The "Threat" of Creationism, by Isaac Asimov

Internet ^ | 1984 | Isaac Asimov

[Doctor Stochastic]

1001=7*11*13

[Alamo-Girl]

Thanks for your post!

I agree on cats, but I assume you've never owned hounds. Or apes.

The closest thing to a hound I've owned is a "blue lacy" which was a superior hunting dog by instinct, but not easily trained. I haven't owned an ape, but my husband has sold a few monkeys. They are trainable up to a point according to him.

I'm to have to agree to disagree with you on the privileged nature of humans.

That's fine with me! I have greatly enjoyed the discussion. Thanks again!

[betty boop]

Hello LogicWings! I wrote: In simple, direct awareness (if the goal of a particular form of meditation is achieved), we discover there’s more to consciousness than simple computational ability, that it can range everywhere while not itself being spatially extended in any way (i.e., is “intangible,” since you dislike the use of the word “immaterial”), not instrumental to the achievement of any particular pragmatic purpose.

To which you replied: Yeah, that’s my point. This doesn’t demonstrate that it is separate from existence but is an inherent part of all of it. Especially since, “it can range everywhere while not itself being spatially extended in any way.” This is why I complained about the ‘artificial split.’ You keep wanting to insist that the ‘intangible’ is something that is somehow ‘apart’ from reality, which you keep separating into ‘material’ existence and ‘immaterial’ (i.e., consciousness) when everything you say demonstrates it is all HERE. It is all part of this (necessarily redundant) reality.

Except for the fact that you don’t appear to grasp my point WRT the “artificial split,” we do not seem to be disagreeing about much here. The “artificial split” is not a property of nature per se; it is a property of mind intending objects. There is a part of reality that seems to be intangible – mind, consciousness; but I never said it was “apart from reality.” Evan Harris Walker, in his book The Physics of Consciousness, describes consciousness as real, but non-physical -- i.e., as intangible or, in common street parlance, "immaterial."

There is something rather “mysterious” about the observer; for “he” causes state vector collapse. (I assume that laws operating at the quantum level are the same as those that operate at the macro level. But we are not yet quite clear what that actually means at the macro level.)

You quote the I Ching, “everything that exists must extend beyond itself from the realm of the visible to that of the invisible.” Moreover, you state that “the principle (of consciousness) exists, so it exists as part of the Universe. For me, for you, for everything else for all I know. Who’s to say it isn’t an inherent property of the Universe?”

Well, not me. But then, who’s to say that specifically located individual consciousness is not itself also an “inherent property of the universe?” In making a choice from among a set of possibilities, we set up a cascade of events that extends well beyond the securing of our intended goal, events that run invisibly away from us, like ripples spreading over the surface of a pond….

The dualistic idealism that you seem to attribute to me is not the last word about how I conceive of this issue. I have already confessed to be a “closet monist!” :^)

Here’s a rather striking comment from Walker that you might like:

"So we at last find that reality is the observer observing. It is the two parts of our great separation coming together. There is a separation. There is a dreadful and vast separation. But there is no space and really no matter to die but that our own minds did not first come together to create it. Our observation – our coming together – created matter. Observation is the stuff of the space that reaches out past the vast clusters of galaxies. Reality is the fruit of love’s embrace."

The passage strikes me as fine grist for an extended meditation....

[balrog666]

In spite of your credentials, you seem to have a poor understanding of the difference between a scientific theory and a scientific law. One never becomes the other.

Also, a theory is never "proven" except in mathematics. It may become well established and semi-axiomatic, but it is never considered absolute and unquestionable.

You've never seen a genetic mutation that enhances one's reproductive advantage? Well, gee, how about blonde hair?

[balrog666]

Regardless, I'm not interested in converting you. Darwin's fate has been sealed. I'm just trying to point out that there are significant holes in that theory, and just because it hasn't been completely disproven yet doesn't make it any more legitimate.

It's that "yet" that I have a disagreement with. ;^)

But, scientists are always interested in where the holes are in current theory. For instance, the Theory of Evolution - please tell me about a hole or two. Seriously, I'm interested.

[Lurking Libertarian]

Placemarker.

[js1138]

but I think until we have proof that the earth is 20 billion years old we shouldn't assume it.

You're absolutely right. when Darwin said the earth is 20 billion years old, he was just blowing smoke.

[PatrickHenry]

Where is one intermediate species? Just one? Where is the fish that became the frog?

A classic. Not new, not clever. But classic.

[VadeRetro]

So you logged in yesterday, don't know nuttin' and are prepared to fight to the death to stay ignorant. What a convincing argument!

Where is the fish that became the frog?

I'm just going to do this one for amusement, and I swear up front I'm not going to take it to any ridiculous depth. From a source that has been linked to these threads many, many times:

The transition from water to land was one of the most significant events in animal evolution. Recent paleontological and systematic work has shed new light on this transition (Fig. 14). The most primitive amphibian yet known is the late Devonian Ichthyostega, a tetrapod with a flattened skull and bearing a tail fin. The limbs were until recently poorly known, but new fossil evidence has come to light. The hand, previously unknown, shows that these amphibians possessed seven to eight digits. The limbs also had a very limited range of movement and the animal was not as well adapted to terrestrial locomotion as previously thought (Ahlberg & Milner, 1994). The rhipidistian fishes are widely considered to have given rise to the amphibians. One small group of late Devonian rhipidistians, the panderichthyids, appears to be closely related to the ichthyostegids (Schultze, 1991). These fishes have flattened skulls very similar to that of the early amphibians. In addition, the anal and dorsal fins are absent, and the tail is very similar to that of Ichthyostega (Vorobyeva & Schultze, 1991). The lobed pectoral and pelvic fins have bones that homologize with the limb bones of the tetrapods. Whether part of a single direct lineage or not, ichthyostegid amphibians and panderichthyid fishes are clearly transitional forms between class level taxa. The first known skull of a panderichthyid was in fact initially considered to be an amphibian (Vorobyeva & Schultze, 1991), again illustrating the taxonomic problems encountered during the appearance and early radiation of a new taxon.

Figure 14. The transition from fish to amphibian illustrated by body form and skeletons, with details of skulls and vertebrae. (A) Osteolepiform fish Eusthenopteron; (B) panderichthyid fish Panderichthys; and (C) labyrinthodont amphibian Ichthyostega. (From Ahlberg & Milner [1994], reprinted with permission from Nature, copyright © 1994 Macmillan Magazines Limited, and from Per Ahlberg.)

That's the For Dummies version, but it is enough to demonstrate the silly emptiness of "Where is the fish that turned into the frog?" More up-to-date and detailed info is here. Or maybe Fins to Legs (slide show) is more your level.

Overall, there's a mountain of evidence for evolution: 29 Evidences for Macroevolution.

[js1138]

I kinda favor this one:

there should be a fossil record littered with intermediate species of all kinds! But there isn't. There isn't even one.

[VadeRetro]

We did a whole thread on this, so I might as well throw it in:

Missing-link fossil wasn't a fish -- it has a pelvis.

[unspun]

The story was told here, unspun:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/backroom/804648/posts?page=4578#4578
Sorry it goes on so long. I'd be interested in your thoughts.

Still interested?  Anyway, it's been a good experience to write this --even more fun than reading it, I'm sure. ;-`  

On human imagination and human imaginings... part 1 of 2

To betty boop and all:

Ms. boop has already written about our conscious selves - distinct from our physical selves - conceptualizing in words.  I've attempted to expound upon our imagination and imaginings.  (I'm calling our ability to imagine "imagination" and what we imagine "imaginings.")   I'm basing my logic upon a principle of purpose, a principle which is basic to the theorists of evolution, as well as to those who regard the creativity of God (and a principle maintained by those who hold to both theories in large part).  One example of the very many applications of the principle of purpose made by evolutionists are logical conjectures about why a presumed hominid has no tail, but has longer legs than it's presumed anscestors.  Like the evolutionist researchers, I'm not fettering this principle of purpose to the exclusivist error of objectivism and logical positivism. Instead, I utilize my reasonable freedom to use both objective and propositional logic.

Ms. boop says that she encountered two angels and heard God speak to her, within a vision or dream.  She speculates that such spirits, noncorporeal to us, may extend themselves in time but not space.  She uses her experience as an example to illustrate that the human conscious is not merely a measurablly physical item.

I don't seek to repeat her observations, but to comment on her reflections of them.  I believe her experience was actual, but what if it were "just" a "figment of her imagination?"  How is it that a merely physical animal, as complex as a human is, can wonder at all, about existences alternate to the physical?  Is this indicative?  Even if betty's mind were playing a trick upon her or if she concocted her dream volitionally, how is it that humans may speculate so, in our dreams, visions, fairy tales, science fiction --or a even our most realistic novels?  Nevermind the apparent futility, what an essentially odd thing that is for an animal to do, however developed by... well... however "we animals" have been developed. If we are thoroughly physical beings, consisting only of something called matter and only functioning based upon its "calculations" (an easy model to resort to, since it is based upon the calculating physical models we create) how incongruous to the level of insanity to be so imaginary with our minds!  

Let us all discipline ourselves to stop it, then.  Stop the silliness!   Just say "No.  I'm not going to imagine things, anymore."  Try it for awhile, as an exercise in applied self physicality.  It should come natural to 100% physical beings.  I'll wait for you....

You are giving us physical beings a bad name with this silliness!

The truth is, behavioral researchers have done such experiments, even resorting to sensory deprivation chambers, in order to separate them from the stimulation of imagination.  The result becomes hallucination (imagination emerging from its controls).  

Reader, you don't regard your imagination as unreal, do you?  It's belongs to you, after all, a critical aspect of who you are.  And isn't the use (purpose, I'd say) of your imagination always to deal with real matters on some level, even if what is imagined is an utter fantasy, for the purpose of entertainment?  If you failed the test of trying not to be imaginative, try it the opposite way.  Can you think of something totally unrooted in reality?  What could be a priori unreal?  You might want to give yourself a few days to discipline yourself to do that. But, to picture such a thing would be analagous to trying to divide by zero, now wouldn't it?  And even so, let's say you have no idea of what an imagining is about; it certainly is a real imagining, nevertheless.

And another indication of the reality of the imagination: What has man ever created that was not created from his imagination (his imagination integrally involved, in the process)?  What indeed.  Even when the level of our creativity is very basic.  If your computer is not plugged in, you imagine that you may plug your computer into the wall socket and that it should then have electricity; so if you want, you do just that, creating an electrical circuit with your computer.  Name something physical that man intentionally crafts that he does not in some way imagine, as he creates it.  (A third test, in the task of objectively disproving the reality of one's imagination.  Please find any "cracks" in what I may call this objective, empirical, self-evident reality of human imagination and a basis in reality for every imagining.)
Surely, the imagination is a trait disctinct from what we know of basic, calculating "intelligence," since it is not required in order to survive, as the thriving of so many animals inform us.  

I'm not an avid reader of philosophy, so I'll dash through that library and pull out a couple primers, while hoping not to topple the shelves:  I'm sure most will agree that a human's consicous or sentience implies his reality.  In turn, a perfectly objective observation of something "outside of us" indicates its reality.  But further, is it not to be said that what a man may imagine indicates at least something about the existence of things outside of his direct observation, as well (...things which another man may observe or not and which may be either well or faultily imagined)?  If not, what happens to the principle of purpose, here?  Even if an imagining is off the mark, does it not indicate some validity about the natures of things at play in what we imagine? 

So, if an imagining cannot exist without being informed by reality, it must carry information about the nature of reality with it (even though imaginings can be so very fanciful, compared to what is necessary for living beings to survive and thrive).  But then, why do we take a bit of reality and imagine with it, even when we don't have physical experience with what we imagine?  Reasoning the way an evolutionist researcher does when he finds bones, teeth, hair, etc.: What is the purpose of the human imagination and what does that in turn tell us about ourselves?

Please come back and read the second part of this little two-part essay, and I'll get to the point.

[js1138]

WAITING FOR THE SECOND SHOE PLACEMARKER. CAPS off now.

[unspun]

Thank you. My cap's off to you, too.

[js1138]

It was fat fingers. I was just too lazy to retype it.

[general_re]

You know, I was just skimming back over that thread, and it suddenly occurred to me - where's Gummy? I haven't seen posts from him in a long while, but his profile is still up...