the END goal...

@richrf,

richrf;70641 wrote:

What bewilders me, is how a group of people are so certain about something they know nothing about, other than what they see and their minds interpret.

Let me ask you a question to which i'd really appreciate a straight answer.

Based on the available evidence, could you name a language that you reckon I could speak?

@Dave Allen,

Dave Allen;70658 wrote:

Let me ask you a question to which i'd really appreciate a straight answer.

Based on the available evidence, could you name a language that you reckon I could speak?

I reckon you could speak, what as a consensus we call English, but I don't know who you are and I sure don't know what kind of English you speak. There were tons of words that you use that I have no idea what you are saying. Smile

So, it is sort of what we call English, but it is a different English than the one I talk, for sure. English is just an approximation! :detective:

Rich

@TurboLung,

For the record, Rich used the word "English" five times in his response. I'd have used it but once.

Honestly, Rich, you may as well have substituted "God" for "English" for all that meant...

@Aedes,

Aedes;70662 wrote:

For the record, Rich used the word "English" five times in his response. I'd have used it but once.

Honestly, Rich, you may as well have substituted "God" for "English" for all that meant...

There is such thing as consensus. We all arrive at it in order to fit into this world. And then there are disagreements about the consensus, and we change. I don't believe simply because people arrive at a consensus, that they have arrived at certainty.

For example, there was a consensus formed that Bush beat Gore. Did he? Still debated. I think Gore won. So?

I have no idea who anyone is that I am talking to and that they can speak English (they could have a translator for example). But I don't mind living with possibilities and probabilities. It is with me all of the time.

Rich

@TurboLung,

Correct! I speak what the gestalt would agree on as being English.

Good deducing. I'm pretty sure we could imagine some scenarios were I might have been a non-English speaker able to communicate in the language, I could be a mute or using some form of translation, but the available evidence certainly pointed to a more likely answer than the others - I've a western name as a handle, my location's given as part of the British Isles, my posts are in what's commonly recognised as English, etc...

You're even more right, I reckon, to hold suspicions that we might not speak English in the same way. Our dialects, colloquialisms and accents are probably pretty dissimilar - I agree with your detective instincts. I ain't never bin to da windy ciddy.

Now - the evidence for viruses is actually a lot more compelling than whether or not some faceless forumite talks England's mother tongue or not. So is it that bewildering that people are (to all practical intents and purposes) certain that they exist?

I deduce - I hope correctly - that we share a certain degree of interest in philosophy, and that therefore you might, like myself, accept that we can't go further than "I think that I think therefore I think that I am" or "one can doubt everything but doubt" before we have to start making assumptions. I'm quite at home with that and accept the timeless wisdom of such statements as intellectual exercies. However, I'm not sure that bewilderment in the face of the habit of "acceptance of the case for which there is the best argument" is a practical position or one you would actually hold beyond the realm of a philosophical debate.

So whilst I respect Cartesian or phenomenological thought to a significant degree, I think it's actually very limiting when applied universally. We can all doubt everything - but what is so bewildering about tending to settle for the best made argument?

@richrf,

richrf;70663 wrote:

There is such thing as consensus.

Yup, and all the scientific things I say that you dismiss out of hand enjoy scientific consensus.

@TurboLung,

G'day everybody. I question the linear/rational/anthropocentric assumptions that an "end", a "goal", or even "survival" are at the root of actions of living things. I think those things could be just results of acting to ameliorate discomfort or dissatisfaction. "Growth" is apparently also a result, but that doesn't necessarily make it a goal either.

Just some fodder for thought.

@TurboLung,

TurboLung;70561 wrote:

they would share their knowledge and this is the only way i could see humans in the near future finding out the questions we ask.

I doubt they have a universally satisfying definition for life or know the origin of the universe Smile

Dave Allen;70570 wrote:

By all means disabuse me by giving me a primer in your own words about what aspects of quantum theory might lead to abiogenesis occuring in a jar of water with a rock in it beyond "quantum theory means anything can happen". How could quantum theory make replicating organisms appear in a static environment with no catalyst?That will put me in my place.

For a fantastic coincidence, several fundamental atom-forming particles would be throw into reality at the same moment among the molecules of water and, for another fantastic coincidence, they would be positioned in a way to form the atoms that make up an ameba and, for yet another fantastic coincidence, they would all be at the correct position to form the ameba. Smile

TurboLung;70607 wrote:

sadly, the more i deal with intelligent people, the more i realise that the old axiom is true; that intelligent people rarely posses common sense.

I suspect such axiom is propagated by the "less intelligent" side of the discussion Smile

TurboLung;70619 wrote:

if it is so "basic", then, shouldn't we have created a living cell by now?

We know how many ecosystems work, what doesnt means we could recreate then. Understanding how something happens doesnt means you have the dexterity to make it happen. I imagine its very difficult to pull a living cell togheder then its made of thousands of thousands of pieces, some of wich are trying to peform the functions they would normally peform inside a cell since they dont know they are not inside one Smile

richrf;70641 wrote:

As we imagine a virus is?

You are looking at it from the outside. From your perspective.

What bewilders me, is how a group of people are so certain about something they know nothing about, other than what they see and their minds interpret. Heck, humans have been looking at humans for centuries (and even talking to them!) and they still don't understand each other. I don't even understand myself.

Let's keep an open mind on the possibility that we are entirely mistaken about every single thing we think IS. Especially, since it is always changing.

Rich

Is reality wavering? Is it collapsing? Is it exploding? Are the laws of physics having a party?

No

So why the hell consider it is? Leave that for then you see dogfaced flying pink bunnies Smile

Another thing Id like to add, though I forgot where is the post with this: I believe TurboLung said at some point that it would be an strangely convenient coincide for all the necessary for life to be where life was going to form itself. well... I think its kinda difficult for life to form itself if the prerequisites arent met... Smile

Its like saying its a big coincidence that I am me, considering there are 6 billions featherless bipeds with broad toe-nails on the planet.

@Dave Allen,

Dave Allen;70665 wrote:

However, I'm not sure that bewilderment in the face of the habit of "acceptance of the case for which there is the best argument" is a practical position or one you would actually hold beyond the realm of a philosophical debate.

I find it a very practical place to be in my life at this time. It is the result of learning many life lessons. But, of course, that can always change.

Quote:

So whilst I respect Cartesian or phenomenological thought to a significant degree, I think it's actually very limiting when applied universally. We can all doubt everything - but what is so bewildering about tending to settle for the best made argument?

I find it very liberating. I am open to many things and lots of possibilities. But each person is different, and what feels good to me may not feel good to others. And, BTW, sometimes it doesn't feel goof. Contradictions abound in life. Smile

Rich

---------- Post added at 04:02 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:58 PM ----------

Aedes;70670 wrote:

Yup, and all the scientific things I say that you dismiss out of hand enjoy scientific consensus.

Yep. I agree. Now, of course, from my readings, I have never seen 100% consensus in the scientific world on anything. Which is great! So it keeps changing. Same for me. Smile

Rich

---------- Post added at 04:03 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:58 PM ----------

Ahhhhhz;70681 wrote:

G'day everybody. I question the linear/rational/anthropocentric assumptions that an "end", a "goal", or even "survival" are at the root of actions of living things. I think those things could be just results of acting to ameliorate discomfort or dissatisfaction. "Growth" is apparently also a result, but that doesn't necessarily make it a goal either.

Just some fodder for thought.

Hi,

I agree. We could all just be playing around amusing ourselves doing different things. Sort of like a baby playing peek-a-boo, or children playing hide-and-seek, or adults playing philosophy?

Nature loves to hide. [Heraclitus]

Rich

---------- Post added at 04:08 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:58 PM ----------

manored;70684 wrote:

Are the laws of physics having a party?

The laws of physics? Which one? And how are you interpreting them?

Let's hear what Niels Bohr has to say on the subject:

"How wonderful that we have met with a paradox. Now we have some hope of making progress."

"We are all agreed that your theory is crazy. The question which divides us is whether it is crazy enough to have a chance of being correct. My own feeling is that it is not crazy enough."

"If quantum mechanics hasn't profoundly shocked you, you haven't understood it yet."

I love Bohr! He is my man.

Rich

@richrf,

mmm hmm... even such amusement is a type of amelioration, eh?

@Ahhhhhz,

Ahhhhhz;70704 wrote:

mmm hmm... even such amusement is a type of amelioration, eh?

Hi,

Yep. Possibly from being bored?

Rich

@richrf,

richrf;70705 wrote:

Hi,

Yep. Possibly from being bored?

Rich

Maybe so. Boredom is one of many kinds of dis-ease, discomfort, or dissatisfaction...I think. We all do some creative (and sometimes crazy) things to escape it, and not always in the best interest of our health or survival.

@Ahhhhhz,

Ahhhhhz;70707 wrote:

Maybe so. Boredom is one of many kinds of dis-ease, discomfort, or dissatisfaction...I think. We all do some creative (and sometimes crazy) things to escape it, and not always in the best interest of our health or survival.

Yep. Just let's hope that we have a transcendental soul, so that we try something different next time around. Smile

Rich

@richrf,

richrf;70709 wrote:

Yep. Just let's hope that we have a transcendental soul, so that we try something different next time around.

Rich

Indeed. Something not only different, but better--more satisfying.

@Dave Allen,

[QUOTE=Dave Allen;70622]OK, so if you didn't mean "decide" let me know what you did mean and we'll go from there shall we?

Words - they are symbols with common meaning and should be used as such to facilitate understanding.[/quote]

but they never are. words are used differently all the time, like, light. am i speaking of weight, or, illumination? people with common sense would understand my use of 'decide'. for example, if someone said, "that dog decided to run in front of my car," or, "that tree decided to grow right in the middle of the field," would anyone, apart from you, not understand the basic meaning of the speaker? so you have confirmed that you require diagrams when i post. i don't blame you for not being the sharpest knife in the drawer [no, i don't actually believe that you are a piece of cuttlery inside a drawer typing on a pc - no, really, i don't; it's just a saying].

if you can not grasp simple things like this, i am dubious of your understanding of this topic.

the problem with some people is that they aren't flexible and very rigid in what they hear and read. the universe is flexible, so, there is no point in being that way and trying to understand it.

[quote]I mean, that's just common sense, is it not?[/quote]

actually, no, it's not.

[quote]So there is some picayune wrangling over where to draw the line exactly - but that wrangling need not imply a lack of understanding so much as it does semantics.[/quote]

so, as long as it fits your view, you are happy to overlook the wrangling? but if someone questions this theory in its infancy then, they must be off track?

wow, you really do sound like a television evangelist.

[quote]In science a theory is the highest order of fact with the exception of mathmatical proof.[/quote]

yes, so high in fact that many are disproven all the time, including blunders from scientists like einstein and hawkins. yes, i see.

[quote]The best theories are built on a body of facts and laws, account for them as a whole and make predictions which turn out to be unfalsifiable (at worst) or verifiable when appropriate tests are conceived and carried out.[/quote]

like string theory, which cannot be built on a body of facts and laws and cannot be tested?

[quote]I'm not big on special relativity, so I can't really comment on what controversies might be coming to light and whether or not it requires tweaking or rebuilding or junking. It is very rare that since the inception of the scientific method around the time of Gallileo that a body of scientific theory accepted as solid by the scientific community has been thoroughly rubbished - I can't think of an example though I'm sure there are.[/quote]

oh, so, the fact that hawkins, newton and eistein have been wrong on more than one occasion with their theories does not justify the fact that i am not 100% convinced on your theory in infacy on the creation of life?

[quote]Yes he did. He did not say it was something that people took poetic license over, which is what you claimed he said, or that was widely disbelieved by those who understood it.[/quote]

of course this theory has poetic license, otherwise, it would be considered fact. all theories use poetic license. oh my, i forgot, i need to draw a diagram for you... poetic license does not mean that these scientists actually seek a license from the government so that they can create poetry. no dave allen, this is not what i mean. what i mean is, that there are many gaps, or, chasms in this theory in infacy which are either glossed over, or just left alone because they can not be proved. in fact, they are guestimations and assumptions. bit, if you are happy believeing assumptions, then good luck to you.

[quote]Some might do, or are skeptical in an uncommitted way.[/quote]

no, you are downplaying this. it's not that some may do, it is that some actually do not believe this theory. also, you assume that it is some. i would say it is plenty. and why would plenty be skeptical? because the evidence is sketchy at best.

[quote]Some may just not care.[/quote]

yes, because scientists may just not care about the origins of life. :sarcastic:

[quote]There is no better support for any competing theory though.I doubt many who have an understanding of the theory would deny it's plausability, though I've not seen polls.[/quote]

this is an opinion of yours, and i respect that, but, it isn't fact.

[quote]Filling in the details is a matter of continuing study, of course.[/quote]

why fill in the gaps? you have explained that you are convinced? and which gaps are you talking about? oh right, the gaps that don't hold this theory in infancy together...

[quote]Sure, but if you don't understand the primer, or object to it for rather spurious reasons, what's the point of moving on to chapter 2?[/quote]

i understand the primer. however, i will not commit to this theory in infancybased on your assumptions on primers.

[quote]A fair metaphore - why not?[/quote]

but you said, "Words - they are symbols with common meaning and should be used as such to facilitate understanding."

do you mind if i call you dr. contradiction from this point on?

[quote]So if there is alien life out there I think the most plausable explanation for it's existence would be evolution by natural selection.[/quote]

i would tend to agree. but we are assuming.

[quote]I hear all sorts of things I don't believe. I discern what I choose not to believe from what I do choose to believe based on strength of argument (including my own arbitray insights, which tend to carry disproportionate weight in comparison to what I hear - if I'm honest), moderated (I hope) by what seems to best suit the available evidence.[/quote]

except when it comes to theories in their infancy with gaps.

[quote]Well as a side project shall we start by agreeing that quantum theory helps explain the behaviour of atomic and subatomic particles? While aspects of the processes involved are very mysterious and random enough pattern applies to make stunning predictions based on the non-random body of theory itself.[/quote]

actually, i didn't make up the walking through the wall analogy. you can read it in stephen hawkin's brief history of time. perhaps you should email him your objection.

---------- Post added at 10:58 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:41 AM ----------

[quote]Whilst quantum mechanics reveal that atoms are largely made up of empty space it would be a mistake to imagine that it follows that two solid objects could plausably behave as two gaseous objects.

Those with a certain understanding of quantum often imagine that it might be possible for some sort of "cosmic alignment" of the tiny particles in one solid to provide a perfect mirror of those in another - and that a resulting infitesmal shift could result in the two sets passing each other by.

However, this ignores things like:

1) Any such alignment would be over in a fraction of a fraction of a millisecond - no time for a man to pass through a wall.
2) The electromagnetic attraction/repulsion of atoms to/against one another that form chemical bonds that would be disrupted by other atoms sliding between them.[/quote]

please read and be amazed:

[quote]
In 1957, a student named Hugh Everett suggested that perhaps the reason that a particle's outcome can't be predicted is not because of randomness, but because every possible outcome does occur. This idea led to the "many-worlds interpretation" (MWI) which postulates that at the quantum level, everything that can happen does happen, and that each possible outcome branches the universe into another which is at first identical aside from the alternate outcome. So the seemingly "random" outcome is actually just representative of the one possible outcome one's current universe happens to be based upon. The overlapping universes, between which no information can pass, would then continue to develop individually, each of them branching endlessly as well. Among physicists worldwide, this "multiverse" idea has become one of the most widely accepted interpretations of quantum physics.

On a larger scale, MWI would mean that everything which can happen will happen in at least one universe. [/quote]

so, no, when i used the quantum theory joke, i was not relating to your understanding ofempty space, i was in fact relating my joke to the unlimited possibilities that quantum mechanics allows for.

@TurboLung,

TurboLung;70760 wrote:

but they never are. words are used differently all the time, like, light. am i speaking of weight, or, illumination?

What's the context?

Quote:

people with common sense would understand my use of 'decide'. for example, if someone said, "that dog decided to run in front of my car," or, "that tree decided to grow right in the middle of the field," would anyone, apart from you, not understand the basic meaning of the speaker?

Can you stop prevaricating and just explain what you meant?

Quote:

if you can not grasp simple things like this, i am dubious of your understanding of this topic.

By all means, but what did you actually mean?

Look - whatever - I accept your insulting remarks. Feel free to throw more my direction - it takes a lot to make me cry. However, somewhere down the line, just state what you actually meant would you? Indulge a feller who is by his own admission not the sharpest knife in the drawer. There's a good chap!

Quote:

so, as long as it fits your view, you are happy to overlook the wrangling?

Seeing as it's, in my view, picayune - yes.

Quote:

but if someone questions this theory in its infancy then, they must be off track?

Depends on the validity of the critique.

Quote:

wow, you really do sound like a television evangelist.

I've yet to mention the perils of faggotry or need for funding, so I don't see this as an apt critique either.

Quote:

yes, so high in fact that many are disproven all the time, including blunders from scientists like einstein and hawkins. yes, i see.

But special relativity has not been disproven. See, the links you posted did not disprove it, they merely posited some possible issues with it.

As I said, it might require tweaking, rebuilding or junking. The operative word is "might". Currently it still stands as the best explanation based on the available evidence. There are clearly some areas of doubt - as there are with everything - but no competing theory presents a better argument at the current time.

And this is the case with most of the theories which have been assembled using the scientific method since the time of Gallileo. The operative word is "most" - I don't doubt there were some theories accepted by large by the scientific community developed within that idiom that have been overturned - but I can't think of one off the top of my head.

Quote:

like string theory, which cannot be built on a body of facts and laws and cannot be tested?

Well, it's fully compatitble with a lot of what is known about physics - so to say it isn't built on a body of facts is terribly misleading.

Quote:

oh, so, the fact that hawkins, newton and eistein have been wrong on more than one occasion with their theories does not justify the fact that i am not 100% convinced on your theory in infacy on the creation of life?

Again, just because objections have been raised to the theories does not mean they have been overturned. (In fact I think most of the theories you are referring to are actually hypotheses, particularly in regards to Hawkins).

Quote:

of course this theory has poetic license, otherwise, it would be considered fact.

Not within scientific terminology.

Animals reproduce themselves - a fact.
The reproductions are not perfect - there are always variations - a fact.
Some variations are better at surviving than others - a fact.

Taking these facts, various scientists proposed hypotheses about how different animals might change over time to become a new species.

A French biologist called Lamark proposed that animals exercised certain properties during their lives that they passed onto their children, eg: A giraffe spends a lot of time reaching for leaves, which stretches it's neck, and it's children are born with long necks.

This hypothesis never became a theory, because the evidence did not support it and counter-evidence was abundant. Lamarkian evolution was never accepted by scientific consensus beyond a handy placeholder.

When Chalres Darwin wrote "On Origin of Species" he proposed a different model, pointing out the variety of ecological niches available to animals which might favour certain variations over others. At this point he merely had a hypothesis of Evolution by Natural Selection.

However, on review by his peers, it was found that many of the points he raised were supported by evidence, furthermore his disocveries were corroborated by Mendel's contemporary work on genetics, by the fossil record, by geology and so on.

The ideas that he proposed which survived testing and criticism went on to form the Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection.

So a theory is actually something much more important than a fact - it is a framework that accounts for a body of facts.

Quote:

all theories use poetic license. oh my, i forgot, i need to draw a diagram for you...

Keep 'em coming - it takes a lot to make me cry.

Quote:

poetic license does not mean that these scientists actually seek a license from the government so that they can create poetry. no dave allen, this is not what i mean. what i mean is, that there are many gaps, or, chasms in this theory in infacy which are either glossed over, or just left alone because they can not be proved.

Well, that's not really true.

There are scientists who gloss over things in their hypotheses or research - we call them bad scientists. Good scientists will admit where the blanks are, try to anticipate criticism and propose avenues of exploration in the future. This would happen long before something became accepted as a scientific theory.

Poetic license could be taken by an individual scientist who substituted a flight of fancy for an insight backed up be evidence. During peer review this would almost certainly be picked up on by other scientists.

Quote:

in fact, they are guestimations and assumptions. bit, if you are happy believeing assumptions, then good luck to you.

Everything beyond "one can doubt everything apart from doubt" is an assumption of some sort. We all make them - I like to make mine based on the best arguments.

Quote:

yes, because scientists may just not care about the origins of life. :sarcastic:

Sure, I know of physicists who just couldn't give a fig for biology or metaphysics.

Quote:

why fill in the gaps? you have explained that you are convinced? and which gaps are you talking about? oh right, the gaps that don't hold this theory in infancy together...

No, a net isn't held together by the gaps but by the framework.

Quote:

i understand the primer. however, i will not commit to this theory in infancybased on your assumptions on primers.

No commital is needed.

Quote:

but you said, "Words - they are symbols with common meaning and should be used as such to facilitate understanding."

Quote:

do you mind if i call you dr. contradiction from this point on?

I don't really care what you call me.

I said it was a fair metaphore, implying that I managed to grasp that you were using one. When you used the word decide it wasn't clear to me that you were being metaphorical, and it took you a while to explain that you were being so - though I still don't see what it's an obvious metaphore for and you still won't tell me - can I ask again that you please do so.

So technically I accept your objection - but I don't think I'm being overly inconsistent - a blatant figure of speech has been acknowledged and another has been queried.

Quote:

i would tend to agree. but we are assuming.

Yes - you can't get far without assumptions and the best ones are the ones for which there is evidence.

Quote:

except when it comes to theories in their infancy with gaps.

No need to make an exeption - it is the best theory I have come across, gaps or not.

I'm willing to hear of any better theories, if you have one by all means share.

Quote:

actually, i didn't make up the walking through the wall analogy. you can read it in stephen hawkin's brief history of time. perhaps you should email him your objection.

What page?

Quote:

please read and be amazed:

Good stuff.

@richrf,

richrf;70697 wrote:

I find it very liberating. I am open to many things and lots of possibilities. But each person is different, and what feels good to me may not feel good to others. And, BTW, sometimes it doesn't feel goof. Contradictions abound in life.

The laws of physics? Which one? And how are you interpreting them?

To me, it not only opens all doors, but also closes all doors. All doors are open because nothing is certain, but they are all closed because nothing can be trusted Smile

I mean the world's stability. I dont see the need to make exceptions to "rocks fall down then not supported" or "paper burns" or "fire cannot exist underwater", so why to treat then as uncertainties that might have changed since you last checked? Why to consider the existence of stone gigants if you have never seen or heard of one?

Ahhhhhz;70707 wrote:

Maybe so. Boredom is one of many kinds of dis-ease, discomfort, or dissatisfaction...I think. We all do some creative (and sometimes crazy) things to escape it, and not always in the best interest of our health or survival.

Nuclear holocaust anyone? Smile

Cant think of anything else that packs so much fun and health hazardness

richrf;70709 wrote:

Yep. Just let's hope that we have a transcendental soul, so that we try something different next time around.

Rich

Next time lets invent firemen before fire Smile

TurboLung;70760 wrote:

like string theory, which cannot be built on a body of facts and laws and cannot be tested?

Wrong, it didnt just came out of nowhere with no relation with what was previously know and started being accepted. And no teories about the fundamental composition of everthing can be tested and proved as correct, they can only be tested to prove they are "close enough for the moment".

TurboLung;70760 wrote:

yes, because scientists may just not care about the origins of life. :sarcastic:

But off course! Many politicians dont care for their people, many policemen dont care for criminality on their contries, why must ever scientist bother with the origin of life? Smile

@manored,

manored;70851 wrote:

I mean the world's stability.

For me, everything is constantly changing. And I enjoy the change.

Quote:

Next time lets invent firemen before fire

For me everything is cyclical and one thing begats the others. What came first, the chicken or the egg? Life goes on and on and one - one thing creating the next.

Rich

@richrf,

richrf;70853 wrote:

What came first, the chicken or the egg?

The chicken's nearest ancestor came first.

@richrf,

richrf;70853 wrote:

For me, everything is constantly changing. And I enjoy the change.

Send my a flying crocodile then, always wanted to ride one Smile

richrf;70853 wrote:

For me everything is cyclical and one thing begats the others. What came first, the chicken or the egg? Life goes on and on and one - one thing creating the next.

Rich

I dont think life is cyclical, because that would be boring... dont feel like remembering why I think a boring world is impossible though, I hope you know it Smile

Philosophy Forum

the END goal...

Quick Links

My Account

able2know