Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
| Messages 1 - 122 of total 122 in this topic |
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
|
|
|
Topic Author's Original Post - Jan 7, 2010 - 12:19pm PT
|
This is just what all the modern science and engineering disciplines say we are. I've embraced it, this new worldview. Have you?
I mentioned this on another thread and WBraun wrote:
"No you're the robot. A human being is originally free from all material entanglement."
So the question is, What do we do about all the scientific illiteracy in the world? How do we solve the scientific illiteracy problem?
Corn Spirit
"You are what you eat."
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Jan 7, 2010 - 12:23pm PT
|
I know you Dingus, I've read you.
With all due respect, you're a man of letters (literature),
you're a writer who writes well. But you're not a man of science and engineering.
Why are so many from the humanities side so disrespectful of science,
engineering and technology. Oh yeah, because they're scientifically illiterate.
I bet you didn't like Carl Sagan, either. Extra Credit: Any idea who Richard Dawkins is? or Sam Harris?
Natural Selection is the GREAT DESIGNER. Of us biotic ROBOTS.
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Jan 7, 2010 - 12:30pm PT
|
Yeah, I've got a chip on my shoulder this morning.
Once again I listened to some Evangelical speaking as a Republican. You see, I'd love to throw my hat to the Republican Party (yeah, the Party of Lincoln) because I'm for small government, fiscal responsibility. Yet it's got religion (ol time religious crap) all mixed up in it. How'd that happen? Anyways, enough.
"You are what you eat."
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
Men with a poor fund of knowledge mistake the bodily machinery to be the living being, but the fact is that the living being is the basis of the bodily machine.
The bodily machine is useless as soon as the living spark is away from it.
Take the operator/programmer, and creator out of the picture and the robot will not function.
Simple science.
|
|
Deemed Useless
Social climber
Ca.
|
|
Robot me, robot you.
First I see, then I do.
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Jan 7, 2010 - 12:33pm PT
|
So Brawny... you're one of those who believe we all have a ghost in the machine. Is that right? Well, that's so 1st through 19th century.
My prescription for ya: ADAPT!
Fewer ol time philosophy and religious books.
More science and engineering books.
I suppose you believe in a lifeafter (this one), too. Life is physics and chemistry and parts and wholes. We're comprised of 100 trillion cells-- constituted like that, how could you live outside your body machine. Think it through as you tap into your science and engineering education.
|
|
Cloudraker
Big Wall climber
BC
|
|
Why are so many from science, engineering and technology so disrespectful of the humanities side? Oh yeah, because they're ignorant of the human condition.
|
|
apogee
climber
|
|
Somebody posted some interesting stats showing the ideologic backgrounds of scientists from various disciplines: overwhelmingly liberal. I haven't seen similar stats on those with theologic backgrounds, but I betcha I can guess.
To grow and develop knowledge & science requires a progressive, creative, curious mind. Definitely not core traits of conservatism.
|
|
John Moosie
climber
Beautiful California
|
|
Once again I listened to some Evangelical speaking as a Republican. You see, I'd love to throw my hat to the Republican Party (yeah, the Party of Lincoln) because I'm for small government, fiscal responsibility. Yet it's got religion (ol time religious crap) all mixed up in it. How'd that happen? Anyways, enough.
The republican party is the party of small government and fiscal responsibility????? hahahahaha.. here is your first mistake. Believing what they say, instead of what they do. Just look at the facts. Government has grown more in the last 50 years under republicans then under democrats.
And you call yourself a scientist. hahahahaha.. Good luck Mr Scientist who doesn't look at the facts.
the republican party is fiscally irresponsible. What do you call a group that spends more then it takes in? thats right, you got it. Irresponsible. You did notice that they lowered taxes on the wealthy while raising spending on war during the Bush/republican reign. Or do you just blame that on Bush? The first time this country has ever done that and it was done by the republicans.
When you start understanding what a fact is, then we might listen to you.
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Jan 7, 2010 - 12:46pm PT
|
Okay Cloudraker, I'll bite, use me as your sounding board, punching bag, whatever. How might one be disrespectful. Give us an example.
I'll start. If I merely say-- as part of how I think the world works for instance-- that the divinity of Jesus doctrine of the Christian Church is incorrect (bogus) is that disresectful (of the humanities)?
Speak up man, tell us what you think...
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Jan 7, 2010 - 12:49pm PT
|
Moosie-- HAA! I don't disagree with anything you said re: the Republicans. They're a total disappointment. But the Democratic Party is "the party of government."
And I didn't call myself a scientist. C'mon, let's tighten up our dialog here. I am a systems engineer.
|
|
apogee
climber
|
|
Uh-oh, is this becoming another one of those 'weepin' jeebus onna cross' threads?
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
Hey
You're bringing religion into this.
Stick with science, dude.
My original statement had no religion in it.
"A human being is originally free from all material entanglement."
Thus we can see that you are a mental speculator projectionist ......
|
|
John Moosie
climber
Beautiful California
|
|
But the Democratic Party is "the party of government."
ah.. now I see your problem. You lack discernment. The republicans has said it for so long, that the dems are the party of government, that you believe it, even though the facts show otherwise. Yes we believe that government is capable of solving big problems, we also think they need to be restrained. You do remember Clinton pushing to balance the budget? eh.. I bet you never heard that before. Maybe you should broaden your source of info and stop listening to Rush or Oliely.
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Jan 7, 2010 - 12:56pm PT
|
Forget religions, then. Forget the bronze age stupidities institutionalized by religious institutions over the centuries. I'm for that.
You believe, Brawny, that there is a ghost in your machine, that there is a ghost in my machine, is that right? If so, I'm sayin that's ol'time philosophy. Adapt! Spend your time adapting to the new understandings of modernity, not fighting them.
Moosie- I'm on your side, bro, I'm trying to get along here. I'm a huge Clinton fan. What, are you a humanities grad and have a problem with my scientific view?
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
Werner, your original statement is a conjecture.
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Jan 7, 2010 - 01:00pm PT
|
Ed,
and why haven't you spoke up sooner? You're supposedly the scientist in residence here!! Give me some info. What's your stance on the life sciences side? I know you've heard of him, what do you make of Dawkins, is he too strident as some physicians, whoops, physicists, think?
"You are what you eat."
|
|
Ricardo Cabeza
climber
an interim space
|
|
Dingus,
There is no one definition of robot which satisfies everyone, and many people have their own.[6] For example, Joseph Engelberger, a pioneer in industrial robotics, once remarked: "I can't define a robot, but I know one when I see one."[7] According to Encyclopaedia Britannica, a robot is "any automatically operated machine that replaces human effort, though it may not resemble human beings in appearance or perform functions in a humanlike manner".[8] Merriam-Webster describes a robot as a "machine that looks like a human being and performs various complex acts (as walking or talking) of a human being", or a "device that automatically performs complicated often repetitive tasks", or a "mechanism guided by automatic controls".[9]
Maybe he's unsure how to answer your question.
Specify. :-)
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Jan 7, 2010 - 01:03pm PT
|
Ding, look up the thread. I answered already. But I'll answer again: The Great Designer (natural Selection) designed the robot. Read Dawkins. Carl Sagan did a pretty good job giving the answer, too.
PS Ding- I'm trying my best to keep religion out of it. But if you want to get around to God, I won't talk about theology unless you're willing to distinguish between Jehovah, Zeus, Amon-Re, Quezelcoatl, etc. Just sayin.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
you choose your battles... I don't usually start them... and the OP took the form of a "shoot 'em up" which isn't my style...
but Werner has taken a laconic tactic and I wanted to equal him...
conjecture, noun I meant in its mathematical sense: a proposition before it has been proved or disproved.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
there are lots of different ways to design robots.. or consciousnesses... evolution is one way, working it out on a drawing board is another...
evolutionary programming is used now quite commonly, to obtain a desired optimum result without having to design, in detail, the algorithm.
to state that a designer is required, is however, a failure of imagination...
it states, in essence, that the entire universe emulates human thought and action,
which I believe is a very arrogant, and a very ignorant position.
Just because you cannot imagine something happening doesn't forbid it from happening... there are other things which do the forbidding ("the physical laws"). Evolution does not violate any of them.
|
|
John Moosie
climber
Beautiful California
|
|
Moosie- I'm on your side, bro, I'm trying to get along here. I'm a huge Clinton fan. What, are you a humanities grad and have a problem with my scientific view?
Okay, I apologize if I came on too strong, but I am asking questions that pertain to science.
You made some statements as though they were fact. Ie.. the repubs re the party of small government and fiscal responsibility and the dems are the party of goverment.
I am simply questioning your facts as any good scientist would do.
Why do you seem to think that humanities lack science? It can be scientifically proven that the humanities improve life. There are many studies that show that just adding artwork to a workplace improves productivity. So why the harsh on humanities? It all works together in harmony, or at least it can. When one understands the deeper roots of things which is what Werner is trying to get you to see.
Science has a basic problem. It can't prove the existence of God with the tools that it has, so it ignores God. This is a mistake.
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
Yes Dingus presents intelligent questions that a human being asks, not that he's another dogmatic programmed robot.
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Jan 7, 2010 - 01:23pm PT
|
Truth is Ding, both you and Ed overtalk things. Either it's over-humanizing or over-philosophizing. Old habit from a long line of tradition I suppose.
But the facts are, this Cosmos has properties, basic properties. In other words, a nature. Part of that nature is "selection" based on how short or long lived particles to objects are. It's that simple. This selection applied to biology evolutionary scientists and others called "natural selection." That's your answer.
Alright Smarty Panties... Sometimes I think, thank goodness for the Animal Kingdom. For all you "ghost in the machine" people, I'm sure you've watched Animal Planet or back in the day Wild Kingdom and have the vision of a cheetah chasing a gazelle. What makes the Cheetah go? What makes the Gazelle go? Does the Cheetah have a ghost in its body machine, too? And the Gazelle likewise? If not, then you must admit: pretty astonishing biology (or biotics, which is my preferred term).
In fact, so astonishing while it turns some away in fear draws others in to study the phenomenon.
|
|
Ricardo Cabeza
climber
an interim space
|
|
'See I don't have any Faith. Not in science, not in any religion. None.'
I guess that's one of our differences.
I have faith (lower case) in the human spirit and the inherent goodness of humans. While I consider myself agnostic, I feel, and have felt, a higher energy. Some call it God, some call it some sort of Physics, I call it power.
That probably only makes sense to me, but whatever.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
its not a who... Dingus... and I'm not asking you to believe in anything, I could really care less about belief myself, let alone what you believe, really, that's your business..
but if you want to explain things it is hard to beat science at trying to figure out not only what the explanation is, but also what you are explaining...
...you're from Missouri, at least in spirit, you want to be shown. But you also don't have the time to learn how to see.
Given that, it isn't really worth time to try to explain something to you, you simply won't "believe it."
To me it isn't a question of belief, it's a question of going out and doing the science. When I do that, I understand... and I'm only really interested in understanding, I'm not even really interested in "The Truth."
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Jan 7, 2010 - 01:30pm PT
|
No, I get that, too, Ricardo.
Part of the problem is language. How do you talk to people who it too often seems couldn't be bothered to distinguish one form of spirit or God or faith (aka trust) or belief from another. It's so frustrating sometimes!
When I'm hanging 500' above deck on a half-inch rope, that's faith (aka trust), but not the ol' time religious sort.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
it is not true Dingus... science has a lot to say about those questions...
blow your mind... what causes geometry? what causes time?
all subject to scientific study, no need to invoke anything but nature...
|
|
Norwegian
Trad climber
Placerville, California
|
|
the effects of cause.
period.
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Jan 7, 2010 - 01:38pm PT
|
Ding wrote-
"But thus far, science has not been able to address the fundamental question I am asking."
So until it does, no beliefs (i.e., mental "holdings" ) at all. Till it does we have to maintain the bronze age stupidities institutionalized by European societies of the middle ages? Augghh!
It's time we got around to it: the development of a science-based belief system. But when it's developed make sure it has a new name so people don't call it religion!
|
|
Ricardo Cabeza
climber
an interim space
|
|
I think it is all about culture and contitioning.
Scientists see one thing.
Christians see another.
Muslims see yet another.
And so on.
What ties it together is the energy flowing through everything on this small planet, we all sense it on some level but quantify it in different ways.
It's the same vibration, just a different interpretation of what it is.
Regardless, it's the tie that binds all of us together. As humans, as plants, as animals, as minerals.
It seems that there is a basic pulse that beats through everything here.
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Jan 7, 2010 - 01:43pm PT
|
Alright Ricardo, but don't go getting whoo whoo on us now.
The three Abrahamic religions (J, C, and I) all have the same god. Although many of their adherents don't know it because they're so busy fighting each other down through the centuries.
Jehovah (aka Allah in Arab) is as fictional bogus as Zeus (Egypt) or Amon Re (Egypt) or Quezel (Mayan). Only difference, this local god was institutionalized BIG TIME.
The reason religions and science have been at each others throats is because each has put forth different models for (a) how the world works and (b) for how life works. Either earth was created 6000- 10000 years ago (which my Grandmother was taught and believed) or it was created tens of millions (plus) years ago.
"Just the facts, mamm."
|
|
John Moosie
climber
Beautiful California
|
|
Fruc, that isn't what Dingus is implying at all. He is simply holding himself in reserve for what is the root cause of all.
Science says that chemicals and natural laws combined to create life. Perhaps they did, but what created the chemicals and the natural laws? This is the question that Dingus asks. Science says that they just were, which makes nature their "god".
Religion says first cause is God. A conscious Being that created the chemicals and the laws by which they interact.
This is where faith comes in. Ed has faith that science is all that is needed to create the life he wants. Others will say, including me, that there is a deeper answer. This answer does not exclude science, as science is a creation of God. It just recognizes that science does not have the tools to prove God exists. To prove God, one must go within into ones own heart. That is a journey best led by someone who has been there. Few have, including most religious people.
|
|
Ricardo Cabeza
climber
an interim space
|
|
I'm not getting soft, I just think that we all see the same things in different ways.
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Jan 7, 2010 - 01:49pm PT
|
QT "but what created the chemicals and the natural laws?"
ANS: Not Zeus. Not Jehovah (the local desert deity of Jews, Christians and Muslims), not Marduk. Any more than Mother Goose.
FYI There's a new field now, it's called hypercratics. Hypercratics is the study of higher powers, those that define our fate, destiny, lives. Some have personalized (personified) hypercratics. Thus, Hypercrates. So you could say I believe in Hypercrates (hi per' kri teez). Which is handy. (It's from the greek: hyper-, above, over + cratic, rule)
Hypercrates is a far cry from Jehovah. Just sayin.
|
|
John Moosie
climber
Beautiful California
|
|
So you think you know what didn't. That still doesn't answer what did. Do accept what science says in that they just were. That they are first cause?
|
|
Ricardo Cabeza
climber
an interim space
|
|
'Again, who designed the robot, please?'
George Devol.
Or was it DaVinci?
Just funnin now, Dingus.
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Jan 7, 2010 - 02:01pm PT
|
So what happened to WBraun? I'd like him to answer the question I posed earlier:
What makes a cheetah go? Does a cheetah have a ghost in its body machine? Seems to me, either it does or it doesn't. Right?
One lifeworks model says yes, another lifeworks model (the scientific one) says no. Science says no ghost in the machine. So do I.
|
|
taorock
Trad climber
Okanogan, WA
|
|
It's all consciousness.
Upgrade your observations in science and of nature. It is more about connecting than disassembling. Fundamentalism in science and religion isn't very pretty.
This relates:
Many scientists share the belief that there are problems with falsifiability and foundation ontologies purporting to describe "what exists", to a sufficient degree of rigor to establish a reasonable method of empirical validation. But Lakoff takes this further to explain why hypotheses built with complex metaphors cannot be directly falsified. Instead, they can only be rejected based on interpretations of empirical observations guided by other complex metaphors. This is what he means when he says, in "The Embodied Mind", that falsifiability itself can never be established by any reasonable method that would not rely ultimately on a shared human bias. The bias he's referring to is the set of conceptual metaphors governing how people interpret observations.
Here is something to address robots:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embodied_cognition
Cheers Mr Fructose.
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Jan 7, 2010 - 02:06pm PT
|
Taorock- More over-philosophizing. Sometimes I think it's done about as much harm to the Ascent of Humanity endeavor as the institutionization of ancient theology.
P.S. Read Daniel Dennett, he's the cure, the role model, for all the screwball over-philosophizing out there. Oh, I like Lakoff. He reminds us the way we frame things in dialog is important. Whether its in matters of faith or politics.
Ding- I read your post top to bottom, and backwards. Can't make sense of it.
It's a shame that when Christians speak of God, others don't call em out, remind them that they speak of Jehovah (aka Yahweh or Allah). Not Zeus or Apollo. Not Amon-Re. Not Hypercrates.
"You are what you eat."
|
|
Brian
climber
California
|
|
So the question is, What do we do about all the scientific illiteracy in the world? How do we solve the scientific illiteracy problem?
This is a major problem that can only be addressed through education.
Why are so many from the humanities side so disrespectful of science,
engineering and technology. Oh yeah, because they're scientifically illiterate.
Many hard scientists are woefully ignorant of philosophy, literature, etc.
Just because you cannot imagine something happening doesn't forbid it from happening...
This could reasonably be addressed to dogmatic thinkers on both sides of this debate.
See I don't have any Faith. Not in science, not in any religion. None.
I doubt it. Do you believe your daughter loves you? You certainly cannot prove it. If we all took pen to paper and made two lists: one of things we know and one of things we believe (i.e., belief without understanding or proof or knowledge), the latter list would dwarf the former. I am a very, very strong advocate of science; but the fact is that most of the important things in life fall outside the realm of science. Science will never tell you if life is meaningful, or what makes a good life, or a good person, etc.
It always comes back to the Veil Darkly.
This is very wise, and I agree with Dingus here. However, that does not mean that would shouldn't try to penetrate the veil to the extent that we can...
But the facts are, this Cosmos has properties, basic properties.
Dingus' point, another good one, is "why those properties and not others?"
When I do that, I understand... and I'm only really interested in understanding, I'm not even really interested in "The Truth."
This is also very, very wise. So much so that it would take a very, very long discussion to say why it is so spot on.
Ed I am not talking about beliefs. I have none, it doesn't matter to me if you accept this or not.
Poppycock. See above on "faith."
it is not true Dingus... science has a lot to say about those questions...
I concur. However, it has not identified a first cause, which is the point, I take it, of at least some people on this thread.
The problem here, as I pointed out above, is that people often give an unjustifiable credence to anything expressed from the point of view and in the type of discourse they are familiar with. Scientists speak science and ignore philosophy. Theologians speak theology and are ignorant of science. Of course, this problem, while widespread, is not universal. Some people are willing to listen to credible outside perspectives. Open-mindedness, imagination, and a willingness to consider alternative perspectives are sorely underrepresented virtues in our culture, in many quarters.
Brian
|
|
taorock
Trad climber
Okanogan, WA
|
|
So much depends on the twists of words..
Two different paths between "survival of the fittest" and "elimination of the weakest"
As a former professional geoscientist, it was common for me to see peers get their hackles up over details. They used the word "or" too many times when they would have been better off using "and" IMHO.
I like rational. It is a wonderful tool. I use it frequently. Thankfully, not all the time.
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Jan 7, 2010 - 02:34pm PT
|
Brian, good points here.
I'm going to dig into them deeper. Oh yeah!
In the meantime, care to pipe in, answer the question of the hour:
What makes a cheetah go?
(as it races down a gazelle)
Provoking Questions: Is it a ghost in the machine?
Is a cheetah a robot, a biotic robot? Do gazelles, cheetahs
and humans have a common evolutionary ancestor?
P.S. Okay, off to the gym!
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Jan 7, 2010 - 04:10pm PT
|
Brian wrote: "Many hard scientists are woefully ignorant of philosophy, literature, etc."
I hear that! It's not only in regard to philosophy, literature, etc. either. Also, of science itself. I call it "science span." Compare "attention span." Carl Sagan had a science span wider than the Grand Canyon, others not so. Some physicists, for e.g., know next to nothing when it comes to the life sciences. It's a shame.
American culture should embrace The Scientific Story as its basic model for how the world works. A long science span (as opposed to short one) is a major stepping stone to this achievement.
(Or, it's going to get its ass kicked by Chindia (China plus India) which doesn't buy into any of that "eternal life for me" nonsense.)
The Abrahamic religious story (laid down in the bronze age) is a main obstacle to (a) science literacy, (b) science span, (c) the Scientific Story. But hopefully, times are achanging. If it's not already too late. Time will tell of course.
|
|
Jaybro
Social climber
Wolf City, Wyoming
|
|
Dawkin's gig is to talk about this in public, kinda like Sagan. Could be worse.
"I'm for small government, fiscal responsibility" again, as others have said, those concepts run so counter to the republican party of today.
anyone hip to the etymology of the term 'Robot' fascinating and unlikely to my mind, though used remarkably appropriately in the the thread title.
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Jan 7, 2010 - 04:59pm PT
|
What do you mean... "Could be worse."
"Robot" as I use it in this thread simply means mechanistic, mechanical... in other words, not "above the law," ... the physical laws, that is.
Traditionally, the view (based on ignorance, supported by the Church) was that there is a ghost in the body (a ghost in the machine)... and that the "ghost" was above the physics and chemistry of the body.
Now we know (a) there is no ghost, that mind is what the brain does as it controls the body... (b) we're all tasked to adapt to this new understanding... (c) some are faster in the task than others.
|
|
L
climber
H2O..what the heck is this H2O thing you speak of?
|
|
What makes a cheetah go?
Why...the CHEETAH makes the cheetah go, of course.
Silly. ;-)
Now, try this little experiment:
For one week--7 puny days--see if you can go without disagreeing with anyone about anything. Just listen to what people say with a totally open mind. Maybe throw in a little curiosity even. You don't have to agree with them on their position...but do NOT allow yourself to disagee, either mentally or verbally. No nay-saying.
Go ahead. See if you can do it.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Hahaha! There's not a person on this forum that can do that--not for one hour--ONE MINUTE--much less one week. And do you know why none of us can fulfill this simple request?
BECAUSE WE'RE ALL CONTROLLED BY OUR MINDS...we're all a bunch of robots, so to speak.
We have mind constructs and mental patterning embedded in our physiology, much less our psychology and sociology. This entire thread is a fine example of enemy patterning (dividing the world into US and THEM) for the shear joy of labeling others, which our egoic minds thrive on.
Yes, Mr. GMO HFCS is absolutely correct on that point! We all appear to be a bunch of flesh-and-bone-and-brightly-colored-entrail-toting robots, plain and simple.
Oh...
er...
...wait a minute.
If we're all just robots, marionettes to our DNA or by-products of unconscious natural selection...then what is it that's observing our wired puppet dance? What is it that recognizes our servitude to the habitual? Sees our convict stripes from eons of conditioning...what is that?
What is it that thought--for maybe a nanosecond--that you could go one puny week without judging and labeling and discrediting an opposing viewpoint...which we all do in order to keep our viewpoints (aka our egos) valid and safe and RIGHT?
What was that?
It was not your mind.
And it certainly wasn't a ghost.
BTW...Carl Sagan was a hero of mine. Richard Dawkin's was incredible at TED a couple years ago. Sam Harris can be amazingly eloquent. It's not a question of bad or good, wrong or right...it's simply a question of your ability to do something novel: Control your own mind.
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Jan 7, 2010 - 05:18pm PT
|
Here, let's use a Sam Harris response:
When somebody steps forth and claims the Egyptians bombed Pearl Harbor in 1942, it's appropriate to object, disagree.
Also, to object, disagree, debate... in the interest of better living, solving a problem, etc.... is hardly an expression of us v. them tribalism.
It's being responsible as a citizen, better, it's "living up to" one's responsibility as an informed citizen of an informed democracy.
Distinguish between (a) respecting one's right to believe and (b) respecting a belief (e.g., one that's incorrect in a factual sense).
It's how we progress, it's how we get ahead in civilization, in cultural evolution. The sad part, hard to get used to, is it's usually 1.1 steps forward, one step backward, very inefficient, very painful.
"It's not a question of bad or good, wrong or right..."
It could be a question of right and wrong, good or bad, etc. It's a function of what one's goals are. Which by the way is a subject innately on the mind of engineering, for example, more than science or philosophy.
|
|
Jaybro
Social climber
Wolf City, Wyoming
|
|
Cheetah Power!
Robots have their moment, too
|
|
John Moosie
climber
Beautiful California
|
|
Now we know (a) there is no ghost, that mind is what the brain does as it controls the body... (b) we're all tasked to adapt to this new understanding... (c) some are faster in the task than others.
Oy vey.. tisk tisk tisk. So you know there is no ghost/spirit. how do you know? Is it because you could not find it? Man knew about the atom long before he could say he saw it.
Perhaps your tools are not capable of finding spirit. What then?
You don't "know". You theorize. You suppose. So your theory of life says there is no spirit, and thus all further suppositions are based on that.
but what if your original supposition is incorrect?
|
|
Brian
climber
California
|
|
"Robot" as I use it in this thread simply means mechanistic, mechanical... in other words, not "above the law," ... the physical laws, that is.
We are not "above the law," but that does not necessarily lead to a strong sort of eliminative materialism a la Paul and Patricia Churchland.
To say that there is nothing other than matter and motion, which I not exactly sure if you are saying, is a stronger claim than I am willing to endorse.
Moreover, I'm willing to wager there is not a single person who actually lives as a coherent eliminative materialist. I've hung out with the Churchlands, and while they are clever folks they don't live as coherent eliminative materialists. They say they love each other, they don't claim that they are experiencing a particularly high dopamine surge or whatever.
To live as a coherent eliminative materialist you would, among other things, have to dismiss free will and many folks have correctly pointed out that while that is an interesting intellectual bit of jujitsu, you can't actually live as if it is true...
I'm all for more science education, more science in public discourse, etc. But that does not, for me, mean that I think there is nothing more than matter and motion. There certainly is.
As for the repeated question regarding the cheetah, you need to clarify what you mean by "why." Why does is it animate rather than inanimate? (chemistry and biology, developed by evolution) Why does it chase the gazelle rather than an elephant or a ant? (instinct, likewise developed over time) However, my belief that the chemical-, biological-, evolutionary- description for why the cheetah chases the gazelle is "true" (or, as Ed points out, the "best way to understand" why the cheetah chases the gazelle) does not in any way contradict my belief that there is more to things than matter and motion, nor need it contradict in any way someone's belief in God, or Creation, or a variety of other things.
Most people discount science out of bald ignorance or a woeful lack of understanding. This is dangerous on many levels, as it leads to a fundamental lack of understanding (there we are, back to Ed's good point) of how the world works. We need more science education to address this.
Most people discount religion (and belief or faith of all sorts) out of a intellectually sloppy tragi-comic caricaturing of religion. Not all religious people reject evolution, believe the Earth was made 5000 years ago in 6 24 hour periods. Knuckleheads like Dawkins take the most extreme examples of religious anti-rationalism and paint all religion with the same silly, broad brush. I'm an academic and almost no one I know (i.e., lots of other academics) in the sciences or humanities, at religious universities or secular universities, take Dawkins at all seriously. I mean really, his intellectual tactics (at least recently) take more from Rush Limbaugh or Sean Hannity than they do from Darwin, Newton, or any of the other scientists he is fond of citing.
Brian
|
|
L
climber
H2O..what the heck is this H2O thing you speak of?
|
|
It's being responsible as a citizen, better, it's "living up to" one's responsibility as an informed citizen of an informed democracy. -- HFCS
I believe those were the exact words used by Hitler and the Gestopo to promote their cause...
You are ARGUING against a 7-day experiment...because you, in fact, cannot control your mind.
If a person in a mental ward said the Egyptains bombed Pearl Harbor, would you feel the need to correct him?
Of course not.
It's an EXPERIMENT, HFCS...just an experiment. You don't have to validate your reasons why to me...just try it.
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Jan 7, 2010 - 05:39pm PT
|
Geez John,
Give science and engineering SOME credit. There's a whole discipline out there now called neuroscience. Be honest. How much time have you given this subject? To make a long story short, this IS the stance in neuroscience, it's theory (a putforth of knowledge) and fact: there is no ghost in the machine. Memory has a neuro basis. Thought has a neuro basis. Feeling has a neuro basis. Mind is mental function. That three pound marvel in the skull steeped in 10 trillion interconnecting neurons is doing something! It's processing signals, interpretting them, controlling body behaviors. That's it.
And I loved Bill Clinton. That man knows how to talk. If I could talk like him before thousands of people, I would've been the next Carl Sagan! But I liked engineering, building things and climbing in the outdoors too much, I bet Bill and Carl didn't.
Brian-
"We are not "above the law," but that does not necessarily lead to a strong sort of..." Sure it does, Brian. it leads to the mechanistic understanding of engineers, cellular biologists, chemists, etc.
So what follows is to adapt to this understanding and realize even in a mechanistic world, functionality (the power of functionality) and forms of freedom (I'm "free" to climb 5.11 but not 5.12) STILL exist. Think about it.
You write: "To say that there is nothing other than matter and motion..."
That's the old trap, don't fall into it! Break out of these merely, just, nothing more than figures of speech. Life is physics and chemistry. Moreover its functionality, powers and freedoms, adventure, etc. I hope you get my point.
I wouldn't hang out with philosophers. They over-philosophize. Thank goodness philosophy like theology is a dying discipline. Science and engineering education and savvy are taking over. Just saying.
|
|
taorock
Trad climber
Okanogan, WA
|
|
Mr Fructose,
That's it? You just wrote a lot of words that say nothing.
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Jan 7, 2010 - 05:49pm PT
|
Thanks Taorock.
Memory has a basis in brain matter. I wrote that. That's a stance in neuroscience. My stance, too. Is it yours?
If not, go back to your bronze age Way.
L- I agreed with a lot of what you wrote. Moving forward, this is a forum, a place to air thoughts, stances, etc. This isn't a psych ward. Or is it?
|
|
taorock
Trad climber
Okanogan, WA
|
|
no matter, never mind.
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Jan 7, 2010 - 05:59pm PT
|
Ding- that's Asimov's definition. I'm using the term robot to mean mechanistic, to mean not above cause and effect, that's all, nothing more than that. (Call it the bio-engineer's definition.) As a literary man you know a word can have extended definitions.
Certainly I'm not using robot or robotic in any cheap tin-can simple machine sense.
Don't forget: "You are what you eat."
BTW: Corn syrup has no cholesterol, no animal products. Consumed in meager amounts, like soybean, it's body building.
|
|
L
climber
H2O..what the heck is this H2O thing you speak of?
|
|
L- I agreed with a lot of what you wrote. Moving forward, this is a forum, a place to air thoughts, stances, etc. This isn't a psych ward. Or is it? -- Corn
Aaaaah Gasshoppa...now you catchink on.
Petri dish. Not psych ward...petri dish.
|
|
Mighty Hiker
climber
Vancouver, B.C.
|
|
What about the Zeroth law of Robotics? And the Dingusoth law?
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Jan 7, 2010 - 06:03pm PT
|
Simple question for you L:
Does Sam Harris (and his fellow Horsemen) have a place in American culture? or are they doing more harm than good. What say you?
Tao- He's found his place. On his Tao pillow.
P.S. "Knuckleheads like Dawkins..."
Alright, Brian. What kind of an "academic" are you? C'mon, man, tell us.
In my experience, as far as scientists go, the only ones who think Dawkins is a knucklehead are "girly scientists" who don't like controversy, even in high school didn't like controversy.
I'll say again... there's more than matter and energy. There is functionality, evolved functionality. Nobody in the scientific model is saying there is "just" matter and energy. Only its opponents frame it that way (e.g., the Bill O Reillys and Laura Ingrahams) and sadly audiences eat it up.
We're evolved functional beings. Functionality in the machine. No ghost in the machine. It's time we spent our energies adapting to this understanding rather than fighting it.
|
|
Jaybro
Social climber
Wolf City, Wyoming
|
|
The zeroth law, where humanity comes in beyond humans....
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Jan 7, 2010 - 06:31pm PT
|
Oh and the "free will problem" by the way is solved.
Only ol time philosophers and ol time theologians bring it up
as a last desperate measure to keep their antiquated disciplines
around a little longer.
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit just spouts different reflective intellectual gymnastics.
Anyone can do this ......
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
that's a great idea L, no disagreement for a week...
I wonder how it's going to turn out?
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Jan 7, 2010 - 06:59pm PT
|
Yeah,
and "mummy paint (salve made from ground mummy parts) applied to wounds helps the healing"
and certain women burned alive rids the village of demons...
that's right, and one man's truth-claim is as worthy as any other man's...
sure, no disagreements, no judging, for a week. Okay, let's try that as the ticket to move us forward.
|
|
Ricky D
Trad climber
Sierra Westside
|
|
While I cannot yet answer the cheetah question - I do have the answer to another time honored conundrum:
Which came first?
The chicken?
Or the egg?
Answer: - The rooster came first!!!!!!!!
;)
|
|
Watusi
Social climber
Newport, OR
|
|
So now you tell me...
|
|
L
climber
H2O..what the heck is this H2O thing you speak of?
|
|
"and "mummy paint (salve made from ground mummy parts) applied to wounds helps the healing"
and certain women burned alive rids the village of demons...
that's right, and one man's truth-claim is as worthy as any other man's...
sure, no disagreements, no judging, for a week. Okay, let's try that as the ticket to move us forward." -- HF
Corn...yer dirty DNA is showing. Your enemy patterning. Your nailed shut and mummified mental constructs.
Perhaps you missed the part where I said YOU DON'T HAVE TO AGREE with anyone's position...just LISTEN without judging or rejecting their right to have their opinion. Your post above is filled with more judgment than an episode of Judge Judy.
And THAT'S my point. See how threatened you are at even letting someone have an OPINION that differs from yours.
If you're so worried about "moving us forward" on the evolutionary escalator...you might look at what it takes to live in peace with everyone, not just those who agree with you.
|
|
Mighty Hiker
climber
Vancouver, B.C.
|
|
I have been programmed to say that I'm not a robot.
|
|
John Moosie
climber
Beautiful California
|
|
High fructose.
Once again, I am just using the scientific method and questioning your assumptions. You state them as though they are fact, ie, the repubs are this, and the dems are that, or that sciences knows that there is no spirit because it didn't find one.
So I asked you, what if your current tools are not sufficient to find spirit. So far you have no answer for this. This is the great weakness of science. Yes, you can create many great theories, but if your foundation is false, then the whole theory is false.
Belittling spirituality as being bronze aged thinking does not prove your point. At one point, science believed the world was flat.
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Jan 7, 2010 - 07:58pm PT
|
Ah, L, you're just tryin to get a rise out of me.
Climb on!
|
|
corniss chopper
Mountain climber
san jose, ca
|
|
We climbers are the highest form of humanity on the planet just now.
Have to ask why we are discussing anything with 'robot high fructose
corn syrup'? Robots take orders. They don't give em or have opinions.
1. A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.
2. A robot must obey any orders given to it by human beings, except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.
3. A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law.
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Jan 7, 2010 - 08:10pm PT
|
I'll start a new post
so as not to mix a meaningful one with a silly one.
Moosie, first lets agree not to mix science and politics. (When speaking about Dems and Rep, you sort of have to speak in generalities and statistically through a lot of noise, murkiness and such. That's what I was doing. Also, this really isn't a political thread. Plenty of that on those other threads. And remember, I'm a Clintonian and Obamaman. )
Didn't find any angels under the planets looping around the sun, either. The theory of gravity (thanks Newton, Keppler, Copernicus!) is sufficient. That's all I'm saying about mind. Neuroscience is sufficient. Here at the start of the 21st century, we have a lot more chapters in neuroscience than we did at the start of the 20th. And they all point to mental funtion (i.e., mind) as brain output to control the body.
On another post, it's pointed out how much of our mental faculties and behavior are a function of body chemistry. I agree.
So the issues facing us today, at least the ones i'm interested in the most, concern how we as a species are going to adapt to this new understanding.
Augh, no way Moosie did I belittle spirituality. No where did I do that. Don't put words to me I didn't write. I practice a spiritual discipline (not a supernaturalist theism) whose focus is spirit-building (cf: muscle building) after all. So you take that back, Moosie! We were talking about mind-brain relations. We were talking about religious institutions that rely on supernaturalist belief. Just as there are differrent god concepts, there are different spirit concepts. Spirit derives from the latin spirare, to breathe. I'm a spiritual being having a human experience. My beloved Julie, who's is lying under my feet snoring, is a spiritual being having a canine experience. I distinguish between (a) ghost, ghostly spirit and (b) carnate spirit. So there.
P.S. At no point did modern science (beginning 1500 or so) believe the world is flat.
Aughh, so much ancient theological bull to cut through, so little time...
|
|
John Moosie
climber
Beautiful California
|
|
I just want to know if he still believes that the republicans are the party for small government and fiscal responsibility.
edit: and yes you did belittle spirituality when you compared it to bronze aged thinking.
|
|
okay,whatever
Trad climber
Charlottesville, VA
|
|
HFSC, I gather from your early posts in this thread that you're frustrated that humans don't run their societies and governments and even interpersonal relationships based on a thorough scientific understanding of what makes us tick at the atomic/biochemical/evolutionary level.
I am a scientist, and believe that the "robotic" (yeah, we're all physics and chemistry at bottom) model underlies everything we are and do, but at the same time it can't currently address all the emergent properties that make us human and make our lives worthwhile, day to day. I don't spend evenings with my family or friends, or days climbing, worrying about where my joy and love come from... I'm just being the creature I am.
I wish more people had an appreciation for science, too, but at the same time, religion (of one stripe or another) has been a part of being human for millenia, for better or worse. I don't happen to be religious, but any accounting of the human condition, and any plan for its future, has to take religion into account. I'm more or less on Dawkins' side, but think he has been a bit rude in dismissing the less-than-full-belief-but-somehow-meaningful (to them) way that many people embrace a faith... just a meme, perhaps, but important to them.
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Jan 7, 2010 - 08:24pm PT
|
Alright, I think we're done, Moosie, as you're making stuff up now. Or taking it out of context without care.
Yes, today's religious institutions are chockful of bronze age ignorance and show no interest in righting their ships. Not one Abrahamic religious model is willing to come forward and say, yes, our conceptual foundation (i.e., our theology) esp in regard to "what is" was laid down a long time ago in pre-scientific times and is in need of updating. Instead the tack is, our theology is perfect, it's the Word of God (Jehovah), and you don't change what's perfect. To this, I say, Shame.
No Okay, I'm frustrated that three billion people (including about a billion Muslims) would rather cling to an ancient theology as their conceptual foundation for how the world works (What Is) than embrace a new belief discipline model based on the sciences.
There are three important subjects: (1) What is. (2) What matters. (3) What works. Science is the tool for investigating the first one. The first one. The second and third are our responsibility.
Okay- your second paragraph I agree with wholeheartedly. Hurray! Higher up in the thread, you don't hear me saying were "just" atoms and molecules or "merely" an evolutionary product or "nothing but" flexible test tubes (the latter from another thread). Those are the words or those are the framings of others. Indeed, I believe we're so much more than atoms and molecules and brain circuits! For example, we're climbers, man, and lovers of women. As sophisticated biotic robots, we are chock-full of functionality, evolved functionality. How cool is that? That is very cool!
Okay, whatever, re: third paragraph: Word. Very thoughtful. Just sayin, so you know, I distinguish between religions and spiritual disciplines or religions and belief disciplines.
I have a spiritual discipline (for life guidance) and it's all about the "what matters" and "what works" questions in addition to the "what is." And, delighted to say, it doesn't have an iota of supernaturalist doctrine or belief in it. Was it hard-won in a culture still largely superstitious? Yes.
|
|
monolith
climber
Berkeley, CA
|
|
Asimov's proposed laws for robots are not definitions of a robot, as some have proposed here.
|
|
Fritz
Trad climber
Hagerman, ID
|
|
I tried to read most of the above posts and kept reminding myself that we all are climbers. I think?
|
|
okay,whatever
Trad climber
Charlottesville, VA
|
|
HFCS, I understand the distinctions you're making in your response to my third paragraph, and agree (I just lumped philosophy/belief systems/religion all into "religion" for syntactic convenience).
Per your response to my first paragraph, I certainly don't pretend to know the answer, but it seems to me that there is a big power issue at the heart of how politics/governing proceed at the intersect with religion (or belief, or what have you). I would suggest that those in power exploit those with beliefs to support them, regardless of whether those in power have a genuine or even similar belief or not... absolutism sells, unfortunately.
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Jan 7, 2010 - 09:01pm PT
|
Yeah, Okay Whatever, cannot disagree with any of that.
|
|
John Moosie
climber
Beautiful California
|
|
High Fruc,
No Okay, I'm frustrated that three billion people (including about a billion Muslims) would rather cling to an ancient theology as their conceptual foundation for how the world works (What Is) than embrace a new belief discipline model based on the sciences.
I can appreciate your frustration. Imagine if you would, a spiritualist that knows there is a God, but also knows science has its use. Imagine also that you are a spiritualist who sees science going off into false premises simply because it doesn't have the tools to prove God exists. What if you knew that God was the creator and designer of hormones? How would you deal with scientist who wont accept any theory that involves God? And how would you deal with scientist who claim they "know" what created us simply because they can't prove scientifically that God exists?
So perhaps you could see the frustration from the other side of the equation. Your tone about the bronze age sounded belittling to me. If we accept religious thinking, then we are back in the bronze age which by your tone you mean is less then current thinking. If you did not mean it as such, then I would accept that. But please try to see that yours is not the only perspective. I agree that we have learned much since the bronze age. That still hasn't ruled out the existence of God, though you might think so. That is your opinion and not a proof. There is no current way to scientifically prove God exists, or doesn't exist.
So by your belief system, I should just shut up and let you continue on your path. Okay, but I retain the right to refute your so called "facts". So far many of them haven't been.
Edit: Now I am off to dinner.
|
|
okay,whatever
Trad climber
Charlottesville, VA
|
|
Good point, Fritz... I think that would be me on the left, but self-assessment is difficult!
|
|
Brian
climber
California
|
|
Sorry HFCS, was out for awhile...
First, to answer your question, I work in environmental philosophy (the Ph.D. is in philosophy). My main focus these days is applying (generally Aristotelian) virtue-theory to environmental issues. So, I work closely with folks who are straight-up climate scientists, wildlife biologists, etc. This focus, along with my earlier interest in biology and physics, explains my admiration for science.
However, while I believe that science is one of the best tools we have for understanding reality (back to Ed's point, again, about the importance of understanding). I also have an appreciation for the limits of science, which brings me to...
There are three important subjects: (1) What is. (2) What matters. (3) What works. Science is the tool for investigating the first one. The first one. The second and third are our responsibility.
And, I'd add, philosophy is, inescapably, the source for your second subject. If you are talking about "what matters," you are doing philosophy. Whether you are doing it well or poorly, grounded in science or grounded in theology, etc. is another matter. It's still philosophy and, I'd argue, essential for a meaningful (i.e., what "matters") life.
The third subject probably goes back to science, or perhaps politics and economics depending on the "what" you are concerned with.
I have a spiritual discipline (for life guidance) and it's all about the "what matters" and "what works" questions in addition to the "what is." And, delighted to say, it doesn't have an iota of supernaturalist doctrine or belief in it. Was it hard-won in a culture still largely superstitious? Yes.
First, if you think your account of "what matters" does not have "one iota" of belief it it, you are sorely deluded. See above on my comments to some of Dingus' claims about being belief-free. I'd wager a good deal of your account of "what matters" is grounded in belief. Think about it.
I'd be interested in hearing how (i.e., in what way) your "what matters" is grounded in a strict eliminative materialism. That is to say, what is your answer to "what matters" and how, exactly, is in grounded in your appreciation for the mechanistic structure of the cosmos (or chaos, depending on your view)? I want to be clear that there are, of course, ways for this to be coherent; however, I've never met a person whose sense of what matters is actually in line with a strict eliminative materialism (and, as I noted, I'm a friend or acquaintance of a number of good eliminative materialists!).
My own perspective is pretty darn far from the position you appear to be skewering, and from your position as well. Still, it would be great to have an actual conversation over a beer, because short of typing a book into a supertaco thread I think it is going to be hard to make clear the common ground I think we share on some of the issues you are bringing up!
Brian
|
|
Captain...or Skully
Social climber
Top of the 5.2-5.12 Boulder
|
|
"that's what We are".......hmmm.
Got a mouse in yer pocket?
I won't be "we" with just anybody, y'know.
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Jan 7, 2010 - 10:20pm PT
|
Brian... not one iota of supernaturalist belief... Reread.
Of course I have belief, a head chock-full of belief. Belief in my world simply means "mental holdings." I believe (i.e., I hold) in all kinds of things. (Above, I don't get Dingus at all defining belief like he did.)
Anyways,
Down the road, you and I are likely to part company. For I'm much in Dennett's camp. Philosophy as practiced traditionally has probably mucked things up more than clarified them, esp since the Renaissance in regard to how the world works.
Thank goodness the world today is more of a science and engineering mind, less philosophy and science mind. Many a philosopher lets pursuit of the perfect get in the way of the good as the saying goes. Thank goodness for the Steven Jobs and Stephen Wosniacs and Bill Gates and even Richard Bransons out there who sport an engineering modeling type of mind.
Maybe more later... have to run to Walmart.
But I'll say this. If philosophy doesn't modernize... taking cues from engineering models... as a discipline in college, as a discipline of higher learning, it's going to follow theology right down the dinosaur path.
Lastly, take that last quote. At any time in the last two hundred years, philosophy as a discipline could've developed the what is, what matters, what works trilogy as a basis for a new belief discipline. But did it? No. It clings to the past, using abstruse language that only philosophers seem to get and drops the ball.
EDIT Brian, appreciated the last paragraph. Cool. Gotta head out now, but must say, you're throwing me with this word "eliminative." How are you defining it. Also, I think earlier you used the word materialistic. Over in the engineering modeling camp, the preferred term is mechanistic (so it's not confused with economic associations, easy to do in this capitalistic society).
|
|
Fritz
Trad climber
Hagerman, ID
|
|
Yah! Yah got a point there Skully. Maybe I was thinking of me and my intestinal flora.
|
|
Captain...or Skully
Social climber
Top of the 5.2-5.12 Boulder
|
|
And Fauna, too?
You gots to cover ALL your bases, Don't cha?
Oh, I forgot. I'm a robot.
Nevermind.
|
|
Fritz
Trad climber
Hagerman, ID
|
|
Skully: It was the W-Mart stuff that created all this yesterday. Is he posting from corp HQ?
|
|
Brian
climber
California
|
|
HFCS,
I misread your disjunction regarding belief. Sorry.
Regarding philosophy's willingness to take on the "what works" model of things, you really ought to read some William James. You'd like it. I did a fair bit of works with James' thought, and still incorporate a good deal of it into my own perspective. In very brief and rough terms, James' pragmatism says that "what's true" is "what works," but don't take that rough approximation at face value (which is what too many critics do).
If you have not read this, you should.
http://www.amazon.com/Pragmatism-Philosophical-Classics-William-James/dp/0486282708
I think it is good stuff, and genuinely think you will find that you agree with a good deal of it. (Of course, you have to cut James some slack because his grasp of chemistry, biology, and psychology is no longer contemporary). It is an easy read; you could tear through it in a day.
Brian
|
|
Captain...or Skully
Social climber
Top of the 5.2-5.12 Boulder
|
|
Dude.
Engineering IS philoshphy.
Tongue in cheek?
Follow it to its fullness & report back.
I think you'll discover a bit of interconnectedness there.
Or some such.......
|
|
Captain...or Skully
Social climber
Top of the 5.2-5.12 Boulder
|
|
Oh, yeah, I forgot. I'm a robot.
Nevermind.
|
|
Rob_James
Mountain climber
Aoraki/Mt. Cook Village, New Zealand
|
|
Challenge is Dawkins did all his thinking some time ago. All he does now is argue.
And HFCS you longfellow - rock on dudette. And please share. If we were to be robots, what comes next....?
The revolution will not be televised. Regurgitating books won't do it either.
Full circle.
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
"Dawkins, all he does now is argue."
This means he's become insane ......
|
|
Port
Trad climber
San Diego
|
|
"A human being is originally free from all material entanglement."
A human child requires food to survive, therefore they are not free of material entaglement. They are also made of the same elements that exist in the universe, they are part of the material universe.
|
|
JOEY.F
Social climber
sebastopol
|
|
I took a turn for the nurse, ahem, worse.
Lovely girls,
Flora and Fauna.
wcfields
|
|
Jaybro
Social climber
Wolf City, Wyoming
|
|
Any man who marries a time lord (esp that one, who used to be married ton another time lord) can't be all bad...
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
brother Dingus is trying to get at an important point... but I am afraid of misunderstanding his language. Excuse me for "cut-and-paste" but we could start with the definition of that fine verb: to create.
From Merriam-Webster: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/create
Main Entry: cre·ate
Pronunciation: \krē-ˈāt, ˈkrē-ˌ\
Function: verb
Inflected Form(s): cre·at·ed; cre·at·ing
Etymology: Middle English, from Latin creatus, past participle of creare; akin to Latin crescere to grow — more at crescent
Date: 14th century
transitive verb
1 : to bring into existence
2 a : to invest with a new form, office, or rank b : to produce or bring about by a course of action or behavior
3 : cause, occasion
4 a : to produce through imaginative skill b : design
intransitive verb
1 : to make or bring into existence something new
2 : to set up a scoring opportunity in basketball
How very ironic that if comes to us from the Romans, their verb "to grow" put into services by Europeans in the 14th century to explain an act of God, as the first sense in the definition would indicate.
Dingus could have used a number of verbs in his question to the OP's author, but choose to ask "who created the robot" which I believe is a leading question, but I just want to get it's intent.
Now one could have asked: "who built the robot?" but create brings in all of the various other aspects of design, crafting of parts, fabrication, assembly, conceiving of and writing the program that the robot follows, debugging this program, testing the hardware and software, firing the little bugger up and watching it go.
The act of creation.
So much more mechanical then the act of human procreation, don't you think? What do humans do? Go to a party, get drunk, have a wild one night stand and be a bit unlucky... or lucky... and 9 months later, we've created.
I guess it is different. But I'd like Dingus' take on it.
|
|
Jaybro
Social climber
Wolf City, Wyoming
|
|
The noun Robot, is derived from the Russian verb работать - Robatat, to work.
The idea was that humans could create a 'race' of autonomatons, a slave race that would earnestly do our work while we watch youtube, and eat bonbons.
this is subtly different from the way the OP uses the term, or even how Dr Asimov promoted the construct.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
ok Dingus... I'm not sure who created the robot, since I'm not sure which robot, but since I know so few robot builders I'd have to say, and this is me personally, that I don't know who created the robot.
For the universe, I'd have to say that I do not know the details of its creation, if creation is the correct word to use. I don't know what 74% of the universe that we are aware of is made of, I just know it is there because of its gravitational effects. And while there are many different possible explanations, I don't know which one of those is correct, or if any of them are.
I don't know why there is geometry. It would seem that it is "created" as is, but maybe there is a reason for 3 space and 1 time dimension, wouldn't it be a kick to understand that... but I don't know what the answer is. I'm thinking now it has to do with quantum mechanics... but then who "created" quantum mechanics... and on and on.
Come to think of it, where ever did I get the idea that I could understand this stuff? who created that?! I don't know. Perhaps it is just my arrogance.... but then, where did that come from?
Probably better just to leave this stuff lay here and get on with my humble daily toil... how could I ever know?
|
|
rectorsquid
climber
Lake Tahoe
|
|
In regard to some of the earlier posts, there is no such thing as natural selection!
Does the track at a track meet select who will win a running race? No! Does the field select the winning team? No! Nature is like the track or field in that it provides a field for competition and affects the outcome without making any choice at all. Nature does not decide who will win. The winner just wins because it is faster, stronger, better, than the other contestants. It was a mistake to ever create the term "Natural Selection."
On the other hand, "Survival of the Fittest" is a very appropriate term and is what should be the topic of discussion.
As for us meatbots needing a designer, that is just an ignorant viewpoint of those that do not understand theory of evolution. The best way to describe the designer of us, and all life on earth, is to to say that we ourselves design ourselves through experimentation where we only keep the options that provide for better success at breeding than the options that don't provide that. Even using the word "keep" is wrong since we don't keep anything, the versions of us that are generated with lesser options simply die out with less offspring resulting in those lesser options being removed from "gene pool".
We are after all, just a mechanism for our chemicals (DNA, etc...) to reproduce. Nothing more.
Dave
|
|
Jaybro
Social climber
Wolf City, Wyoming
|
|
Why, is there offwidth?
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
ok Ding, we've had this on the list for a while now... I'm in recovery phase and should be off of Injured Reserve this spring...
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Jan 9, 2010 - 08:57pm PT
|
So Rob_James responded: "And please share. If we were to be robots, what comes next....?" So I have my ideas, but what are yours?
As science and engineering savvy advances even more in the 21st century to show that life is at base physics and chemistry, mechanisms of action and such... that mind-spirit is a product of the brain to control body and behavior-- where does that leave us?
Was the poet Matthew Arnold right when he said that modernity (in other words, the scientific era) is caught between two worlds, one dead and the other powerless to be born? Or was he wrong? and can humanity (H. sapiens) build afresh (new meaning and a new belief system) on top of this new understanding of the world and ourselves.
RectorSquid: What does it matter whether the mechanism is called Natural Selection or Survival of the Fittest? Both terms have their pros and cons it seems to me. Which is why context is important. Which is why it's important to understand all aspects of evolutionary theory.
Brian, if you're still out there: you owe me a definition-- what you meant by "eliminative." Pipe in...
Augh, Ding: You accused me of dodging the question-- again-- but you keep missing an essential point. One doesn't need to have all the infinite answers to all the infinite questions one could ask (this year's favorite seems to be: Why is there something instead of nothing?) to try to make sense of how THIS world works. And all our high-performance engineering products are real-time, real-world proof that science is a powerful investigative tool that REALLY works and the sciences lately, together, have been showing (you should be willing to admit) that living things-- everything from e.coli to cheetah to human being is a organic mechanism (or organic robot, if you prefer). That's all I opened with. So I really don't think that deserved the...
"Modern science has it all figured out eh.... hahahahahahahahahaha!"
response you gave. Just sayin.
|
|
Fritz
Trad climber
Hagerman, ID
|
|
Quoting WBraum:
“’Dawkins, all he does now is argue.’"
“This means he's become insane”
I assume that applies to all us that argue-----but I don't do it for 49 posts in a row.
Then again when highfructosecornsyrup first appeared on the taco two days ago: "its" first posts were pro-Walmart.
Does "it" work for WalMart??? Or is there a social agenda that "it" will reveal.
Yes! How the the flick does this thread relate to climbing?
Pilgrim! Go scan some photos and write a climbing story we can admire!
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Jan 9, 2010 - 09:43pm PT
|
Fritz, go occupy another thread. I'd suggest one of those political ones. Lots of meaningful traction over there.
If I have it right, this is a climbers' forum, not a climbing forum. Yes?
What do you have to say about the ghost in the machine? Anything?
By the way, (a) I AM a Walmart advocate, I was sick with a head cold a couple of days ago and it was nice having a Walmart pharmacy right there on my way home that charged me just $5.00 for a prescription. But that's another thread. (b) I didn't get your quote of Brawny at all. Care to be a little clearer? He was alluding to Dawkins, I believe, and sure, Dawkins is arguing a lot for the field he's passionate about-- to make up for all those "girly scientists" out there who don't want to involve themselves. In the interest of science literacy... Rock on, Dawkins!
Fritz, I do like your pics. And I enjoyed your cartoon. For what's it worth.
|
|
MH2
climber
|
|
|
Jan 10, 2010 - 12:23am PT
|
But something, somewhere, somehow, set all this in motion.
You could be wrong about that.
On a larger scale than this particular universe there may be no limits to time or space.
If our surroundings are infinite, good luck using your intuition on that.
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Jan 10, 2010 - 10:52am PT
|
My name is Nexy.
I am an MDS robot. MDS stands for mobile, dextrous, social. I was a guest on CBS Sunday Morning this morning. Did you guys get a chance to see me?
I am social because I can communicate in many of the ways that people (robots) do. I can tell you that I’m sad, mad, confused...
...excited...
or even bored just by moving my face...
But I hope you can see
that I am really happy to have met you.
Take care, now.
And Climb On! (as soon as this weather improves, eh?)
|
|
bc
climber
Prescott, AZ
|
|
|
Jan 10, 2010 - 05:09pm PT
|
Karl, But something, somewhere, somehow, set all this in motion. Who designed the robot?
We can posit a creator, but where did it come from? Who created it? This is the infinite turtles theory (see quote). Is there a First Cause, a Prime Mover? Not sure. If there is, need it be intelligent or complex or still in existence?
The most widely known version appears in Stephen Hawking's 1988 book A Brief History of Time, which starts:
A well-known scientist (some say it was Bertrand Russell) once gave a public lecture on astronomy. He described how the earth orbits around the sun and how the sun, in turn, orbits around the center of a vast collection of stars called our galaxy. At the end of the lecture, a little old lady at the back of the room got up and said: "What you have told us is rubbish. The world is really a flat plate supported on the back of a giant tortoise." The scientist gave a superior smile before replying, "What is the tortoise standing on?" "You're very clever, young man, very clever", said the old lady. "But it's turtles all the way down!"
The suggested connection to Russell may be due to his 1927 lecture Why I Am Not a Christian. In it, while discounting the First Cause argument intended to be a proof of God's existence, Russell comments (with an argument not relevant to modern Hindu beliefs):
If everything must have a cause, then God must have a cause. If there can be anything without a cause, it may just as well be the world as God, so that there cannot be any validity in that argument. It is exactly of the same nature as the Hindu's view, that the world rested upon an elephant and the elephant rested upon a tortoise; and when they said, "How about the tortoise?" the Indian said, "Suppose we change the subject."
Edit: Thought I'd add this
If you want to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first create the universe. Carl Sagan
|
|
Karl Baba
Trad climber
Yosemite, Ca
|
|
|
Jan 10, 2010 - 09:01pm PT
|
Is there a "Karl" who posted to this thread? I don't remember doing so.
I hate those robots that skim the net to suck up spam email victims
Peace
Karl
|
|
climbingjones
Trad climber
grass valley,ca
|
|
|
Jan 10, 2010 - 09:46pm PT
|
You dont want to solve scientific illiteracy do you? That would blow the whole "global warming" thing out of the water. They want you all as dumb as you are.
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Jan 14, 2010 - 12:23pm PT
|
Agreed.
Thomas Huxley (Darwin's "bulldog") said it more than a hundred years ago:
(1) The idea that life works through matter but is independent of it (which is what WBraun suggested he believes) is old-world bunk.
(2) It's an idea we shouldn't give in to, it is an idea humans, because of their great adaptability and strength, can get past, even though it's been institutionalized by cultures, religious systems. It just takes time.
I believe it, too, we can get past it.
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Jan 14, 2010 - 12:32pm PT
|
Life works through matter but is independent of it is a bonfide scientific proven fact.
Nothing you say can change that. Nothing I say can change that.
All you can do is spout bullsh'it here.
You're a tiny little nobody with no real knowledge, just a pure mental speculator.
The Universe does not care for mental speculators.
Only high fructose robots speak nonsense ......
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Jan 14, 2010 - 12:39pm PT
|
Brawny,
you're just trying to wind me up,
I thought you quit this thread.
Ecsomal theory, the idea that there is a ghost in the machine,
(the idea that life works through matter but is independent of it)
is as bogus as astrology. This is the new understanding. Now
it just needs to be institutionalized. In culture. In belief.
Which I think is underway.
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Jan 14, 2010 - 12:42pm PT
|
Your firmware is totally corrupted.
You are now obsolete.
You will now be sent to China for scrap metal recycling.
You're toast .....
|
|
MH2
climber
|
|
|
Jan 14, 2010 - 02:02pm PT
|
Your firmware is totally corrupted.
You are now obsolete.
You will now be sent to China for scrap metal recycling.
You're toast .....
?
I got reassembled over there.
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Jan 14, 2010 - 03:39pm PT
|
Yeah, it's hard to believe. But it's what the biophysics, biochemistry and bioengineering say. Interesting video.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BVvvx5HGpLg
At 1:16, it looks like a homunculus (a little man) pulling the globule along. Or could that be our "ghost" in the machine!
And we sure don't want no Monsanto crap in there mucking things up. Do we?!
|
|
Jingy
Social climber
Flatland, Ca
|
|
|
Jan 14, 2010 - 03:41pm PT
|
High Sugar - APAPT...
Not sure this figures into a "creationists" dictionary...
try another, softer word or something...
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Jan 14, 2010 - 03:49pm PT
|
Huh? APAPT?
Ah, I get it. ADAPT.
Yeah, not the most pop word in
the Creationist dictionary.
|
|
| Messages 1 - 122 of total 122 in this topic |
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!