about them. If you don't want people to look at it, stop posting links to it! :)
You really need to do some corrections on memes and you really need to get an understanding of natural selection.
-
You know I looked at your site, you invited people to and we briefly discussed (http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=15109.msg719076#msg719076) your pages on evolution.
This time I was actually reading it to respond to your thread about Evil (http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=15843.0) but by the time I got to the section on memes I was bored so thought I'd see what you had to say about them. If you don't want people to look at it, stop posting links to it! :)
You really need to do some corrections on memes and you really need to get an understanding of natural selection.
I was only joking..Stranger! Please do feel free to visit the site and also comment on it...either here or on the site.
And I think many of you need to get a proper understanding of God and spirituality....!
-
These things are no more than matters of opinion though, so what's a "proper understanding" and who gets to decide this?
-
ippy,
That we all are children of the same heavenly Father also has a nice ring to it!! ;)
Actually, genetics (and Dawkins) is not saying anything that was not known earlier. It only outlines the biological mechanism.
But what death is and why we are here and why we have developed into complex beings is not answered by genetics or evolution. These are still open to question.
And NDE's are real experiences....not imaginary.
Why do you think there's anything to all of the nonsense in this post of yours? Going back to your flying rats etc, come on Sriram it's time to move on.
NDE's don't amount to an actual death, Imaginary or not, so what Cousin?
Regards ippy.
-
And NDE's are real experiences....not imaginary.
They are experiences, I'll grant you that.
-
They are experiences, I'll grant you that.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/03/130327190359.htm
**********
Working together, researchers at the Coma Science Group (Directed by Steven Laureys) and the University of Liège's Cognitive Psychology Research (Professor Serge Brédart and Hedwige Dehon), have looked into the memories of NDE with the hypothesis that if the memories of NDE were pure products of the imagination, their phenomenological characteristics (e.g., sensorial, self referential, emotional, etc. details) should be closer to those of imagined memories. Conversely, if the NDE are experienced in a way similar to that of reality, their characteristics would be closer to the memories of real events.
They studied the memories of NDE and the memories of real events and imagined events with the help of a questionnaire which evaluated the phenomenological characteristics of the memories. The results were surprising. From the perspective being studied, not only were the NDEs not similar to the memories of imagined events, but the phenomenological characteristics inherent to the memories of real events (e.g. memories of sensorial details) are even more numerous in the memories of NDE than in the memories of real events.
Numerous studies have looked into the physiological mechanisms of NDE, the production of these phenomena by the brain, but, taken separately, these two theories are incapable of explaining these experiences in their entirety.
***********
-
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/03/130327190359.htm
**********
Working together, researchers at the Coma Science Group (Directed by Steven Laureys) and the University of Liège's Cognitive Psychology Research (Professor Serge Brédart and Hedwige Dehon), have looked into the memories of NDE with the hypothesis that if the memories of NDE were pure products of the imagination, their phenomenological characteristics (e.g., sensorial, self referential, emotional, etc. details) should be closer to those of imagined memories. Conversely, if the NDE are experienced in a way similar to that of reality, their characteristics would be closer to the memories of real events.
They studied the memories of NDE and the memories of real events and imagined events with the help of a questionnaire which evaluated the phenomenological characteristics of the memories. The results were surprising. From the perspective being studied, not only were the NDEs not similar to the memories of imagined events, but the phenomenological characteristics inherent to the memories of real events (e.g. memories of sensorial details) are even more numerous in the memories of NDE than in the memories of real events.
Numerous studies have looked into the physiological mechanisms of NDE, the production of these phenomena by the brain, but, taken separately, these two theories are incapable of explaining these experiences in their entirety.
***********
No stats Sriram how many people involved etc, those brains of ours are mean machines the hoops they're capable of going through when they try to make sense of the world around us, I keep reminding you to go for a look at the works of your fellow country man V C Ramachandaran, I'm a great fan of his and going by some of his works I've read about I dare say as a guess we're into about the first one hundredth part of one percent of how our brains perform.
Regards ippy
-
Some of you just keep whipping up this...'the brain is a remarkable thing'...idea to explain every thing. Not very convincing is it?! The Brain God! Explains everything!
The brain is just a piece of flesh which rots when a person dies. It is not some super intelligent, self willed entity as it s being made out by many of you. The brain is a product of our stem cells and DNA and whatever forces drives those are also responsible for the brain and its functions.
Secondly, whether the brain and the mind are one and the same is questionable. The mind and Consciousness are very complex and there is no proof that they can be equated with the brain. More likely that the brain functions as a supporting hardware to the mind and consciousness.
https://tsriramrao.wordpress.com/2012/11/29/mind-and-brain/
-
Some of you just keep whipping up this...'the brain is a remarkable thing'...idea to explain every thing. Not very convincing is it?! The Brain God! Explains everything!
The brain is just a piece of flesh which rots when a person dies. It is not some super intelligent, self willed entity as it s being made out by many of you. The brain is a product of our stem cells and DNA and whatever forces drives those are also responsible for the brain and its functions.
Secondly, whether the brain and the mind are one and the same is questionable. The mind and Consciousness are very complex and there is no proof that they can be equated with the brain. More likely that the brain functions as a supporting hardware to the mind and consciousness.
https://tsriramrao.wordpress.com/2012/11/29/mind-and-brain/
That mind and brain are two aspects of the same thing is what the evidence suggests. Not proof, granted, but science never deals in proofs, it is what the evidence overwhelmingly suggests. Brain functions correlate with mind functioning. No brain = no mind, brain damage results in mind damage, brain complexity correlates with sophistication of mind. There would be no point in having brains if minds could think or experience independently. What do you think minds were doing before brains evolved, sitting around waiting for a suitable home to come along ?
-
That mind and brain are two aspects of the same thing is what the evidence suggests. Not proof, granted, but science never deals in proofs, it is what the evidence overwhelmingly suggests. Brain functions correlate with mind functioning. No brain = no mind, brain damage results in mind damage, brain complexity correlates with sophistication of mind. There would be no point in having brains if minds could think or experience independently. What do you think minds were doing before brains evolved, sitting around waiting for a suitable home to come along ?
Was software waiting around for hardware to develop? Maybe it does wait in some cases....but generally they develop side by side. They are interdependent but not the same. The hardware does not produce the software. They both are produced by an independent intelligence.
There is some evidence to suggest that the mind is also not entirely dependent on the brain only. Read my link.
-
Was software waiting around for hardware to develop? Maybe it does wait in some cases....but generally they develop side by side. They are interdependent but not the same. The hardware does not produce the software. They both are produced by an independent intelligence.
There is some evidence to suggest that the mind is also not entirely dependent on the brain only. Read my link.
The hardware/software analogy is appealing in a simplistic way, but it is ultimately misleading; mind/brain deserves better than simplistic metaphors. There is no evidence of an 'independent intelligence' being responsible for designing a dualistic system, rather the evidence suggests that minds/brains evolved through the same haphazard twists and turns of evolutionary history that characterise everything else in nature; brains exhibit the same character of developmental progression over time with new cortical structures evolving and adding to total brain mass consequential to selection pressures. Primary visual cortex evolved at the same time as visual sense organs. If this were all the end product of some intelligent design then why do brains not appear 'designed'. Mind and brain are the same thing, only experienced from different aspects; this insight more faithfully reflects the evidence than any simplistic hardware/software analogy,
-
The hardware/software analogy is appealing in a simplistic way, but it is ultimately misleading; mind/brain deserves better than simplistic metaphors. There is no evidence of an 'independent intelligence' being responsible for designing a dualistic system, rather the evidence suggests that minds/brains evolved through the same haphazard twists and turns of evolutionary history that characterise everything else in nature; brains exhibit the same character of developmental progression over time with new cortical structures evolving and adding to total brain mass consequential to selection pressures. Primary visual cortex evolved at the same time as visual sense organs. If this were all the end product of some intelligent design then why do brains not appear 'designed'. Mind and brain are the same thing, only experienced from different aspects; this insight more faithfully reflects the evidence than any simplistic hardware/software analogy,
The reason why the brain evolved and did not appear designed is for the same reason that computer hardware did not appear fully designed abinitio.
We have already discussed many times that evolution does not automatically rule out intelligent intervention. They can go together.
-
The reason why the brain evolved and did not appear designed is for the same reason that computer hardware did not appear fully designed abinitio.
We have already discussed many times that evolution does not automatically rule out intelligent intervention. They can go together.
We have found no evidence that is suggestive of intelligent intervention though. All the evidence points to naturalistic evolution so if we overlay some imagined intelligent intervenor over natural processes all we are doing is obscuring our understanding with a layer of fantasy. Follow the evidence and try to understand what it is telling us.
-
We have found no evidence that is suggestive of intelligent intervention though. All the evidence points to naturalistic evolution so if we overlay some imagined intelligent intervenor over natural processes all we are doing is obscuring our understanding with a layer of fantasy. Follow the evidence and try to understand what it is telling us.
What do you mean no evidence?!!
All the emergent properties, all the complexity and the clear direction to evolution.
The very fact that the DNA is programmed to replicate (survive) and generate complex biological structures and processes is evidence of intelligence. The DNA is like a computer chip only much more complex. A computer chip does not develop by itself......it evolves through intelligent intervention.
We may not know where and how this intelligence works. That is another matter. Maybe from a parallel world. Ask Michio Kaku.
-
What do you mean no evidence?!!
There is no evidence.
All the emergent properties, all the complexity and the clear direction to evolution.
There is no clear direction to evolution. Complexity is explained by evolution.
The very fact that the DNA is programmed to replicate (survive) and generate complex biological structures and processes is evidence of intelligence. The DNA is like a computer chip only much more complex. A computer chip does not develop by itself......it evolves through intelligent intervention.
Evolution explains this - it's just that you don't understand it and don't (on past experience) seem willing to learn.
-
What do you mean no evidence?!!
All the emergent properties, all the complexity and the clear direction to evolution.
The very fact that the DNA is programmed to replicate (survive) and generate complex biological structures and processes is evidence of intelligence. The DNA is like a computer chip only much more complex. A computer chip does not develop by itself......it evolves through intelligent intervention.
We may not know where and how this intelligence works. That is another matter. Maybe from a parallel world. Ask Michio Kaku.
God of the gaps, a special case of the argument from ignorance. It's bad theology, as well as bad science.
-
What do you mean no evidence?!!
All the emergent properties, all the complexity and the clear direction to evolution.
The very fact that the DNA is programmed to replicate (survive) and generate complex biological structures and processes is evidence of intelligence. The DNA is like a computer chip only much more complex. A computer chip does not develop by itself......it evolves through intelligent intervention.
We may not know where and how this intelligence works. That is another matter. Maybe from a parallel world. Ask Michio Kaku.
If you see those things as evidence of intelligent intervention, I think that is just in your mind, it is in your bias. There are trends in the data, we could say there is a trend from simplicity to complexity over time, but there is nothing to suggest that is anything other than completely natural patterns deriving from inherent variation and selection. If you have two things vieing to survive, one is smart at surviving, the other dim, chances are, the smarter one will survive at the expense of the dim one. And so it goes, simple, inevitable principles of competition like this give rise to diversity, complexity and intelligence on their own; we don't need to imagine some external really clever thing fixing it up artificially.
-
If you see those things as evidence of intelligent intervention, I think that is just in your mind, it is in your bias. There are trends in the data, we could say there is a trend from simplicity to complexity over time, but there is nothing to suggest that is anything other than completely natural patterns deriving from inherent variation and selection. If you have two things vieing to survive, one is smart at surviving, the other dim, chances are, the smarter one will survive at the expense of the dim one. And so it goes, simple, inevitable principles of competition like this give rise to diversity, complexity and intelligence on their own; we don't need to imagine some external really clever thing fixing it up artificially.
All that does not eliminate Intelligent intervention.
We find certain models of products surviving better than the others. Competition exists even in products made by humans. Even they are selected for specific environments. Certain models get rejected fast.
But they all have intelligent intervention nevertheless. It doesn't happen by itself.
-
All that does not eliminate Intelligent intervention.
NPF out for an afternoon spin.
We find certain models of products surviving better than the others. Competition exists even in products made by humans. Even they are selected for specific environments. Certain models get rejected fast.
But they all have intelligent intervention nevertheless. It doesn't happen by itself.
Natural selection means that it can happen by itself. The clue's in the name.
-
All that does not eliminate Intelligent intervention.
It doesn't eliminate Colin the Magic Pixie either. It doesn't eliminate any pseudo-explanation you may care to invent - and you can invent an almost infinite number. We need evidence to rule something in (or at the very least, to take it seriously), not the mere absence of evidence against. That's a fallacy; I would hope that you'd know its name by now.
We find certain models of products surviving better than the others. Competition exists even in products made by humans. Even they are selected for specific environments. Certain models get rejected fast.
That's artificial selection, not natural selection. Artificial selection operates on the basis of the conscious desires of humans trying to achieve a certain goal; natural selection doesn't.
But they all have intelligent intervention nevertheless. It doesn't happen by itself.
Except that all the evidence points to it doing just that.
-
All that does not eliminate Intelligent intervention.
We find certain models of products surviving better than the others. Competition exists even in products made by humans. Even they are selected for specific environments. Certain models get rejected fast.
But they all have intelligent intervention nevertheless. It doesn't happen by itself.
If there were such a thing as I D unfortunately for you there's no evidence that points in that direction Sriram, if there is some/any evidence pointing in the direction of I D the whole world's waiting for this revelation of yours (assuming you have anything worth revealing), in the meantime the evidence for evolution is overwhelming.
ID's for those men with long floor scraping cloaks and one of those 3 feet tall ice cream cone shaped conical hats decorated with all sorts of magical and formulaic signs written all over it, oh yes don't forget the small black stick with a bit of white paint dabbed at each end as well.
I thought India was fast becoming a 21st century forward thinking country full of people intent on propelling themselves right forward into this modern 21st century enlightened world, what happened in your case Sriram?
I D's the equivalent of eyes closed fingers in the ears la la la la la la la la la, you're a lot better than that Sriram, you're not a primitive ignorant man.
Regards ippy
P S I nearly forgot even the blasted pope accepts evolution and the Church of England.
-
ippy,
I am already in the 22nd century!! ;)
You still think I don't accept evolution do you?! Clearly you don't understand my posts at all....after all these years too!! :D
Oh..well...never mind.....
-
All that does not eliminate Intelligent intervention....
It renders it spurious though, unnecessary. If all natural phenomena can be explained through natural processes what is the point in adding in 'intelligent intervention' as well, it solves a problem that isn't there and tasks us with the additional burden of figuring out the nature of this intelligent intervenor.
You could argue that nature itself is intelligent which would be a philosophical point to argue which would revolve around the definition of intelligence.
-
It renders it spurious though, unnecessary. If all natural phenomena can be explained through natural processes what is the point in adding in 'intelligent intervention' as well, it solves a problem that isn't there and tasks us with the additional burden of figuring out the nature of this intelligent intervenor.
You could argue that nature itself is intelligent which would be a philosophical point to argue which would revolve around the definition of intelligence.
Ah...you are finally getting there..! Nature itself is intelligent! Yes...that is what I have been saying all along. You have too much of the 'external God' baggage in your mind...which is a problem.
We have already discussed the definition of Intelligence many times. You keep saying that Intelligence is a product of evolution and cannot be its cause. I don't see why not!
-
Ah...you are finally getting there..! Nature itself is intelligent! Yes...that is what I have been saying all along. You have too much of the 'external God' baggage in your mind...which is a problem.
An 'intervention' implies something from outside. If it is nature itself that is intelligent then it would be confusing to call it an intervention.
-
We have already discussed the definition of Intelligence many times. You keep saying that Intelligence is a product of evolution and cannot be its cause. I don't see why not!
Isn't that circular ? How can something be it's own cause ?
-
It renders it spurious though, unnecessary. If all natural phenomena can be explained through natural processes what is the point in adding in 'intelligent intervention' as well,
Because we don't know whether nature goes on forever or whether it is created whether by something other or self created if that is possible in nature.
-
Because we don't know whether nature goes on forever or whether it is created whether by something other or self created if that is possible in nature.
An argument from ignorance (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance) to start the day...
-
Ah...you are finally getting there..! Nature itself is intelligent! Yes...that is what I have been saying all along. You have too much of the 'external God' baggage in your mind...which is a problem.
We have already discussed the definition of Intelligence many times. You keep saying that Intelligence is a product of evolution and cannot be its cause. I don't see why not!
Internal external is irrelevant to god of course.But I feel that eastern religion ignores the I thou
experience and easily slips into the I ego modality.
-
Because we don't know whether nature goes on forever or whether it is created whether by something other or self created if that is possible in nature.
If the question is "how did intelligence arise ?", then the answer "because something intelligent created it" is clearly circular; a cop out that fails to address the question. That answer demonstrates a preference for avoidance over engagement.
-
If the question is "how did intelligence arise ?", then the answer "because something intelligent created it" is clearly circular; a cop out that fails to address the question. That answer demonstrates a preference for avoidance over engagement.
Does intelligence have to arise though?
-
If the question is "how did intelligence arise ?", then the answer "because something intelligent created it" is clearly circular; a cop out that fails to address the question. That answer demonstrates a preference for avoidance over engagement.
Intelligent things can create intelligent things though.
If this thread were a theme park ride would you meet the height restriction.
-
ippy,
I am already in the 22nd century!! ;)
You still think I don't accept evolution do you?! Clearly you don't understand my posts at all....after all these years too!! :D
Oh..well...never mind.....
There must be something wrong somewhere?
I've doubt I'll be winning the booker prize this year or any other year, even so generally I can make myself understood, having said that lot, if I'm as you imply not understanding your posts, it's obvious to me that someone isn't making their case very well, and with certainty wont be getting a booker prize.
Shakers post 121 on this thread maybe not an exactly similar but a similar conclusion to the one I have taken about your recent references to ID before making a reply to this ID thing of yours and au contraire to your post someone isn't doing a very good job of making themselves understood and in this case it isn't me.
Regards ippy
-
Intelligent things can create intelligent things though.
Can they? Well, clearly it's trivially true in the sense that all existing intelligent humans were created by other intelligent humans. But I don't think that really counts because we don't really know how the process of human development allows intelligence to arise.
Other than biological reproduction, have you got any undisputed examples of intelligence creating intelligence?
-
Isn't that circular ? How can something be it's own cause ?
Why? Intelligent humans create intelligent robots, don't we?! What is AI all about?
-
Why? Intelligent humans create intelligent robots, don't we?! What is AI all about?
That argument doesn't work for a first cause though. The first intelligent thing could not have been created by a prior intelligence.
-
That argument doesn't work for a first cause though. The first intelligent thing could not have been created by a prior intelligence.
I am not discussing first cause or second cause. You are digressing. I am merely saying that Intelligence can create Intelligence.
Just as humans have created intelligent machines, we could also have been created by some form of Intelligence. It is not as far fetched as you make it out to be.
And the process of evolution does not conflict with that idea, as I have discussed many times.
-
That argument doesn't work for a first cause though. The first intelligent thing could not have been created by a prior intelligence.
I think this was discussed previously and it's probably a waste of time repeating it but that's what certain India schools of thought subscribe to. Intelligence (Sattwa) is one of three innate qualities present in nature or 'prakriti' as it is called. The others are rajas a force of change and tamas a force of stability. Sattwa attempts to harmonise the other two. Homeostasis and metabolism would be examples of Sattwa in action in the human body.
-
I am not discussing first cause or second cause. You are digressing. I am merely saying that Intelligence can create Intelligence.
Just as humans have created intelligent machines, we could also have been created by some form of Intelligence.
But that doesn't explain the existence of intelligence; it requires some pre-existing intelligence. Evolution explains the existence of intelligence without requiring it to exist in the first place.
It is not as far fetched as you make it out to be.
It is far fetch because it's just a story with no supporting evidence or reasoning, like Eric the invisible magic elf.
And the process of evolution does not conflict with that idea, as I have discussed many times.
The process of evolution is also in no need of it, which emphasises that it's just a baseless story.
-
Evolution explains the existence of intelligence without requiring it to exist in the first place.
Perhaps you could explain how intelligence comes into existence via evolution, what it is and how it is detected. This might clear some misunderstandings.
-
I am not discussing first cause or second cause. You are digressing. I am merely saying that Intelligence can create Intelligence.
Just as humans have created intelligent machines, we could also have been created by some form of Intelligence. It is not as far fetched as you make it out to be.
And the process of evolution does not conflict with that idea, as I have discussed many times.
I would agree that it is possible for intelligence to create intelligence, and, yes, it is possible that life was created on this planet by some form of intelligence, and, yes, the process of evolution would not conflict with that scenario. However there are several problems with it.
First is that even if we accept that life was created by this so 'intelligence'(without any corroborating evidence at all), there is again no evidence at all that it had any further input, and, furthermore, no reason for this 'intelligence' to have any further input because evolution by natural selection does not need any 'intelligence' in its explanations.
Second, if, after all this, we accepted that this 'intelligence' guided evolution in some way, then we would fairly quickly come to strong conclusions as to its ineptitude and incompetence.
Third, even if the idea of intelligence creating intelligence was accepted, you still have the question as to where this intelligence came from, and how did it develop its intelligence unless it be by the process of evolution.
If you wish to believe that some sort of intelligence is responsible for human intelligence then so be it. However, bearing in mind the points raised above, and unless some evidence arises to support your ideas, I do not see any reason to treat them as any more than conjectures on your part.
-
I would agree that it is possible for intelligence to create intelligence, and, yes, it is possible that life was created on this planet by some form of intelligence, and, yes, the process of evolution would not conflict with that scenario. However there are several problems with it.
First is that even if we accept that life was created by this so 'intelligence'(without any corroborating evidence at all), there is again no evidence at all that it had any further input, and, furthermore, no reason for this 'intelligence' to have any further input because evolution by natural selection does not need any 'intelligence' in its explanations.
Second, if, after all this, we accepted that this 'intelligence' guided evolution in some way, then we would fairly quickly come to strong conclusions as to its ineptitude and incompetence.
Third, even if the idea of intelligence creating intelligence was accepted, you still have the question as to where this intelligence came from, and how did it develop its intelligence unless it be by the process of evolution.
If you wish to believe that some sort of intelligence is responsible for human intelligence then so be it. However, bearing in mind the points raised above, and unless some evidence arises to support your ideas, I do not see any reason to treat them as any more than conjectures on your part.
As regards your first point, the particular 'intelligence' in question is ever present in all life forms and is continuous as life forms change. Possibly it is seen as the selector in natural selection.
As regards your second point, I don't think the process is seen as guided as if there is a master plan. The Sanskrit word used is Lila which is a kind of creative play.
As regards your third point, intelligence (Sattwa) is seen as ever present, as mass and energy might be seen, and is simple in nature and doesn't develop complexity in itself but facilitates complexity in the formal world.
I doubt whether any scientific evidence can be produced but in the context of self awareness it is seen as an ideal to foster so that harmony is improved upon.
-
Perhaps you could explain how intelligence comes into existence via evolution, what it is and how it is detected. This might clear some misunderstandings.
Rather than ask Stranger, perhaps it might be more appropriate if you first asked Sriram how intelligence comes into existence without evolution, what it is and how it is detected. After all it was Sriram who started the ball rolling in Post 111. This might clear some misunderstandings.
-
As regards your first point, the particular 'intelligence' in question is ever present in all life forms and is continuous as life forms change. Possibly it is seen as the selector in natural selection.
As regards your second point, I don't think the process is seen as guided as if there is a master plan. The Sanskrit word used is Lila which is a kind of creative play.
As regards your third point, intelligence (Sattwa) is seen as ever present, as mass and energy might be seen, and is simple in nature and doesn't develop complexity in itself but facilitates complexity in the formal world.
I doubt whether any scientific evidence can be produced but in the context of self awareness it is seen as an ideal to foster so that harmony is improved upon.
These are all conjectures which are descriptions of beliefs. I have no problem with anyone believing in such things but I'm afraid I see no evidence for them, whereas evolution by natural selection has a great deal of evidence and needs none of the ideas you expound for the process to work.
As regards your last point about self awareness, I'm sure you are right. I have no problem with that. Of course there are many other ways in which one can become more self aware, more understanding of others, more in harmony with oneself and the world as I'm sure you will agree.
-
These are all conjectures which are descriptions of beliefs. I have no problem with anyone believing in such things but I'm afraid I see no evidence for them, whereas evolution by natural selection has a great deal of evidence and needs none of the ideas you expound for the process to work.
As regards your last point about self awareness, I'm sure you are right. I have no problem with that. Of course there are many other ways in which one can become more self aware, more understanding of others, more in harmony with oneself and the world as I'm sure you will agree.
Yes, I agree. Let's hope there is enough harmonising intelligence on the planet whatever its source.
-
Yes, I agree. Let's hope there is enough harmonising intelligence on the planet whatever its source.
What does 'harmonising intelligence' mean?
-
That argument doesn't work for a first cause though. The first intelligent thing could not have been created by a prior intelligence.
But apparently an argument against first cause is the possibility of something not having a beginning isn't it? That is either 'the universe' or something else. You cannot grant the universe being around for ever and deny the possibility of that attribute in something else.
The problem is there is nothing in the universe observed which is not derived. If you think that is a bad argument it is precisely the same one Jeremy P is using to argue against non biological intelligence.
-
Can they? Well, clearly it's trivially true in the sense that all existing intelligent humans were created by other intelligent humans.
I am not talking about that. I am talking about biological intelligences creating machine intelligences...and by extension, machine intelligences creating other machine intelligence in ways that owe more to maths and nothing to biological evolution...and even perhaps machine intelligence creating biological intelligences in non biological evolutionary ways.
It seems to me that the more intelligent something is the more maths it can emulate. Therefore is it strictly true to say that intelligence can only be an evolved biological thing when it clearly revolves around the emulation of maths?
-
I would agree that it is possible for intelligence to create intelligence, and, yes, it is possible that life was created on this planet by some form of intelligence, and, yes, the process of evolution would not conflict with that scenario. However there are several problems with it.
First is that even if we accept that life was created by this so 'intelligence'(without any corroborating evidence at all), there is again no evidence at all that it had any further input, and, furthermore, no reason for this 'intelligence' to have any further input because evolution by natural selection does not need any 'intelligence' in its explanations.
Second, if, after all this, we accepted that this 'intelligence' guided evolution in some way, then we would fairly quickly come to strong conclusions as to its ineptitude and incompetence.
Third, even if the idea of intelligence creating intelligence was accepted, you still have the question as to where this intelligence came from, and how did it develop its intelligence unless it be by the process of evolution.
If you wish to believe that some sort of intelligence is responsible for human intelligence then so be it. However, bearing in mind the points raised above, and unless some evidence arises to support your ideas, I do not see any reason to treat them as any more than conjectures on your part.
The argument was about whether Intelligence can create Intelligence (torridon said that it is not possible).
Now that you agree that it can...that is all there is to it.
About all the other questions....there are no easy answers that anyone person can offer on a platter. It is a conjecture much like many other conjectures like Parallel Universes, String, Dark Energy etc.
Natural Selection (as you people define it) does not need any Intelligence because it is nothing more than a metaphor. Intelligence works through genetic variation and adaptations to specific environments.
-
The argument was about whether Intelligence can create Intelligence (torridon said that it is not possible).
Did he ?
I don't recall saying that. What I meant was that the idea of intelligence being created by a prior intelligence would not make sense in the context of a first cause argument.
-
Natural Selection (as you people define it) does not need any Intelligence because it is nothing more than a metaphor. Intelligence works through genetic variation and adaptations to specific environments.
Eeerm, Natural Selection is not a metaphor, it is a reality. The term "Natural Selection" may have been coined by Darwin to draw the parallel with artificial selection. I think you are merely redefining Natural Selection as Intelligent Selection to suit your agenda that reality was created by an external intelligence, something we have no evidence for.
-
About all the other questions....there are no easy answers that anyone person can offer on a platter. It is a conjecture much like many other conjectures like Parallel Universes, String, Dark Energy etc.
No it isn't. Apart from anything else, it's impossible to be like "Parallel Universes, String, Dark Energy" because they are in completely different categories.
You're ideas about intelligence appear to be based on nothing but wishful thinking.
Natural Selection (as you people define it) does not need any Intelligence because it is nothing more than a metaphor.
Drivel. You really do need to learn what natural selection means.
Intelligence works through genetic variation and adaptations to specific environments.
So you insist but never provide any reason to take the idea seriously.
-
I think this was discussed previously and it's probably a waste of time repeating it but that's what certain India schools of thought subscribe to. Intelligence (Sattwa) is one of three innate qualities present in nature or 'prakriti' as it is called. The others are rajas a force of change and tamas a force of stability. Sattwa attempts to harmonise the other two. Homeostasis and metabolism would be examples of Sattwa in action in the human body.
As regards your first point, the particular 'intelligence' in question is ever present in all life forms and is continuous as life forms change. Possibly it is seen as the selector in natural selection.
As regards your second point, I don't think the process is seen as guided as if there is a master plan. The Sanskrit word used is Lila which is a kind of creative play.
As regards your third point, intelligence (Sattwa) is seen as ever present, as mass and energy might be seen, and is simple in nature and doesn't develop complexity in itself but facilitates complexity in the formal world.
I doubt whether any scientific evidence can be produced but in the context of self awareness it is seen as an ideal to foster so that harmony is improved upon.
Interesting posts. I'm not sure that the interpretation of "sattwa" (or "sattva") as "intelligence" is really correct though. It could be read as "information", and so intimately related to evolution and the emergence of complexity/intelligence and on a par with matter/energy.
-
What does 'harmonising intelligence' mean?
First of all, I should say that it has been a long time since I looked at different Hindu schools of thought so my memory might be suspect, but in that context I am using 'intelligence' in the sense of that word's Latin origin 'to choose between' which is similar to Sattwa which has a selecting and balancing or harmonising role. An example of this intelligence functioning in the human body is the metabolic process. If you ignore this underlying intelligence and constantly overdose on sugar then the body's harmony is disturbed. On a planetary scale, if we overdose on technological consumerism the natural harmonies of many life forms become disturbed, natural habitats become destroyed, seas become polluted etc. Many of the 'Eastern spiritual' practices are about fostering that harmonising intelligence within the individual and also between life forms. I believe some claim that it is present within non life forms.
-
The argument was about whether Intelligence can create Intelligence (torridon said that it is not possible).
Now that you agree that it can...that is all there is to it.
About all the other questions....there are no easy answers that anyone person can offer on a platter. It is a conjecture much like many other conjectures like Parallel Universes, String, Dark Energy etc.
Natural Selection (as you people define it) does not need any Intelligence because it is nothing more than a metaphor. Intelligence works through genetic variation and adaptations to specific environments.
I've always accepted that it is possible that an intelligence can create intelligence. No problem. However, as I have stated, I see no evidence at all that any intelligence has created us.
As far as the rest of your post goes, I agree completely with Stranger's rebuttal of your position in post 153.
:)
-
Eeerm, Natural Selection is not a metaphor, it is a reality. The term "Natural Selection" may have been coined by Darwin to draw the parallel with artificial selection. I think you are merely redefining Natural Selection as Intelligent Selection to suit your agenda that reality was created by an external intelligence, something we have no evidence for.
If Natural Selection is seen as similar to Artificial Selection (as Darwin did), then there is intelligence and purpose involved in it. If NS is seen in terms of Neo Darwinism, it is just a metaphor.
Once we accept that Nature could be Intelligent, the intelligence need not be 'external'......it could very well be internal. Intelligence could emanate from within the DNA leading to genetic variations.
Genetic variations can be of two kinds...random or specific adaptations to suit the environment (as in Lamarckism). In both cases, this is what leads to variations, complexity, Emergence and so on. This is where Intelligence comes in......
-
If Natural Selection is seen as similar to Artificial Selection (as Darwin did), then there is intelligence and purpose involved in it.
Yes it is similar but natural selection needs no intelligence because what does the 'selecting' is just the environment.
If NS is seen in terms of Neo Darwinism, it is just a metaphor.
This is simply wrong. You've misunderstood. Read any decent book on the subject, go to any reputable website about it, and if you pay attention, you will see you are wrong. I'd post some links now but from previous experience you simply won't listen.
Once we accept that Nature could be Intelligent, the intelligence need not be 'external'......it could very well be internal. Intelligence could emanate from within the DNA leading to genetic variations.
You have still not given any reason for anybody to accept this intelligence.
Genetic variations can be of two kinds...random or specific adaptations to suit the environment (as in Lamarckism).
Nonsense. Genetic changes (mutations) are all random. Some of them happen to suit the environment and then, exactly because they confer and advantage, in terms of survival and reproduction, those individuals who have them survive and reproduce more than those without, hence the mutation spreads through the population.
That's natural selection - a real process.
This is where Intelligence comes in......
Intelligence is not required. That is, it's not required for evolution to happen, it is required to see that natural selection is absolutely real, isn't a metaphor, and explains how evolution works without any intelligence.
-
If Natural Selection is seen as similar to Artificial Selection (as Darwin did), then there is intelligence and purpose involved in it. If NS is seen in terms of Neo Darwinism, it is just a metaphor.
That's wrong. Darwin used the term Natural Selection to differentiate it from artificial selection, the point being the latter is driven by conscious human intelligence, the former is not.
-
Genetic variations can be of two kinds...random or specific adaptations to suit the environment (as in Lamarckism). In both cases, this is what leads to variations, complexity, Emergence and so on. This is where Intelligence comes in......
if by this you are referring to epigenetic effects, I don't see how that could be classed as 'intelligent' or 'purposeful' any more than mutations/selection. It is just another mechanism of downwards intergenerational information transfer with subsequent generations featuring altered gene expression as opposed to altered genes. It still falls within the wider remit of sources of variation that natural selection will act on.
-
That's wrong. Darwin used the term Natural Selection to differentiate it from artificial selection, the point being the latter is driven by conscious human intelligence, the former is not.
Darwin was not an atheist. He probably didn't feel compelled to come up with convoluted explanations just to avoid some form of Intelligence. He understood Natural Selection in the same way he understood Artificial Selection....as a process by which desired traits were chosen.
-
if by this you are referring to epigenetic effects, I don't see how that could be classed as 'intelligent' or 'purposeful' any more than mutations/selection. It is just another mechanism of downwards intergenerational information transfer with subsequent generations featuring altered gene expression as opposed to altered genes. It still falls within the wider remit of sources of variation that natural selection will act on.
Epigenetics is just a process, a mechanism. Mechanisms themselves need to be explained. Saying that a car runs because of its engine does not in any way exclude intelligence behind it.
-
He probably didn't feel compelled to come up with convoluted explanations just to avoid some form of Intelligence. He understood Natural Selection in the same way he understood Artificial Selection....as a process by which desired traits were chosen.
Utter nonsense - you really do need to get an education as far as evolution goes. Natural selection isn't a "convoluted explanation", it's beautifully simple and, by its very nature, needs no intelligence. There are no 'desired traits' in natural selection, just traits that happen to result in better chances of reproduction in the environment.
Darwin was criticised at the time, by MacKenzie, for a "strange inversion of reasoning" by suggesting that "Absolute Ignorance is the artificer". Even Darwin's critics seem to have grasped what you seem unable to.
Epigenetics is just a process, a mechanism. Mechanisms themselves need to be explained.
But intelligence, as if by magic, doesn't?
-
Darwin was not an atheist.
It's not the clearest thing in the world since he was a temperamentally reticent and retiring man who loathed contention, but certainly by the time he wrote his autobiography he said that disbelief in a God was "complete".
No doubt you'll come up with your own slippery, evasive, self-serving take on that so that Darwin didn't actually mean what Darwin said but what Sriram meant he thought he should have said. You'll be far from the first.
He probably didn't feel compelled to come up with convoluted explanations just to avoid some form of Intelligence. He understood Natural Selection in the same way he understood Artificial Selection....as a process by which desired traits were chosen.
Artificial selection by human beings desires traits. Natural selection doesn't desire anything. It can't.
-
Darwin was not an atheist. He probably didn't feel compelled to come up with convoluted explanations just to avoid some form of Intelligence. He understood Natural Selection in the same way he understood Artificial Selection....as a process by which desired traits were chosen.
Natural Selection is a process by which traits are 'chosen' by entirely natural means, not artificial, not purposeful. Maybe the words 'chosen' and 'selection' are vulnerable to being interpreted in a teleological way by people wishing to muddy the issue. But Natural Selection implies no teleology and we have no reason to think Darwin saw it that way either. Traits that are 'chosen' are those traits which happen to become beneficial in a changing wider environment, so it is the wider environment that fashions species over time. The environment is not sentient, it does not have desires.
-
A lot of the misunderstanding here is due to giving names to things that don't exist "Natural selection", and using anthropomorphic terms inappropriately, "chosen", "fittest", probably first used to explain evolution whilst protecting the sensibilities of of the naive. ( The "selfish gene", the "Blind Watchmaker" - really?)
Individuals either live or die. Those that live longer have longer in which to reproduce. The populations and the genetics we see now are a statistical outcome of billions of small events, reproduction and deaths, in the past. These populations are not "fitter", "better", or in any way an "advance" on what has gone before.
One day the current populations will have died and be of no further significance, as will their descendants in turn.
-
Natural Selection is a process by which traits are 'chosen' by entirely natural means, not artificial, not purposeful. Maybe the words 'chosen' and 'selection' are vulnerable to being interpreted in a teleological way by people wishing to muddy the issue. But Natural Selection implies no teleology and we have no reason to think Darwin saw it that way either. Traits that are 'chosen' are those traits which happen to become beneficial in a changing wider environment, so it is the wider environment that fashions species over time. The environment is not sentient, it does not have desires.
Precisely! The environment does not have desires. It is just chance occurrence. Environmental conditions change by chance.
Natural Selection (as interpreted by you people) is also therefore just a chance occurrence at a specific point of time. Under today's environmental situation, a particular organism/species may survive. Under tomorrow's environmental situation the same may perish. So, there is no law of Natural Selection or any predictability. It is just chance and not a real process at all. NS is therefore just a metaphor. There is no real selection going on! Whatever manages to survive is deemed to be selected....which is a post facto conclusion.
Coming back to the subject of Nature being intelligent....any intelligent intervention has to happen from within the organism. Genetic variations have to be such that complexity arises and the organism also adapts to the environment. This is the only way such complexity could have arisen. Random variations simply will not work.
-
Precisely! The environment does not have desires. It is just chance occurrence. Environmental conditions change by chance.
Natural Selection (as interpreted by you people) is also therefore just a chance occurrence at a specific point of time. Under today's environmental situation, a particular organism/species may survive. Under tomorrow's environmental situation the same may perish. So, there is no law of Natural Selection or any predictability. It is just chance and not a real process at all. NS is therefore just a metaphor. There is no real selection going on! Whatever manages to survive is deemed to be selected....which is a post facto conclusion.
OK, I could agree that the phrase "Natural Selection" is metaphorical to a degree, and maybe that causes confusion sometimes, The process of natural selection however is not a metaphor, it is a real phenomenon of nature, it is a real process whereby species diversify over time in tune with varying supply and demand of ecological niches and other varying environmental factors. Because it is the application of probability to ecological systems does not mean it is not a process.
-
Coming back to the subject of Nature being intelligent....any intelligent intervention has to happen from within the organism. Genetic variations have to be such that complexity arises and the organism also adapts to the environment. This is the only way such complexity could have arisen. Random variations simply will not work.
That is back to front thinking. There is no known mechanism in nature to procure mutations to order. That is not how it works, Mutations happen largely because of occasional copying errors in germ line cells; they don't happen because plants and animals are somehow intelligently trying to make a spread of copying errors so that hopefully some will benefit their descendants downstream. Complexity arises quite naturally within the bounds of possibility.
-
Epigenetics is just a process, a mechanism. Mechanisms themselves need to be explained. Saying that a car runs because of its engine does not in any way exclude intelligence behind it.
Stumbling around with simplistic analogies again. A natural process, such as epigenetics, or photosynthesis, does not require some purposeful intelligence behind it to make it work. That is what the 'natural' in the phrase 'natural process' implies.
-
OK, I could agree that the phrase "Natural Selection" is metaphorical to a degree, and maybe that causes confusion sometimes, The process of natural selection however is not a metaphor, it is a real phenomenon of nature, it is a real process whereby species diversify over time in tune with varying supply and demand of ecological niches and other varying environmental factors. Because it is the application of probability to ecological systems does not mean it is not a process.
I know that it is a real phenomenon. That environmental conditions determine what survives or dies, is a real phenomenon. I know that.
I am only disputing the idea that such chance occurrences due to which organisms and species survive or perish is claimed as some kind of a Natural Selection process. It isn't. The idea that something is 'selected' is metaphoric. It is purely environment dependent. At one end of a forest a particular bird or butterfly might perish and at the other end it might thrive. It is chance.
If anything determines complexity and change in physical features, it is genetic variation.
-
Stumbling around with simplistic analogies again. A natural process, such as epigenetics, or photosynthesis, does not require some purposeful intelligence behind it to make it work. That is what the 'natural' in the phrase 'natural process' implies.
You are not getting the point. Explaining the mechanism by which something happens is not the complete picture. That is 'how' something happens. That does not in any way exclude an Intelligence of whatever kind. The 'why' is still there.
-
You are not getting the point. Explaining the mechanism by which something happens is not the complete picture. That is 'how' something happens. That does not in any way exclude an Intelligence of whatever kind. The 'why' is still there.
Have you considered, Sriram, that 'why' might well be an invalid question in these circumstances, since it presumes that an answer to it is available?
-
That is back to front thinking. There is no known mechanism in nature to procure mutations to order. That is not how it works, Mutations happen largely because of occasional copying errors in germ line cells; they don't happen because plants and animals are somehow intelligently trying to make a spread of copying errors so that hopefully some will benefit their descendants downstream. Complexity arises quite naturally within the bounds of possibility.
That is just an assertion. You merely claim that mutations occur due to errors and random factors. You don't know that for a fact. Because you assume that there cannot be any kind of natural intelligence at work...it has to be random.
If I think that Nature is Intelligent.....then the same mutations and 'copying differences' can be attributed to that Intelligence because of which complexity arises. It is no different from human created products evolving and becoming more complex.
-
I am only disputing the idea that such chance occurrences due to which organisms and species survive or perish is claimed as some kind of a Natural Selection process. It isn't. The idea that something is 'selected' is metaphoric. It is purely environment dependent. At one end of a forest a particular bird or butterfly might perish and at the other end it might thrive. It is chance.
If anything determines complexity and change in physical features, it is genetic variation.
Yes but genetic variation is random and it's the environment that, quite literally, selects which variations spread through a population and which don't.
It's not a deliberate, intelligent selection but it is nevertheless a selection (it's even the biological definition [sense 2] (https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/selection) of the word).
-
Have you considered, Sriram, that 'why' might well be an invalid question in these circumstances, since it presumes that an answer to it is available?
Have you considered that it might be a valid question and if we look for it we might find it? I know that scientists shy away from such questions because of their 'God phobia' and prefer to treat them as invalid questions.....but that does not make it so.
-
If I think that Nature is Intelligent.....then the same mutations and 'copying differences' can be attributed to that Intelligence because of which complexity arises. It is no different from human created products evolving and becoming more complex.
Firstly, if it is due to an intelligence, considering the number of deleterious mutations, it must be rather incompetent.
Secondly, there is no evidence and no reason to assume an intelligence as it's unnecessary for the process to work. It's just (as far I can see) your wishful thinking.
-
That is just an assertion. You merely claim that mutations occur due to errors and random factors. You don't know that for a fact. Because you assume that there cannot be any kind of natural intelligence at work...it has to be random.
It is what all the evidence suggests. We don't live in a perfect world, so copying errors will will inevitably occur occasionally. What kind of intelligence would employ seemingly random errors ?
Do you think Europeans developed white skin because some sort of intelligent intervention was going on forcing bespoke mutations controlling skin pigmentation just in those individuals migrating north from Africa but not targeting people remaining in Rwanda or Botswana ?
-
You are not getting the point. Explaining the mechanism by which something happens is not the complete picture. That is 'how' something happens. That does not in any way exclude an Intelligence of whatever kind. The 'why' is still there.
Not all questions are valid. "Why did you stop beating your wife ?" for instance is a loaded question, carrying within it an implicit assumption about previous behaviours which might well be not valid.
So it is with your 'Why' question, it presupposes there is a wider context within which "Why" has validity. But that is just assumption, there is no evidential grounds for it.
-
Have you considered that it might be a valid question and if we look for it we might find it? I know that scientists shy away from such questions because of their 'God phobia' and prefer to treat them as invalid questions.....but that does not make it so.
So, 'why' are there rattlesnakes?
-
You could also ask...why there are guns? Why there are bombs? Why there are plastics? Why there are drugs? Why do planes crash? Why do products become obsolete? Why so much redundancy?
Yet, all these are products of Intelligence!
-
You could also ask...why there are guns? Why there are bombs? Why there are plastics? Why there are drugs? Why do planes crash? Why do products become obsolete? Why so much redundancy?
Yet, all these are products of Intelligence!
These are all artificial so in each case there is a 'how', which involves the manufacturing process, how reliable these things are and their sort and long-term usability, and a 'why', which is that people wanted these (for various reasons).
So, 'why' are there rattlesnakes remains unanswered and is essentially a different question, and one you seem to have avoided - so 'why'?.
-
Not all questions are valid. "Why did you stop beating your wife ?" for instance is a loaded question, carrying within it an implicit assumption about previous behaviours which might well be not valid.
So it is with your 'Why' question, it presupposes there is a wider context within which "Why" has validity. But that is just assumption, there is no evidential grounds for it.
But the easy comeback on that is where is your evidence that there is in fact no context.
Torridon thus reveals himself as the enemy of the quest for knowledge.
-
Explaining the mechanism by which something happens is not the complete picture. That is 'how' something happens. That does not in any way exclude an Intelligence of whatever kind. The 'why' is still there.
Actually, as Daniel Dennett has pointed out, evolution by natural selection explains the origin of "why" (in the "for what purpose" sense). In the natural world there generally isn't that sort of answer. If somebody were to ask why planets are (roughly) spherical, they wouldn't expect a "what for" answer, they'd be wanting a "how come" (a "process narrative").
However, if you ask why some animal has some particular trait, you can often identify a purpose (it has those markings for camouflage, sharp teeth for eating flesh, and so on). That's because natural selection is a design process (without the need for a designer). The process narrative is that the variations that resulted in the observed characteristics were generated randomly and selected because they were useful in the environment: those individuals who had the characteristic had an advantage and hence left more offspring than those without it.
Intelligent humans can now see that "rationale" for various characteristic and answer "why" (purpose) questions but there was no need for an intelligence in order for the 'design' to take place.
That's a real explanation which (IMO) is way more interesting and satisfying than baseless stories about nature being intelligent...
-
But the easy comeback on that is where is your evidence that there is in fact no context.
Torridon thus reveals himself as the enemy of the quest for knowledge.
Rather I'm an enemy of sloppy thinking, of superstition, of fake news. Best policy, look at the evidence and see where it leads. We do not start with unsubstantiated conjectures and work backwards to try to justify them.
-
But the easy comeback on that is where is your evidence that there is in fact no context.
Lugging the burden of proof around again... ::)
-
Rather I'm an enemy of sloppy thinking, of superstition, of fake news. Best policy, look at the evidence and see where it leads. We do not start with unsubstantiated conjectures and work backwards to try to justify them.
Evidence is precisely what we have for Intelligence. Complexity, Emergence, diversity, human Intelligence, order and stability, growth of culture and civilization....and much more.
Problem is that you tend to 'explain' all this through random variation and Natural Selection....as though it is in any way relevant. These if anything, are only mechanisms by which it has happened.
And you imagine that I am arguing against these processes...and in favor of some religious belief. That is the problem
Basically, I have no argument at all against any of the mechanisms that Science discovers. They are fine in their place.
But that is not enough. Mechanisms don't explain anything about the purpose. Arguing that there may not be any purpose at all or that the 'why' question is invalid, is a cop out. It amounts to shying away from deeper aspects of reality.
Arguments such as ...'There is evidence for evolution...so there need not be any Intelligence'....or.... ' We know the mechanism by which something happens, so there is no need for any intelligence'.... are not valid arguments. Evolution can happen due to Intelligent intervention, as it happens in human products.
-
Basically, I have no argument at all against any of the mechanisms that Science discovers. They are fine in their place.
But that is not enough. Mechanisms don't explain anything about the purpose. Arguing that there may not be any purpose at all or that the 'why' question is invalid, is a cop out. It amounts to shying away from deeper aspects of reality.
There you go again. Imagining there must be some 'purpose'when there is no evidence of purposefulness. You are starting with an unsubstantiated belief and mangling the science to try to make your belief seem a plausible explanation for the evidence. We should look to the evidence as our guide, and let it take us a far as the evidence deserves, not further into the realms of fantasy.
-
Evolution can happen due to Intelligent intervention, as it happens in human products.
You are conflating 'natural' and 'artificial'.
-
Evidence is precisely what we have for Intelligence. Complexity, Emergence, diversity, human Intelligence, order and stability, growth of culture and civilization....and much more.
Those simply aren't evidence of intelligence (other than human). You do understand what evidence is, don't you? Evidence for intelligence would be things for which there is no other explanation.
But that is not enough. Mechanisms don't explain anything about the purpose. Arguing that there may not be any purpose at all or that the 'why' question is invalid, is a cop out. It amounts to shying away from deeper aspects of reality.
It's shying away from evidence-free storytelling. You are simply assuming that there is purpose. Where is the evidence (or reasoning) that leads you to think that this purpose exists?
Arguments such as ...'There is evidence for evolution...so there need not be any Intelligence'....or.... ' We know the mechanism by which something happens, so there is no need for any intelligence'.... are not valid arguments.
They are perfectly valid argument that intelligence is not needed. It is up to those who think that an intelligence is involved to come up with some evidence to support their view.
Evolution can happen due to Intelligent intervention, as it happens in human products.
Yes, and all the examples of "evolution" by intelligence looks totally different from evolution by natural selection, which looks for all the world like it involves no intelligence. In fact, it explains the existence of intelligence and purpose.
-
There you go again. Imagining there must be some 'purpose'when there is no evidence of purposefulness. You are starting with an unsubstantiated belief and mangling the science to try to make your belief seem a plausible explanation for the evidence. We should look to the evidence as our guide, and let it take us a far as the evidence deserves, not further into the realms of fantasy.
If we see a direction in life...it is a sign of purpose. There is a clear direction in human evolution.To therefore look for a purpose is not imagination. It is a normal human endeavor.
You keep on asserting that there isn't any purpose...as if you actually KNOW it!
How does all this mangle science btw....?!
-
If we see a direction in life...it is a sign of purpose. There is a clear direction in human evolution.To therefore look for a purpose is not imagination. It is a normal human endeavor.
Something moving randomly has to end up going in some direction or another. What evidence (or reasoning) do you have that human evolution was a purposeful direction?
Bear in mind that there are so many variables involved that any direction evolution took would be enormously improbable.
-
The argument was about whether Intelligence can create Intelligence (torridon said that it is not possible).
Now that you agree that it can...that is all there is to it.
About all the other questions....there are no easy answers that anyone person can offer on a platter. It is a conjecture much like many other conjectures like Parallel Universes, String, Dark Energy etc.
Natural Selection (as you people define it) does not need any Intelligence because it is nothing more than a metaphor. Intelligence works through genetic variation and adaptations to specific environments.
I note that this post of yours Sriram, it seems to have taken note of post 140 on this thread, that post appears to have influenced your school of thought.
Regards ippy
-
A direction in life implies purpose? Most of the trees on the York moors bend over, because of prevailing winds. It's those bloody dryads, I tell you.
-
I am still unable to understand why everyone gets so offended if we believe that there is a purpose and direction to life!!! It is seen as a threat. A security issue. ::)
People get all their hackles up even if none of the scientific discoveries and theories are questioned.
-
I am still unable to understand why everyone gets so offended if we believe that there is a purpose and direction to life!!! It is seen as a threat. A security issue. ::)
People get all their hackles up even if none of the scientific discoveries and theories are questioned.
Nobody is offended.
People are pointing out the shoddy arguments used to shore up such a stance.
-
I am still unable to understand why everyone gets so offended if we believe that there is a purpose and direction to life!!! It is seen as a threat. A security issue. ::)
People get all their hackles up even if none of the scientific discoveries and theories are questioned.
Yes, Shaker is spot on, wading through all those pages of bad thinking and circular (il)logic again.
If humans never changed, you would be claiming that that proves that they were designed not to.
In fact, that was generally the view before widespread understanding of evolution.
-
I am still unable to understand why everyone gets so offended if we believe that there is a purpose and direction to life!!! It is seen as a threat. A security issue. ::)
People get all their hackles up even if none of the scientific discoveries and theories are questioned.
I see no sign of anyone being offended, Sriram. I do see people disagreeing with you and attempting to point out to you their perceived weaknesses in your arguments, as indeed, I have.. It seems to be you who puts some sort of emotional spin on this. Are you sure you aren't guilty of simply becoming frustrated and attempting to move that frustration onto others?
-
I am still unable to understand why everyone gets so offended if we believe that there is a purpose and direction to life!!! It is seen as a threat. A security issue. ::)
People get all their hackles up even if none of the scientific discoveries and theories are questioned.
Its not that which is the issue for me. Its when you say stuff like 'It amounts to shying away from deeper aspects of reality.' when people say there is no purpose. This, and other things, suggest you are a deeper thinker and somehow a superior thinker than those who see no purpose. Its the air of superiority you put across.
Its why I tend not to join in these discussions much anymore as don't want to feel like that.
-
I'm amused not offended. I used to have New Age friends, who would rhapsodize about the unseen intelligence in life, and the spirits who accompany us. What they call a bubble bath in Cockerney.
-
Additionally - as trite and shopworn as this is, as I fully acknowledge - the notion of purpose in life (rather than of life, which implies that there's a one-size-fits-all purpose for everyone alike) is a specific thing decided (or not) by the individual. Lives have proximate meanings, AFAIC; this meaning of my life decided by me based on what I value. To look for an ultimate meaning of all life - life in general - is to chase a fantasy, as I see it.
Is life supposed to have a "direction"? Why? Does it need one? I tend to bumble around doing stuff and have managed more or less happily so far. I'm suspicious of these notions of over-arching purpose and direction.
-
Yes, and then you always get someone who will tell you what the direction is. No thanks.
-
Yes, and then you always get someone who will tell you what the direction is. No thanks.
Ah, just you wait and see! Wormwood is on its way! You have been warned!
-
I am still unable to understand why everyone gets so offended if we believe that there is a purpose and direction to life!!! It is seen as a threat. A security issue. ::)
primeeven if none of the scientific discoveries and theories are questioned.
We've had far too many years of superstition based religious nonsense fed to us and now we no longer fear being burnt at the stake or hung drawn and quartered etc, we're not going to take it sitting down any more and then you say you're wondering why, 'People get all their hackles up'?
Why even educational standards are rising all over the world, have you seen the classic film 'The Wizard of Oz', the scene near to the end of the film where the curtain is lifted, if you haven't seen the film maybe it's time you did, an enlightening moment.
My biggest bone with any religion is where it's taught as fact to children and any remaining religious believers are just a bunch of lost causes, not a lot you can do with them save the odd one here and there.
Regards ippy.
-
Yes, and then you always get someone who will tell you what the direction is. No thanks.
Yes, they always claim to know on your behalf, don't they? No, sorry - this is my life I'm talking about here, not yours.
-
I'd just like to add that I have no plans to die: it isn't for me, and over the years I've accrued a humongous pile of nothing to work my way through - and I've hardly made a dent in it!
-
Additionally - as trite and shopworn as this is, as I fully acknowledge - the notion of purpose in life (rather than of life, which implies that there's a one-size-fits-all purpose for everyone alike) is a specific thing decided (or not) by the individual. Lives have proximate meanings, AFAIC; this meaning of my life decided by me based on what I value. To look for an ultimate meaning of all life - life in general - is to chase a fantasy, as I see it.
Is life supposed to have a "direction"? Why? Does it need one? I tend to bumble around doing stuff and have managed more or less happily so far. I'm suspicious of these notions of over-arching purpose and direction.
Them's my sentiments. Always hated that question you used to get asked at job interviews ; "Where do you see yourself in 5 years time?"
Well, 1. I don't even know where I see myself tomorrow; and 2. You are already anxious to get rid of me?
-
Them's my sentiments. Always hated that question you used to get asked at job interviews ; "Where do you see yourself in 5 years time?"
There is no depth of loathing low enough to express how much I loathe these interview-type questions. Five years' time? How the fuck do I know? Perhaps by then I'll have got the money together for the gender transition and I'll be living in Uttoxeter called Barbara. How do I know?
-
There is no depth of loathing low enough to express how much I loathe these interview-type questions. Five years' time? How the fuck do I know? Perhaps by then I'll have got the money together for the gender transition and I'll be living in Uttoxeter called Barbara. How do I know?
Uttoxeter?
Regards ippy
-
torridon,
In post 124 you have agreed that there could be a possible philosophical argument for Nature itself being Intelligent. You have also conceded that Natural Selection could be seen as metaphorical. We have also argued that Intelligence could create Intelligence.
I only hope that future discussions will take into account this wisdom instead of going back and forth on the same issues.
Cheers.
Sriram
-
torridon,
In post 124 you have agreed that there could be a possible philosophical argument for Nature itself being Intelligent. You have also conceded that Natural Selection could be seen as metaphorical. We have also argued that Intelligence could create Intelligence.
I only hope that future discussions will take into account this wisdom instead of going back and forth on the same issues.
Cheers.
Sriram
Just to be clear on that, the phrase "Natural Selection" could be seen as metaphorical, yes; the phrase describes a real world phenomenon of Nature in metaphorical language. Nature doesn't actually do any selecting in the normal everyday sense of the word "select" which implies a conscious choice from available options. So if I say Natural Selection is a metaphor, that is a comment on language and its flexibility and ambiguity; it is not a comment on the nature of fundamental reality.
-
Just to be clear on that, the phrase "Natural Selection" could be seen as metaphorical, yes; the phrase describes a real world phenomenon of Nature in metaphorical language. Nature doesn't actually do any selecting in the normal everyday sense of the word "select" which implies a conscious choice from available options. So if I say Natural Selection is a metaphor, that is a comment on language and its flexibility and ambiguity; it is not a comment on the nature of fundamental reality.
Yeah,...I have already discussed that.
The issue is not just about a word here and there. It is about the way in which the term Natural Selection is used as though it is a well defined process (like a quality control or manufacturing process, for example) through which complexity increases.
NS is a chance environmental influence. It could go one way or the other...and no direction or outcome can be defined in advance.
Genetic variation on the other hand, is where adaptations can happen. So, if Nature is Intelligent, and works through DNA, its effects can be seen in genetic variations which lead to emergent properties, further leading to complexity and human development.
-
The issue is not just about a word here and there. It is about the way in which the term Natural Selection is used as though it is a well defined process (like a quality control or manufacturing process, for example) through which complexity increases.
It is a well defined process and it is rather like quality control. All genetic variations are (by virtue of being instantiated in an individual organism) placed into the environment and if they perform well (reproduce more than others) then the variation spreads through the population.
It isn't complexity that increases, it's fitness (suitability for the environment). That might mean more or less complexity.
NS is a chance environmental influence. It could go one way or the other...and no direction or outcome can be defined in advance.
The direction is towards increased fitness for the environment - the population become better adapted to its environment.
Genetic variation on the other hand, is where adaptations can happen.
An adaptation is just a random variation that happens to work well in the environment and is therefore 'selected'. That's what the process of natural selection does: it selects adaptations from random variations.
So, if Nature is Intelligent, and works through DNA, its effects can be seen in genetic variations which lead to emergent properties, further leading to complexity and human development.
Evidence? Reasoning?
-
.
Genetic variation on the other hand, is where adaptations can happen. So, if Nature is Intelligent, and works through DNA, its effects can be seen in genetic variations which lead to emergent properties, further leading to complexity and human development.
Complexity increases in the short term in defiance of the entropy gradient with the overall result that life emerges from lower levels of complexity (where local conditions favour it) and intelligence evolves from life (where local conditions favour it), but seen in the big picture these are fleeting exotic phenomena within the grander arch of thermodynamic law which eventually extinguishes all life.
We don't have any evidence for particular cell mutations being 'intelligent'. Could we say that Nature is in some sense intelligent because the fundamentals of reality allow for intelligence to arise. Similarly could we say that the Universe is in some way sentient because the fundamentals of reality allow for consciousness to arise. Here you are into realms where empiricism is of no use and in the absence of data the whole debate risks descending into self important undergraduate waffle.
-
Complexity increases in the short term in defiance of the entropy gradient with the overall result that life emerges from lower levels of complexity (where local conditions favour it) and intelligence evolves from life (where local conditions favour it), but seen in the big picture these are fleeting exotic phenomena within the grander arch of thermodynamic law which eventually extinguishes all life.
We don't have any evidence for particular cell mutations being 'intelligent'. Could we say that Nature is in some sense intelligent because the fundamentals of reality allow for intelligence to arise. Similarly could we say that the Universe is in some way sentient because the fundamentals of reality allow for consciousness to arise. Here you are into realms where empiricism is of no use and in the absence of data the whole debate risks descending into self important undergraduate waffle.
Forget for the moment that Intelligence has arisen through evolution. That seems to be occupying your mind.
Imagine that human Intelligence has not arisen at all and that we are still one million years before present. We can still see many forms of intelligent adaptations and survival strategies that enable species to survive. These happen due to genetic variations that are guided by some form of Natural Intelligence.....such that in spite of adverse environmental factors organisms manage to survive.
That is what I am talking about.
-
That sounds like the old and discredited argument, that because there is order in the universe, therefore there is an Orderer. It doesn't follow.
-
And...who discredited it precisely??!! You??!! ::)
-
Imagine that human Intelligence has not arisen at all and that we are still one million years before present. We can still see many forms of intelligent adaptations and survival strategies that enable species to survive. These happen due to genetic variations that are guided by some form of Natural Intelligence.....such that in spite of adverse environmental factors organisms manage to survive.
That is what I am talking about.
It's a nice little story but there is no evidence for it. Natural selection acting on random variation is quite sufficient to explain what you refer to as "intelligent adaptations and survival strategies".
The theory of evolution is one of the greatest and most far-reaching insights in all of science and you seem to have missed the point entirely...
-
And...who discredited it precisely??!! You??!! ::)
It's the hackneyed old teleological argument, as beloved by silly creationists who re-label it as 'intelligent design' or 'creation science', Sriram. It has been discredited many times over the centuries, such as by David Hume.
-
The theory of evolution is one of the greatest and most far-reaching insights in all of science and you seem to have missed the point entirely...
Quite.
-
Imagine that human Intelligence has not arisen at all and that we are still one million years before present. We can still see many forms of intelligent adaptations and survival strategies that enable species to survive. These happen due to genetic variations that are guided by some form of Natural Intelligence.....such that in spite of adverse environmental factors organisms manage to survive.
There's no evidence for individual mutations being 'guided'; no evidence for mutations happening due to some extraneous intervention. Maybe there is a relation between complexity and scarcity so the best we can say is that the laws of probabilty are such that life/intelligence/consciousness must occur within certain distribution and probability limits and as we discover the incidence and complexity of life throughout the universe we will be able to put numbers on that relation.
-
And...who discredited it precisely??!! You??!! ::)
Well, is there any cogent argument for design? There are pure assertions, it is so, because I say so, and various God of the gaps arguments, which are also empty. Anything else?
-
It's the hackneyed old teleological argument, as beloved by silly creationists who re-label it as 'intelligent design' or 'creation science', Sriram. It has been discredited many times over the centuries, such as by David Hume.
Ah yes, David Hume who famously and apparently discredited the idea of a creator by positing a stone appearing out of nowhere ......while foolishly omitting to say how we would ever know that it didn't come from somewhere.
Still Hume has provided atheists with warm piddle to the ears and I'm sure there are even those who love him out of a narrow nationalism.
-
Ah yes, David Hume who famously and apparently discredited the idea of a creator by positing a stone appearing out of nowhere ......while foolishly omitting to say how we would ever know that it didn't come from somewhere.
Still Hume has provided atheists with warm piddle to the ears and I'm sure there are even those who love him out of a narrow nationalism.
I was going to mention Dawkins, Vlad, but I suspected that might be too stressful for you this early in the day.
Oops!
-
Well, is there any cogent argument for design? There are pure assertions, it is so, because I say so, and various God of the gaps arguments, which are also empty. Anything else?
Although there has been a bit of a neo teleological revival with the idea of simulated universes by folks such as Greene, Bostrom, Musk and perhaps most famously Neil de Grasse Tyson so how one can say it has been thoroughly discredited.
-
I was going to mention Dawkins, Vlad, but I suspected that might be too stressful for you this early in the day.
Oops!
If you were that concerned about my stress levels you would have refrained from posting at all.
-
Although there has been a bit of a neo teleological revival with the idea of simulated universes by folks such as Greene, Bostrom, Musk and perhaps most famously Neil de Grasse Tyson so how one can say it has been thoroughly discredited.
So you are saying that these people are arguing for theism?
-
Although there has been a bit of a neo teleological revival with the idea of simulated universes by folks such as Greene, Bostrom, Musk and perhaps most famously Neil de Grasse Tyson so how one can say it has been thoroughly discredited.
.-'---`-.
,' `.
| \
| \
\ _ \
,\ _ ,'-,/-)\
( * \ \,' ,' ,'-)
`._,) -',-')
\/ ''/
) / /
/ ,'-'
-
Nice ;)
-
So you are saying that these people are arguing for theism?
They may not be doing so intentionally but they are making a teleological point which theists have been making for centuries.
To put it another way, the theistic elements they might dismiss would not add up to a dismissal of theism.
PZ Myers would accept that what they are saying is an argument from design based on the ability to do it.
-
They may not be doing so intentionally but they are making a teleological point which theists have been making for centuries.
To put it another way, the theistic elements they might dismiss would not add up to a dismissal of theism.
PZ Myers would accept that what they are saying is an argument from design based on the ability to do it.
That sounds like Sriram, who seems to say that because humans can make things, therefore we were made. I can't see how an argument about intelligent aliens is any different. Aliens are not supernatural.
-
Nice ;)
This forum badly needs a facepalm emoji...
-
That sounds like Sriram, who seems to say that because humans can make things, therefore we were made. I can't see how an argument about intelligent aliens is any different. Aliens are not supernatural.
Well, I would say you are wrong as per normal since I with the great NDG Tyson, N Bostrom et al are saying our universe could have been made.....not have been made.....and I am sure they will have put good odds on that.
I don't trust you and your ilk with any description of supernatural or, for that matter natural extra terrestrials may not be supernatural. You cannot say the same for extra universals who by definition are beyond nature.
It seems that rank and file antitheists have yet to catch up with....well just about everyone.
-
This forum badly needs a facepalm emoji...
You guys certainly need a way to streamline your volumous non arguments ha ha.
-
It seems that rank and file antitheists have yet to catch up with....well just about everyone.
Just keep telling yourself that. Your desperate straw-clutching and promiscuous attitude to concepts of 'god(s)' regarding this issue have been done to death. I have no idea why you keep bringing it up, you just make a fool of yourself...
-
Just keep telling yourself that. Your desperate straw-clutching and promiscuous attitude to concepts of 'god(s)' regarding this issue have been done to death. I have no idea why you keep bringing it up, you just make a fool of yourself...
Keep redefining the meaning of the word natural and supernatural to serve atheism. You have been particularly active in this field since NDG Tysons suggestion.
As I have said, if you accept the reasonableness of simulated universe.....any antitheism remaining does not amount to effective anti theism.
The only one of your ilk to realise the threat of statements to antitheism is PZ Myers.
Your attempts to eliminate the idea of an intelligent creator of the universe who is not part of it from its centuries old place in the stock of theology is pitiable.
-
Vlad, who are you calling an anti-theist?
-
Vlad, who are you calling an anti-theist?
Whosoeverthe cap fits.
-
Vlad, who are you calling an anti-theist?
Just about everybody else, apparently.
-
Whosoeverthe cap fits.
Stop trolling.
-
There is no depth of loathing low enough to express how much I loathe these interview-type questions. Five years' time? How the fuck do I know? Perhaps by then I'll have got the money together for the gender transition and I'll be living in Uttoxeter called Barbara. How do I know?
Lorksalorky, I'm right with you on this one. It seemed to get trotted out to whatever menial job interview I went to in the '90s, when I was very down at heel. I wish I'd had the courage to say:" Haven't a bloody clue; I just want a fucking job to earn some fucking money!"
-
I don't trust you and your ilk with any description of supernatural or, for that matter natural extra terrestrials may not be supernatural. You cannot say the same for extra universals who by definition are beyond nature.
It seems that rank and file antitheists have yet to catch up with....well just about everyone.
Not sure what wiggi's 'ilk' is supposed to be, other than, in this case, a casual instance of your supercilious generalisations. Nor do I know what you mean by "extra universals". Are you talking about Platonic Forms? Or simply whatever may be 'beyond the universe' (which by nature we can't know anything about anyway)? No one has got beyond Thomas Henry Huxley on this matter.
Even if 'aliens' came from another dimension (as has been suggested by certain NewAge enthusiasts) it would still not make them 'supernatural'. Can you provide all of us with a working definition (my ilk and any other ilk, that is, including the theistic ilks).
-
Actually...how would we differentiate between extra terrestrial beings and so called 'supernatural' beings.....since both of them may not follow 'Natural' laws, as we understand them?!
-
Actually...how would we differentiate between extra terrestrial beings and so called 'supernatural' beings.....since both of them may not follow 'Natural' laws, as we understand them?!
Agreed. They would be both beyond nature I.e. Out of its remit and above it having created it and of course there is the question of alienness. Is a work of art alien to the artist?
By ignoring plain meanings the ball is in Dicky's court.
-
Actually...how would we differentiate between extra terrestrial beings and so called 'supernatural' beings.....since both of them may not follow 'Natural' laws, as we understand them?!
Why wouldn't extraterrestrials follow the laws of physics? This seems a rather threadbare attempt to crowbar the supernatural into your "argument." (But then, it always is). ET beings may well have a different biochemical basis but they would still be built out of the same sort of 'stuff' of the universe that we're familiar with and thus subject to the same laws.
-
Why wouldn't extraterrestrials follow the laws of physics? This seems a rather threadbare attempt to crowbar the supernatural into your "argument." (But then, it always is). ET beings may well have a different biochemical basis but they would still be built out of the same sort of 'stuff' of the universe that we're familiar with and thus subject to the same laws.
If an intelligent creator who is beyond the universe and not part of it.......is natural you should be able to direct us to it since all natural things can be observed or investigated.
You don't seem focussed on the conversation.
If a being is beyond and above nature then it's definitionally supernatural and if it is beyond the universe we cannot guarantee that it is subject to what we know as the laws of physics.
-
If an intelligent creator who is beyond the universe and not part of it.......is natural you should be able to direct us to it since all natural things can be observed or investigated.
You don't seem focussed on the conversation.
If a being is beyond and above nature then it's definitionally supernatural and if it is beyond the universe we cannot guarantee that it is subject to what we know as the laws of physics.
1. Something that is 'beyond' the universe would also be beyond knowing, beyond understanding, beyond all evidence; if it is impossible to detect such a thing how can we justify the contention that it exists ?
2. The properties "intelligent" and "creator", suggest this 'being' is in fact subject to natural laws anyway.
Something of having a cake and eating it going on here.
-
If an intelligent creator who is beyond the universe and not part of it.......is natural you should be able to direct us to it since all natural things can be observed or investigated.
You don't seem focussed on the conversation.
If a being is beyond and above nature then it's definitionally supernatural and if it is beyond the universe we cannot guarantee that it is subject to what we know as the laws of physics.
Who mentioned a supernatural intelligent creator? Not me - you. I have no need of that hypothesis. I responded to the absurd point about extraterrestrials being supernatural and creating nature, which is arrant twaddle. (#244: "[extraterrestrials would be] beyond nature I.e. Out of its remit and above it having created it" - desperate stuff indeed. Do you even know what extraterrestrial actually means? Not on this showing, you don't.).
Seems like it's you who needs to focus on the conversation.
-
1. Something that is 'beyond' the universe would also be beyond knowing, beyond understanding, beyond all evidence; if it is impossible to detect such a thing how can we justify the contention that it exists ?
2. The properties "intelligent" and "creator", suggest this 'being' is in fact subject to natural laws anyway.
Something of having a cake and eating it going on here.
Well...something that is beyond this universe would be beyond our understanding.....ok. That is how people normally define God in any case.
But why should it be subject to natural laws?
-
Actually...how would we differentiate between extra terrestrial beings and so called 'supernatural' beings.....since both of them may not follow 'Natural' laws, as we understand them?!
When I say 'extraterrestrial' it could also include beings from another parallel universe......not necessarily another planet only.
-
Well...something that is beyond this universe would be beyond our understanding.....ok. That is how people normally define God in any case.
No they don't. They seem to think that they have some privileged back-stage pass such that they want us to think they know what this unknowable being wants/demands/expects of humanity. That's not unknowable.
-
Well...something that is beyond this universe would be beyond our understanding.....ok. That is how people normally define God in any case.
But why should it be subject to natural laws?
Claiming the unknowable being is intelligent is contradicting the claim that it is unknowable. How could we know anything about anything that is definitionally unknowable.
Cake/Eating.
-
Claiming the unknowable being is intelligent is contradicting the claim that it is unknowable. How could we know anything about anything that is definitionally unknowable.
Cake/Eating.
You are being quite silly. Postulating that Dark Energy could be driving galaxies apart is not the same as understanding it.
-
You are being quite silly. Postulating that Dark Energy could be driving galaxies apart is not the same as understanding it.
Not the same. "Dark Energy" is an observable phenomenon within the known universe. An intelligent creator beyond the universe is definitionally unknowable, so how could we know it is intelligent.
-
Not the same. "Dark Energy" is an observable phenomenon within the known universe. An intelligent creator beyond the universe is definitionally unknowable, so how could we know it is intelligent.
Ah but Bostrom, one of the authors of the simulated universe theory has proposed the creator would reveal itself and message the universe it had created. After all, there are such things as avatars even in computer simulations......avatars.......which kind of brings us back to the parallels with religion.
Certainly there is a long tradition in western theology that we can only know God through revelation.
So there we have it ...........avatars and revelation.
Meanwhile back in the unintentionally religious theories of Bostrom et al Bostrom even has a thesis on why the creator giving signs to the created might have those signs misinterpreted and ignored.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simulated_reality
-
Meanwhile back in the unintentionally religious theories of Bostrom et al Bostrom even has a thesis on why the creator giving signs to the created might have those signs misinterpreted and ignored.
It's a pretty dodgy speculation (not a theory) and any connection to religion is in the eyes of seriously desperate theists who don't think about it.
::)
-
It's a pretty dodgy speculation (not a theory) and any connection to religion is in the eyes of seriously desperate theists who don't think about it.
The desperation is all yours leading to extreme actions resulting in philosophical and intellectual suicide on your part.
Namely effectively arguing that the proposal of an external intelligent creator external and independent of its universe is magically different from the same proposal made by Greene, Bostrom, NDG Tyson etc.
Thinking erroneously that the universe of the creator must operate in the same way as ours does.
There is no guarantee of that I'm afraid.
Thirdly what warrant have you to rule out parallels.
To say that an intelligent creator of a universe who is independent for existence of the universe it creates is in no ways the same as saying an intelligent creator of a universe who is independent for existence of the universe it creates is the height of denial.
-
It's a pretty dodgy speculation (not a theory) and any connection to religion is in the eyes of seriously desperate theists who don't think about it.
::)
Prove its dodgy and demonstrate that no thought has gone into it.
What about PZ Myers and The philosopher Chalmers who do see obvious parallels.
-
The desperation is all yours..
-YAWN-
Thinking erroneously that the universe of the creator must operate in the same way as ours does.
I never said any such thing.
Thirdly what warrant have you to rule out parallels.
I didn't say that there aren't parallels, what I said was they are fundamentally different speculations based on entirely different assumptions.
If you can't see that then I can only conclude that you're desperate, promiscuous with your idea of god, haven't thought about, or are to dim to understand or some combination of those things.
-
-YAWN-
I never said any such thing.
I didn't say that there aren't parallels, what I said was they are fundamentally different speculations based on entirely different assumptions.
If you can't see that then I can only conclude that you're desperate, promiscuous with your idea of god, haven't thought about, or are to dim to understand or some combination of those things.
Promiscuous?
I suppose you are now going to claim that I borrowed the idea of an intelligent creator who is independent for its existence from the universe it created from science..........ha ha ha.
My admiration for you has dropped since it turns out you are just a replacement antitheist spin doctor bidding us to do extreme denial it's intellectual gyrations.
-
I didn't say that there aren't parallels, what I said was they are fundamentally different speculations based on entirely different assumptions
Let's see.
An intelligent creator of a universe who,s existence is independent of that universe.
Against.
An intelligent creator of a universe who,s existence is independent of that universe.
No difference.
-
What about PZ Myers and The philosopher Chambers who do see obvious parallels.
As we discussed at great length before, the parallel Myers saw was that they were both hopeless arguments.
Promiscuous?
I suppose you are now going to claim that I borrowed the idea of an intelligent creator who is independent for its existence from the universe it created from science..........ha ha ha.
On the one hand you are desperate to co-opt the simulated universe science fiction story about beings using technology to run simulations in a universe that is at least as much like ours for the base assumptions to work, as being about god(s). And on the other, you offered Feser's contrived nonsense about the base of the hierarchy of existence.
They are both hopeless arguments but the 'gods' they argue for couldn't be more different.
I didn't say that there aren't parallels, what I said was they are fundamentally different speculations based on entirely different assumptions.
Let's see.
An intelligent creator of a universe who,s existence is independent of that universe.
Against.
An intelligent creator of a universe who,s existence is independent of that universe.
No difference.
So long as you miss out absolutly everything about both of them except the parallel. ::)
We've done this all before and it was boring then - have you thought of anything new to say or are you just going to blindly repeat the same drivel over and over...?
-
As we discussed at great length before, the parallel Myers saw was that they were both hopeless arguments.
On the one hand you are desperate to co-opt the simulated universe science fiction story about beings using technology to run simulations in a universe that is at least as much like ours for the base assumptions to work, as being about god(s). And on the other, you offered Feser's contrived nonsense about the base of the hierarchy of existence.
They are both hopeless arguments but the 'gods' they argue for couldn't be more different.
Let's see.
An intelligent creator of a universe who,s existence is independent of that universe.
Against.
An intelligent creator of a universe who,s existence is independent of that universe.
No difference.
So long as you miss out absolutly everything about both of them except the parallel. ::)
We've done this all before and it was boring then - have you thought of anything new to say or are you just going to blindly repeat the same drivel over and over...?
Your downfall is allowing characteristics for a natural intelligent creator.....an absurd contradictory idea since the creator is existentially independent of its creator......and disallowing them for anything which doesn't fit your limited philosophical position or conceptions in an act which is the mother and father of special pleading.
When talking of something outside the universe you don't have the luxury of guaranteeing it is natural, evolved, or whether it can't communicate with us through avatar, or whether it's interventions don't look miraculous.
The genii is out of the bottle I'm afraid
-
We've done this all before and it was boring then - have you thought of anything new to say or are you just going to blindly repeat the same drivel over and over...?
Your downfall is allowing characteristics for a natural intelligent creator.....an absurd contradictory idea since the creator is existentially independent of its creator......and disallowing them for anything which doesn't fit your limited philosophical position or conceptions in an act which is the mother and father of special pleading.
When talking of something outside the universe you don't have the luxury of guaranteeing it is natural, evolved, or whether it can't communicate with us through avatar, or whether it's interventions don't look miraculous.
The genii is out of the bottle I'm afraid
Nope - same old drivel with a large side helping of misrepresentation...
-
And another thing earlier you seemed to me to remark that simulated universes were a dodgy idea. How do you square that with your sympathy with Tegmark?
-
Claiming the unknowable being is intelligent is contradicting the claim that it is unknowable. How could we know anything about anything that is definitionally unknowable.
Cake/Eating.
I remember going past an advertising poster a few years back when I was on my way to doing some work in London, the poster was advertising a film titled 'The Unknown', I can remember thinking to myself how would anyone know they wanted to make this film and strictly speaking none of this should exist, the poster, the film?
ippy
-
There is no depth of loathing low enough to express how much I loathe these interview-type questions. Five years' time? How the fuck do I know? Perhaps by then I'll have got the money together for the gender transition and I'll be living in Uttoxeter called Barbara. How do I know?
How about answering "working for a company that doesn't ask fucking stupid questions in interviews"?
-
How about answering "working for a company that doesn't ask fucking stupid questions in interviews"?
Yep,that would do it.