Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
|
|
What caught my attention in the Sean Carroll Rogan bit (which Carroll only hit in passing) was the possibility that a super evolved, super intelligent, super aware living thing might eventually conclude that, given nature's nature and its own nature, it's had enough as a rule bound, incentive and disincentive driven organism (iow, reward and punishment propelled biont) and therefore it's time at long last to let go.
I thought it was an interesting, intriguing, end of the line possibility.
One answer, perhaps a partial answer, of perhaps many of a mix, to the paradox.
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
|
|
re: fermi paradox
We don't know enough to explain the paradox (with any number of perhaps many answers) and yet the paradox itself is COMPELLING, and remains COMPELLING, GROWING EVER MORE COMPELLING - at least for those sufficiently interested and knowledgeable to consider it. Like Fermi, Sagan, and others.
In my book, just as I've posted here before, chief of the factors in support of the COMPELLING nature of the paradox is the absence of incoming EM intelligent broadcasts... even from 50k light years away. Given its ubiquitous nature and ease of use, we should be awash in it and our instruments should be receiving it. Where is it?
If memory serves, even the Arecibo is capable of communicating with its likeness 50k - 100k light years distant. So forget transmissions from earth, if the Cosmos is "teeming with intelligent life" that's radio-capable then where are the many many many receptions from points far far away originating hundreds to tens of thousands of years ago. Mystery indeed.
Paradox indeed.
So wouldn't it be something if... while the Cosmos is teeming with intelligent life that's radio-capable or above even a million times over... the Milky Way, notwithstanding its own greatness, only supports in this particular class the singular Sapiens.
Wouldn't that be mind-blowing to say the least.
|
|
paul roehl
Boulder climber
california
|
|
in the NYTimes
What Science Can Learn From Religion
Hostility toward spiritual traditions may be hampering empirical inquiry.
By David DeSteno
"Science and religion seem to be getting ever more tribal in their mutual recriminations, at least
among hard-line advocates. While fundamentalist faiths cast science as a misguided or even
malicious source of information, polemicizing scientists argue that religion isn’t just wrong or
meaningless but also dangerous..."
Read this finally, nice. Pretty much what I've been trying to say throughout this thread.
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
|
|
polemicizing scientists argue that religion isn’t just wrong or
meaningless but also dangerous
this is necessary, a necessary evil? no... but necessary pain, growing pain, and necessary step... necessary to innovate... necessary to adjust / adapt... necessary to move on, to keep moving on.
note not everyone in a population makes up the vanguard, so the resistance is understandable.
note in pretty much every population on the move, there are holdbacks, laggards, dissidents, naysayers, complainers, etc.... also readily understandable given the natures involved.
|
|
Jan
Mountain climber
Colorado & Nepal
|
|
There are plenty of examples in history (mostly of young men) who forged ahead and were maimed and died for their trouble, although sometime useful conclusions were reached by the survivors. When I was told by the Sherpas that two types of flowers looked almost the same and one was excellent medicine and the other deadly poison (same for mushrooms), I often wondered how many adventurous people died before they figured that out.
It could be the same for societies who become so rational they leave out hope and imagination for their members who then turn to drugs and suicide to cope. I was often asked in Nepal by the locals why, if we had so much material wealth, so many of our people traveled so far from home just to use drugs.
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
|
|
Believe you me, the harshness of the many evolutionary dynamics in any evolutionary progression is not lost on me.
"Growing pains" is a key concept here. It's a necessary part of the deal, it seems, in the making of life, the maintenance of life.
If I had to guess, I'd guess our future over the next 10,000 years entails a VERY MANY boom and bust ecological cycles - of unimaginable amounts of pain / hardship / injustices - with the much later, down-the-line cycles perhaps characterized by much reduced population sizes (e.g., one to ten million, say, if you can imagine that) "living it up" in a "heaven on earth" state or condition - provisioned by the enormous wealth generated by past generations (numbering in the tens to hundreds) of past hard-working ancestors (numbering in the billions). Such is the nature of cultural evolution. How's that for progress? Some in the present, living in the NOW, might consider this vision not only regression but to some extent demoralizing.
Such is the nature of cultural evolution.
From a certain pov, apart from unfairness, it is demoralizing. Can be. Just look at what we get, resource-wise, that our ancient ancestors living in the time of Egyptian pharaohs, say, didn't get. Imagine what a commoner living in the time of Ramses II would say about simple fairness or opportunity if somehow he were shown the powers and freedoms that we all have.
People speak of apocalypse, impending apocalypse and post-apocalyptic existence. Note from the pov of T. Rex, we Sapiens are living... and for the lucky ones "living it up" even... in a post-apocalyptic world.
|
|
paul roehl
Boulder climber
california
|
|
"Do not let us mistake necessary evils for good."
C.S. Lewis
"Most 'necessary evils' are far more evil than necessary."
 Richard Branson
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
|
|
"akin to stating gravity is no longer in effect because humans have sent rockets to space"
and yet, in a common manner of speaking, is not gravity defied in these examples?
cf: gravity defied, death defied, natural selection defied
It is in this "manner of speaking" eeyonkee, and base too, spoke, it seemed to me.
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
|
|
re: gravity-defying
https://www.google.com/search?safe=off&source=hp&ei=KEhXXMzOOcuG0wLL07bIBw&q=gravity+defying&btnK=Google+Search&oq=gravity+defying&gs_l=psy-ab.3..0l10.3565.10998..14500...4.0..1.318.2520.1j16j1j1......0....1..gws-wiz.....6..35i39j0i131j0i10.SU_2SfBRZt4
17,800,000 returns.
But far be it for me to point out language usage or "manner of speaking" instances to one of ST's finest writers and favorite storytellers.
:)
...
For sake of completeness, though, I will add that it is common practice among evolutionary biologists and others though to speak of a selection pressure reduced or even eliminated because of some intervention (e.g., a corrective surgery, eyeglasses, safety procedure, etc).
From my perspective, I've come to see the more you grok a system's operation, any system's operation, in its fullness - from free solo climbing to free will - the more you can see through any mess of miscommunication that might arise caused by language and its shortcomings to the actual dynamics of what's going on.
P.S.
Or for that matter, a selection pressure emerging (turned on) or increased. Cases in point: passenger pigeon, dodo bird. Driven to extinction. Agent of pressure: Hunting. Hunter. Homo sapiens.
Dingus, you are of course right, though. Natural selection is a fundamental of life and the Cosmos, always on the job.
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
Only gross materialists are under the influence of gravitational forces and natural selection.
They are prisoners of their material consciousness .....
|
|
BASE104
Social climber
An Oil Field
|
|
To some extent modern medicine has lessened the pressure of natural selection on humans.
That is simple and obvious to anyone with open eyes. lf An organism lives long enough and pro creates, it wins as far as natural selection is concerned.
I badly broke my arm as a toddler. 20,000 years ago, I probably would not have survived very long. It required surgery and weeks in traction followed by months in a half body cast. Ancestral skeletons have been recovered with healed simple fractures. A lot of them. Our ancestors lived a harsh and violent lifestyle, yet there was obviously some mutual social care.
Natural selection is simple. You procreate, pass on your genetic material, and you win. If you die before or without procreation, you lose. No amount of woo spin can alter that simple and powerful biological law.
It affects humans equally with bacteria and all other forms of life.
There are additional evolutionary pressures, but natural selection is a very powerful tool over time.
You can have a serious and heritable genetic problem and still procreate with the aid of medicine. This will make us less fit over time.
These are very simple rules. So to those without children, you lose. Almost everyone has sex, but we have developed birth control.
Does anyone have any ideas regarding who has the most children, and what our species will look like in the future?
The case can be made that the most successful humans will lose, because their careers take precedence over having children. Pretty much every human can have offspring these days.
Mankind’s natural selection isn’t working full blast anymore.
|
|
BASE104
Social climber
An Oil Field
|
|
Imagine a catastrophe. Say, a coronal mass ejection takes down the electric grid.
Without refrigeration every diabetic will die soon.
Myopia will become a disadvantage if hunting is important. It often shows up later, so perhaps they would succeed in procreation.
A friend of mine adopted 2 Cambodian baby boys. He remarked that they probably would not have vision problems. He said that the Khmer Rouge killed everyone who wore glasses.
A cruel example, but correct to some extent.
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
A cruel example, but correct to some extent.
Not correct at all and this is justified by clueless idiots.
So many of you can't see either even though you have 20/20 vision and don't need glasses because of your brainwashed consciousness.
So we should kill you all too?
St00pid ......
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
|
|
BASE, between you and me, I don't think your encouragement in past posts to read Demon Haunted World has ever been more applicable / necessary than right now during these Trump years.
Of course it's not the caring, engaged science types whom the book most pertains to. Thus the irony that comes along with it.
|
|
August West
Trad climber
Where the wind blows strange
|
|
You are, I assume, aware of just how much people believe is taken from others who appear to have legitimacy / credibility? I doubt that not everything you do or believe is based upon your own experiences. You (everyone) take a great deal from others’ claims—for example, the definition of a word in the dictionary, the assertion that there are countries you’ve never seen, atoms, neurons, and on and on.
(But perhaps you’re only concerned about religious authorities, not scientific or social ones outside of your direct experiences. My question would be: why stop there?)
I have never been to England. So maybe Tom Stoppard is right that it is just a conspiracy of cartographers, then?
But I don't think I need to stretch my belief in authorities quite as far to imagine that London is a real place as to imagine that the earth is only a few thousands years old.
I don't need to consult a peer reviewed article to understand what my co-worker means when he says it is raining outside. But I don't see any reason to take seriously the idea that there is a soul that continues to live after your body is gone. Why should I give any deference to religious authorities on this? Because a bunch of old dudes have consulted their ancient manuscripts?
When someone talks about 'scientific authorities' it is usually because the scientific evidence in question conflicts with their beliefs or desires. Smoking causes cancer? Hah! What do those idiot doctors know.
I guess it depends on your definitions but I would say that science has increased technology - vaccines, smart phones, nuclear weapons - and increased our general understanding of the world. For instance, that the observable universe is around 14 billion years old. Science can also say 'we don't know'. While there is plenty of speculation what came before the Big Bang, I think most cosmologists would say, 'we don't know'.
Those religious authority types never seem to say that they don't know.
Sure once upon a time, stellar scientists thought the sun couldn't be more than a few million years old, but new evidence and theories changed. Religion seems to have a hard time with ever saying it was wrong in the past.
On the other hand, religion does consider topics that science has little to say on. For instance, how should societies be organized. What makes for a good life.
But if this is all that religion is doing, and its not pushing supernatural beliefs, then call it what it is:
Philosophy.
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
Those religious authority types never seem to say that they don't know.
Why should they as they don't sh!t to begin with.
The manufacturer of the whole cosmic manifestations explains everything.
The st00pid modern scientists jump up and down like st00pid monkeys all day saying there is no manufacturer, there is no need for a manufacturer, No ONE KNOWS, ..... idiots.
These st00pid monkeys are the ones making up all the sh!t with their mental speculations and posing as authorities all the time masquerading themselves as so-called gods.
You people are so brainwashed with your so-called material science is all in all with modern science as a huge ad hominem against its own self interest ......
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
|
|
So here's what I thought was one of the most intelligent, thoughtful, hopeful, meaningful JRE dialogs I've heard in quite awhile...
[Click to View YouTube Video]
https://youtu.be/_mP9OmOFxc4
The last 30 minutes or so were esp interesting, insightful, revealing, imo.
But notice the upvote/downvote tally and the commentaries. Draw your own conclusions.
"We've got to push ourselves, we've got to make ourselves uncomfortable, and we've got to disrupt what we held sacred and what we think is success today. Because otherwise it's not going to be bigger than what we have today." -Jack Dorsey
|
|
August West
Trad climber
Where the wind blows strange
|
|
in the NYTimes
What Science Can Learn From Religion
Hostility toward spiritual traditions may be hampering empirical inquiry.
By David DeSteno
"Science and religion seem to be getting ever more tribal in their mutual recriminations, at least
among hard-line advocates. While fundamentalist faiths cast science as a misguided or even
malicious source of information, polemicizing scientists argue that religion isn’t just wrong or
meaningless but also dangerous..."
So I read this. I can appreciate what society can learn from science. I can appreciate what religion might teach a secular society. Although, as I pointed out earlier, I think the useful bits of religion are not the supernatural elements and should really be called philosophy.
I'm not really sure what religion might learn from science. Ideally it would be to stop pushing supernatural beliefs, but that doesn't look too likely.
But I don't see what religion has to offer science. I don't see science as synonymous with secular society, although it seems a lot of people want to conflate the two for various reasons. Religion doesn't inform how you should go about a scientific approach. And I would say that discussions of philosophy are peripheral, at best, to science.
Edit to add:
I would agree that plenty of religion is outright wrong and dangerous. I wouldn't argue that it is all meaningless. Religion has way too much effect on the world to claim it is meaningless.
|
|
MikeL
Social climber
Southern Arizona
|
|
August West: I would say that science has increased technology - vaccines, smart phones, nuclear weapons - and increased our general understanding of the world.
Just what does “general understanding of the world” mean to you? Are you making a reference to what some of us might call “close approximations?” Is “close enough” close enough for you? Do you require knowing exactly what things are and how they manifest, or are you satisfied that most of the time X or Y seems to explain things well enough to increase your chances that you can get what you want (instrumentalism)?
Narratives of all sort (mythical, scientific, instinctual, psychological, literary) provide heuristics that can be fruitfully employed: when should we plant crops, how should we build buildings, how should one raise children, what kind of mate should one seek, what are the chief characteristics or attributes of human beings, what kind of social organization should people pursue, and on and on.
One might speculate what the primordial elements of reality are and how they arose (and all of that is interesting), but scientific research studies have not answered or gotten to the bottom of any of the questions above. For those of us who are still living in corporal form, those questions would seem to be more pervasive, relevant, and salient than cell phones, vaccines, and nuclear weapons. At least one can argue that they are equal and should be given equal concern.
|
|
BASE104
Social climber
An Oil Field
|
|
Geology and Geophysics have greatly increased our understanding about the world. No argument can refute that.
A lot of it has come from better technology. GPS for instance. Mauna Loa is covered with GPS sensors, particularly close to the vents, and can easily see ballooning and deflation of the main magma chambers. Computing power and modelers have greatly improved seismic exploration. The computers make it possible to run such huge datasets. The advances in geophysics have led to many new attributes, from the coherence cube to AVO anomalies and what they mean. It is really fascinating.
Nova just ran a really interesting show about the eruptions of 2018. I have a friend who lived in the affected area, had to evacuate, but luckily didn't lose his house.
It is really fascinating, and the Volcano Observatory staff did a really good job of monitoring everything, allowing the affected neighborhoods to be evacuated, and there was no loss of life. The plumbing of that volcano is quite complicated. How it breached and flowed beneath the ground was closely monitored by seismographs. I'm sure that you can find it on youtube or the PBS website.
You have to be interested first. For some reason, I doubt that you have that, Mike.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!