Imposing their views

[Free Willy]

Humans aren't made of dust, so that's a fail.

I think dust is the closest a bronze age writer would have come to a molecule.

Weirdly I recall something about nucleic acids in prebiotic times
Forming on a matrix of clay particles.

[Free Willy]

But if we assume it is not, then we can never know what it is or how it works.

Can't argue with that but you say we are trying to find out how it works...I think there is a deeper problem of defining what it actually is. That brings us to the problem of observing consciousness and the knotty problem of discriminating between intelligence and consciousness

It seems to me that it would be much more interesting to assume the explanation of consciousness is within the reach of science and, so far, I have seen no evidence that it is not.

Not until we have discriminated between electrical impulse and intelligence and consciousness

Not if it turns out that consciousness is amenable to being explained by science. It's not as if religion has anything helpful to say on the matter.

I don't think I've mentioned religion in the context of consciousness. I've argued that secular humanism is a religion and New atheism is and New atheism has a large scientism component. The assumption that we need more science to fully understand consciousness is, given what we don't know, a statement of faith.

I don't think the discovery that consciousness was a mere mechanism would impact theistic religion anywhere near as much as the impenetrability of consciousness would affect your faith in science.

[ProfessorDavey]

I think dust is the closest a bronze age writer would have come to a molecule.

Then they were massively wrong, given that dust particles are thousands of times larger than molecules and indeed are made up of millions of molecules.

[Free Willy]

Then they were massively wrong, given that dust particles are thousands of times larger than molecules and indeed are made up of millions of molecules.

If I was a practically minded and earthed and grounded
Jewish person of the time I might have come up with the smallest practice piece of lifeless matter I had empirical evidence for so that the reader could grasp what I was speaking about. Without going into atomic theory.

[ProfessorDavey]

If I was a practically minded and earthed and grounded
Jewish person of the time I might have come up with the smallest practice piece of lifeless matter I had empirical evidence for so that the reader could grasp what I was speaking about. Without going into atomic theory.

Sure, but they were wrong.

Just as people years ago who thought the sun went round the earth rather than the other way around were wrong.

Just as people who thought (and some still think) that all the species they could see were created individually by god rather than arose by evolution were wrong.

It isn't being ignorant when there is an excuse that is the issue. It is the continuation to perpetuate ignorance. Firstly by failing to be inquisitive and challenge their preconceptions by incorporating ignorance into dogma. Secondly by refusing to listen to or accept the truth, supported by evidence. Thirdly by actively persecuting those who are actually telling the truth, based on evidence, because they feel it undermines their dogma.

Being ignorant is one thing, being wilfully ignorant another, being actively anti-truth something else again. Religions, over history, have placed themselves firmly in stages two and three - that's the issue.

[Free Willy]

Sure, but they were wrong.

Just as people years ago who thought the sun went round the earth rather than the other way around were wrong.

Just as people who thought (and some still think) that all the species they could see were created individually by god rather than arose by evolution were wrong.

It isn't being ignorant when there is an excuse that is the issue. It is the continuation to perpetuate ignorance. Firstly by failing to be inquisitive and challenge their preconceptions by incorporating ignorance into dogma. Secondly by refusing to listen to or accept the truth, supported by evidence. Thirdly by actively persecuting those who are actually telling the truth, based on evidence, because they feel it undermines their dogma.

Being ignorant is one thing, being wilfully ignorant another, being actively anti-truth something else again. Religions, over history, have placed themselves firmly in stages two and three - that's the issue.

I even think a poet of today would use the term dust to convey our reducibility to mere lifeless particles which was the metaphorical intent of the original author.
What you seem to be doing here is reviving the old religion as failed science tosh.

Let us then bring the phrase up to secular humanist standards So dust to dust Ashes to Ashes becomes Atoms to Atoms, molecule to molecule. I can see how a secular humanist or anyone may be moved by that and how that might enoble that dead person but I don’t think that is the intent of the authors who wished to convey that basically this, in one sense, is all we are ‘Raised material’. Harsh, but it is the life that emerged out of the lifeless that we celebrate.

[jeremyp]

I even think a poet of today would use the term dust to convey our reducibility to mere lifeless particles which was the metaphorical intent of the original author.
What you seem to be doing here is reviving the old religion as failed science tosh.

Let us then bring the phrase up to secular humanist standards So dust to dust Ashes to Ashes becomes Atoms to Atoms, molecule to molecule. I can see how a secular humanist or anyone may be moved by that and how that might enoble that dead person but I don’t think that is the intent of the authors who wished to convey that basically this, in one sense, is all we are ‘Raised material’. Harsh, but it is the life that emerged out of the lifeless that we celebrate.

It's not about being moved, it's about understanding how reality is. If you don't find the real world poetic, tough luck. Reality doesn't care about your feelings.

[ProfessorDavey]

I even think a poet of today would use the term dust to convey our reducibility to mere lifeless particles which was the metaphorical intent of the original author.

Only if they'd been brought up in a socio-cultural judaeo-christian society. If not I doubt very much they use that metaphor.

But you seem to have completely ignored my point - which was that it is one thing to be ignorant, because there isn't a better understanding. Quite another to remain wilfully ignorant when better understand is available. Even worse to deliberately try to frustrate, or worse still persecute, those that are trying to find the truth on the basis that the truth doesn't accord with dogma.

[Free Willy]

Only if they'd been brought up in a socio-cultural judaeo-christian society. If not I doubt very much they use that metaphor.

But you seem to have completely ignored my point - which was that it is one thing to be ignorant, because there isn't a better understanding. Quite another to remain wilfully ignorant when better understand is available. Even worse to deliberately try to frustrate, or worse still persecute, those that are trying to find the truth on the basis that the truth doesn't accord with dogma.

Scientific understanding as far as I can see is irrelevant for a funeral service or to express one's feelings of death as a metaphor so it is you who has gone off at a tangent with a non sequitur about being ignorant of the science.

Nobody is arguing against it being wrong to remain ignorant. Anyway to indulge you, where do you think the ignorance exists in the good old english church funeral service?......And aren't you mistaking metaphor for literalism(yyyyeeeeesss)?

My point is that the secular Humanist given to scientism imbues a kind of nobility to being composed of atoms no more so in the use of that surrupticious bit of woo often inserted  around the saying '' We are starstuff!''.

[Free Willy]

It's not about being moved, it's about understanding how reality is. If you don't find the real world poetic,

Question...where does the poetry come? Answer... not atoms, science or empiricism....In other words it comes from human spirituality ............ tough luck.

[Gordon]

Question...where does the poetry come? Answer... not atoms, science or empiricism....In other words it comes from human spirituality ............ tough luck.

It comes from active biology, which includes lots of wee atoms.

You seem to have stumbled into the fallacy of division

[Free Willy]

It comes from active biology, which includes lots of wee atoms.

You seem to have stumbled into the fallacy of division

Oh yes? what is it that is being divided?
Atoms have been observed and contain no poetry Gordon, so we are entitled to ask where it is located and how much that location contains.

How much poetry does say 1 mole of uranium contain as opposed to 1 mole of sodium. How much poetry do you contain Gordon and is it a property of your atoms?

Jeremy IMHO seems to think poetry is real since there is poetry in real things, see his post. Again if poetry is real.... where is it?

[jeremyp]

Question...where does the poetry come? Answer... not atoms, science or empiricism....In other words it comes from human spirituality ............ tough luck.

Can you show that human spirituality derives from anything outside of reality?

[jeremyp]

Oh yes? what is it that is being divided?
Atoms have been observed and contain no poetry Gordon, so we are entitled to ask where it is located and how much that location contains.

How much poetry does say 1 mole of uranium contain as opposed to 1 mole of sodium. How much poetry do you contain Gordon and is it a property of your atoms?

Jeremy IMHO seems to think poetry is real since there is poetry in real things, see his post. Again if poetry is real.... where is it?

Why on earth would you assume that a thing having a property means that all its constituent parts have the same property? That's a rather stupid view of the World.

[Free Willy]

Why on earth would you assume that a thing having a property means that all its constituent parts have the same property? That's a rather stupid view of the World.

I'm sorry, but what is this thing am I suppose to be assuming?

It seems Gordon is assuming that material or nature is that thing and indeed you yourself are calling some thing reality.

You go further and suggest that you find poetry in that thing called reality and I have some issue because apparently I don't

[Free Willy]

Can you show that human spirituality derives from anything outside of reality?

Good we are getting somewhere. So you think spirituality is part of reality now?

[Gordon]

Oh yes? what is it that is being divided?
Atoms have been observed and contain no poetry Gordon, so we are entitled to ask where it is located and how much that location contains.

How much poetry does say 1 mole of uranium contain as opposed to 1 mole of sodium. How much poetry do you contain Gordon and is it a property of your atoms?

Jeremy IMHO seems to think poetry is real since there is poetry in real things, see his post. Again if poetry is real.... where is it?

I was right: not only have you fallen into the fallacy of division, your actually having a good old swim around in it, and with plenty of meaningless splashing too!

Poetry is an output of functional biology and the term is used to refer to a particular format of written language: terms such as 'novel' have a similar descriptive function, and language used in a literary context often involves abstract thinking, which brings us back to the biology.

While atoms aren't individually poetic, when they are aggregated into a particular form in the human brain that is where any poetry emerges from - hence your "Atoms have been observed and contain no poetry Gordon" is an example of the fallacy of division, and that indicates that you're reasoning is flawed.   

[Free Willy]

Poetry is an output of functional biology.

Not sure what you mean by this. Perhaps you could give an example of an analogous example of an ''output of biological function''.

Secondly are you sure there isn't an explanatory gap between biological function and poetry. An analogous example would of course be
the explanatory gap between biological function and consciousness.

While atoms aren't individually poetic, when they are aggregated into a particular form in the human brain that is where any poetry emerges from - hence your "Atoms have been observed and contain no poetry Gordon" is an example of the fallacy of division, and that indicates that you're reasoning is flawed.   

so atoms aren't poetic according to you. So how has the fallacy of division been committed? Again I think you are undermined by an explanatory gap.
Another huge problem is that some find poetry in the fact that we are made from atoms and some don't. How do we know then that there is poetry in atoms? Is it real then or simply woo?

[Gordon]

Good heavens - you really are mixed up.

Not sure what you mean by this. Perhaps you could give an example of an analogous example of an ''output of biological function''.

Certainly - any post in any thread in this message-board.

Secondly are you sure there isn't an explanatory gap between biological function and poetry. An analogous example would of course be the explanatory gap between biological function and consciousness.

Just no - both poetry and consciousness are aspects of biological function, and neither arise when said biology ceases to function, and to date non-biological things (such as rocks) exhibit neither consciousness or an inclination to write verse.
 

so atoms aren't poetic according to you. So how has the fallacy of division been committed?

You are trying to ascribe a characteristic of the whole: a brain that is poetic and conscious, to its compoment parts, in this case atoms.
 

Again I think you are undermined by an explanatory gap.

Don't think so, for the reasons given above.

Another huge problem is that some find poetry in the fact that we are made from atoms and some don't.

They are using the term differently: as metaphor, in that they aren't referring to verse. Surprised you can't spot this yourself.
 

How do we know then that there is poetry in atoms? Is it real then or simply woo?

Well, no atom has yet published even the slimmest volume of verse so I think we can assume that the expression you use is metaphor: that you don't understand this is perhaps why you've stumbled into the fallacy of divisions.

[Free Willy]

Good heavens - you really are mixed up.

Certainly - any post in any thread in this message-board.

Just no - both poetry and consciousness are aspects of biological function, and neither arise when said biology ceases to function, and to date non-biological things (such as rocks) exhibit neither consciousness or an inclination to write verse.
 
You are trying to ascribe a characteristic of the whole: a brain that is poetic and conscious, to its compoment parts, in this case atoms.

Er, No we've agreed atoms aren't poetic. You are saying that poetry is a scientific phenomenon(biology) and I am saying go ahead prove it because it doesn't look as though it fits a material existence.
 

Well, no atom has yet published even the slimmest volume of verse so I think we can assume that the expression you use is metaphor: that you don't understand this is perhaps why you've stumbled into the fallacy of divisions.

Not seeing anyway bridging the gap between material property and poetry here, thanks for whatever effort you have made. Poetry exists yes you have decided that, is there a fully encompassing scientific explanation without gap? Be my guest.

I think we can agree poetry emerges from biological processes but whether it satisfies the criteria for being fully explained by science seems something we do not agree on.

[Gordon]

Er, No we've agreed atoms aren't poetic. You are saying that poetry is a scientific phenomenon(biology) and I am saying go ahead prove it because it doesn't look as though it fits a material existence.

I tend to avoid terms like 'prove': poetry is an expression of a chunk of biology, as are thoughts and feelings, and I've yet to encounter an example of poetry that doesn't have a biological/material source. If you have examples of poetry that has a source other then human biology then feel free to cite some.

Not seeing anyway bridging the gap between material property and poetry here, thanks for whatever effort you have made. Poetry exists yes you have decided that, is there a fully encompassing scientific explanation without gap? Be my guest.

Here's a clue - poets tend to be material people.

I think we can agree poetry emerges from biological processes but whether it satisfies the criteria for being fully explained by science seems something we do not agree on.

You speak in riddles, grasshopper: having dropped your poetic atoms nonsense, and even if we agree that poetry emerges from the brains of people and that it involves language and abstract thinking such as mataphor, what other 'criteria' do you think are still required? 

[Alan Burns]

I tend to avoid terms like 'prove': poetry is an expression of a chunk of biology, as are thoughts and feelings, and I've yet to encounter an example of poetry that doesn't have a biological/material source. If you have examples of poetry that has a source other then human biology then feel free to cite some.

If you feel that poetry has a source other than whatever comprises the human mind please free to cite some

Here's a clue - poets tend to be material people.

Spot on - so why does poetry not emerge from any source other than the human mind?
And why is poetry not perceived any where else but in the human mind?

You speak in riddles, grasshopper: having dropped your poetic atoms nonsense, and even if we agree that poetry emerges from the brains of people and that it involves language and abstract thinking such as mataphor, what other 'criteria' do you think are still required?

The power of the human soul

[Free Willy]

I tend to avoid terms like 'prove': poetry is an expression of a chunk of biology, as are thoughts and feelings, and I've yet to encounter an example of poetry that doesn't have a biological/material source. If you have examples of poetry that has a source other then human biology then feel free to cite some.

Poetry, thoughts and feelings a subset of Biology....an interesting thesis which I think you should expand on given the explanatory gaps

Here's a clue - poets tend to be material people.

Who generate poetry which does not seem to fit what we know of matter scientifically speaking. People, some of whom seem to find poetry and awe in the fact we are atoms and yet when we examine those same atoms scientifically, we do not find poetry.  And some don't find poetry or awe in atoms. That is no basis for a scientific theory of poetry I would have thought. Use science to find poetry or awe in, well anything.

 If there were no people, would atoms still be found to be poetic? If a copy of Burns is still floating about in a universe where humans are extinct, is it still poetry?

I must lay my cards on the table. Stuff like poetry, that is unencompassable by scientific explanation, can be described as spiritual and, if you like, Woo, and there is thus plenty of it floating around in humanism and scientism.

[Steve H]

You're all making extremely heavy weather of this. Human consciousness, including emotions and the artistic impulse, is an emergent property of the brain. That view is perfectly consistent with both theism and atheism, but "proves" neither.

[Gordon]

If you feel that poetry has a source other than whatever comprises the human mind please free to cite some

I don't.

Spot on - so why does poetry not emerge from any source other than the human mind?
And why is poetry not perceived any where else but in the human mind?

Because, to date anyway, both require the biology of a functioning human brain.

The power of the human soul

Nonsense