Human Evolution

[SelfSim]

I think my response would be that, just as if we are brains in a vat, we may as well carry on as if we are actual players in a real universe.

Which depends on what you mean by a real universe .. (just sayin' .. yeah, I know: 'Yet again?!', he asks .. )

We are connected humans. Denying that would be a silly proposition. Science is obviously not done in a 'disconnected' way. I'm unclear why you bring up this 'brain in the vat' comparison in the context of scientific thinking(?) We all share in a common mind type of: human ..and we can test for other instances of human mind types(?)

Anthing else is an interesting philosophical adventure but has no practical purposes at all.

The evidence of the practical usefulness of science's conclusions, (and predictions), is abundant.
Therefore, I'd agree with a concept @Estrid brought up many posts ago, in her notion of 'signs' or 'pointers' .. but there's no need to go beyond that concept. This is what I mean by keeping any philosophy of science 'minimal' yet 'connected'.
The commensurate (and fair) balancing tradeoff position for this, (I think), is then acknowledgement of the 'pointers' concept.
Nice conversation.

'We're going to send people to Mars'.
'Well, you might think you're doing that but we might just be...yadda, yadda, yadda...'
'Thanks for your input. We'll bear that in mind. In the meantime, we're going to build the spaceship anyway'.
'Well, you might think you're building a spaceship...'
'Yeah, we got that. Thanks for your time.'

Regardless of just thinking that, and going beyond just thoughts about it, there may well be test evidence of the hypothesis of: 'there might be a collective commitment to go to Mars', as well as a committment build a spaceship for the purpose of achieving that goal .. (no problems).

 

[doubtingmerle]

Rubbish.
The LCDM model is our best tested cosmological model .. end of story.

I'm guessing that 90% of the people reading this don't know what the LCDM model is. I had to look it up myself. it turns out it is the standard model of the universe coming from the Big Bang with dark energy, dark matter, and ordinary matter. I take it this means you think the universe began with the Big Bang. After multiple questions you finally (apparently) say you agree that the universe began with a Big Bang. Good.

l have answered multiple times. You just don't like honest answers.

Ad hominem. Now you turn to an attack on me. Sorry, I do like honest answers. You have no reason to think I don't. Please refrain from personal attacks.

This thread is a matter of public record. Anybody who want to check it out can see all the times I asked you if you thought the Big Bang happened and your refusal to answer.

What I choose to believe or not believe is my own business .. and not yours. That doesn't change them being nothing more than beliefs.

You say this in response to, "If you choose not to believe the science, we would like to know that."

Sir, you are here in a public debate making fun of aspects of the Big Bang. Also, you were not being clear if you even thought the Big Bang occurred. Under those circumstances, it is more than appropriate to ask you if you think the universe came from the Big Bang.

I know what my beliefs are .. do you know yours?

Yes, of course I know by beliefs. I have written extensively about where I stand on Christianity and science at Dare to Question - The Mind Set Free

I couldn't care less what ID proponents believe .. does that now make you happy for some reason? What is that reason?

You say this in response to, "Intelligent Design proponents 'support science' also, but deny much of what science concludes." And, I wrote that because it wasn't clear if you agreed with science. You had said you support science, but that is not the same thing as saying you agree with science on the Big Bang. So I was explaining to you that, when I ask if you agree that the Big Bang happened, I need a better answer than that you support science. ID proponents would say they support science when asked the same question, but many would actually deny the Big Bang.

How can it be 'an attack' if its 'a nothing'?

Those were two different things.

The "attack" on the Big Bang was when you wrote, "????????!!!" in response to a mainstream statement on the Big Bang.

The "nothing" was when you refused to comment in light of that post whether you agreed with me that the universe began with a Big Bang.

Your Humanist Manifesto was a declaration of what that type of Humanist believes.

That link ( Humanism and Its Aspirations: Humanist Manifesto III, a Successor to the Humanist Manifesto of 1933 - American Humanist Association ). It is a leading definition of Humanism by a leading Humanist organization. The preamble says:

This document is part of an ongoing effort to manifest in clear and positive terms the conceptual boundaries of Humanism, not what we must believe but a consensus of what we do believe. It is in this sense that we affirm the following:​

So if there is an organization where the consensus believes certain things, what is so bad with stating that in a clear document?

If however, when you identify as a Humanist, you actually mean something else, what do you mean?

At least these people put out a concise document describing their views, so we know what they mean when they refer to themselves as Humanists.

I choose to neutralise beliefs for the purpose of getting on with the science which that type of Humanist chooses to believe in. I can't see your problem with that. What, exactly, is your problem with that?

Everybody has opinions that they believe are true. For example, I believe that the Big Bang happened. As another example, after reading your post, I believe I will have another beer!

And no, you cannot simply neutralize having opinions so you can get on with science.

Once again, 'a nothing' can't simultaneously be 'an attack' can it(?) ...

Again, two different things. The attacks are the negative things you say about humanism here. The big nothingburger is the repeated times I asked if you had anything postiive to say about humanism and you did not respond with anything positive. I still see nothing positive from you about humanism.

Y'know, something along the lines of the, (rather naive but outwardly fair enough), law of non contradiction: 'Nothing can both be and not be'.

The law of non contradiction is true. That is the same as saying the law of non contradiction is not false. See The Ontology of Logic • Richard Carrier

Where's your evidence that I 'attacked' Humanism?

This thread. Go back and read it.

 

[Astrid]

I'm guessing that 90% of the people reading this don't know what the LCDM model is. I had to look it up myself. it turns out it is the standard model of the universe coming from the Big Bang with dark energy, dark matter, and ordinary matter. I take it this means you think the universe began with the Big Bang. After multiple questions you finally (apparently) say you agree that the universe began with a Big Bang. Good.

Ad hominem. Now you turn to an attack on me. Sorry, I do like honest answers. You have no reason to think I don't. Please refrain from personal attacks.

This thread is a matter of public record. Anybody who want to check it out can see all the times I asked you if you thought the Big Bang happened and your refusal to answer.


You say this in response to, "If you choose not to believe the science, we would like to know that."

Sir, you are here in a public debate making fun of aspects of the Big Bang. Also, you were not being clear if you even thought the Big Bang occurred. Under those circumstances, it is more than appropriate to ask you if you think the universe came from the Big Bang.



Yes, of course I know by beliefs. I have written extensively about where I stand on Christianity and science at Dare to Question - The Mind Set Free


You say this in response to, "Intelligent Design proponents 'support science' also, but deny much of what science concludes." And, I wrote that because it wasn't clear if you agreed with science. You had said you support science, but that is not the same thing as saying you agree with science on the Big Bang. So I was explaining to you that, when I ask if you agree that the Big Bang happened, I need a better answer than that you support science. ID proponents would say they support science when asked the same question, but many would actually deny the Big Bang.




Those were two different things.

The "attack" on the Big Bang was when you wrote, "????????!!!" in response to a mainstream statement on the Big Bang.

The "nothing" was when you refused to comment in light of that post whether you agreed with me that the universe began with a Big Bang.

That link ( Humanism and Its Aspirations: Humanist Manifesto III, a Successor to the Humanist Manifesto of 1933 - American Humanist Association ). It is a leading definition of Humanism by a leading Humanist organization. The preamble says:

This document is part of an ongoing effort to manifest in clear and positive terms the conceptual boundaries of Humanism, not what we must believe but a consensus of what we do believe. It is in this sense that we affirm the following:​

So if there is an organization where the consensus believes certain things, what is so bad with stating that in a clear document?

If however, when you identify as a Humanist, you actually mean something else, what do you mean?

At least these people put out a concise document describing their views, so we know what they mean when they refer to themselves as Humanists.


Everybody has opinions that they believe are true. For example, I believe that the Big Bang happened. As another example, after reading your post, I believe I will have another beer!

And no, you cannot simply neutralize having opinions so you can get on with science.


Again, two different things. The attacks are the negative things you say about humanism here. The big nothingburger is the repeated times I asked if you had anything postiive to say about humanism and you did not respond with anything positive. I still see nothing positive from you about humanism.



The law of non contradiction is true. That is the same as saying the law of non contradiction is not false. See The Ontology of Logic • Richard Carrier



This thread. Go back and read it.

So much patience you have

 

[doubtingmerle]

So much patience you have

Thanks.

Sometimes I have too much patience. I have gotten pulled into endless discussions that get nowhere. So, I have learned to drop conversations that are getting nowhere. The discussions I am having here are borderline to endless repetition, and if so, I will then call them off. But, as long as I think I am making progress (if not with the addressee, at least with others reading this) I keep going.

Also I have been learning from the posts to me. These conversations have done a lot to clarify things in my own mind, and that has also been helpful.

 

[GirdYourLoins]

The way I see it these days is evolution vs creation is no more than a smokescreen. As a Christians we are called to spread the good news. It is up to those that hear it to accept it. If someone wants to come on a Christian site to post something like this it is their choice. We can tell them the good news, we can pray for them, but ultimately it is their choice to accept or reject Jesus.

 

[Astrid]

The way I see it these days is evolution vs creation is no more than a smokescreen. As a Christians we are called to spread the good news. It is up to those that hear it to accept it. If someone wants to come on a Christian site to post something like this it is their choice. We can tell them the good news, we can pray for them, but ultimately it is their choice to accept or reject Jesus.

What makes you think it's a smokescreen or that
evoltion has anything whatever to do with christianity

 

[SelfSim]

I'm guessing that 90% of the people reading this don't know what the LCDM model is. I had to look it up myself. it turns out it is the standard model of the universe coming from the Big Bang with dark energy, dark matter, and ordinary matter. I take it this means you think the universe began with the Big Bang. After multiple questions you finally (apparently) say you agree that the universe began with a Big Bang. Good.

No .. 'my agreement' is irrelevant to the consistency and supporting evidence for mainstream science's prevailing cosmological model.

Ad hominem. Now you turn to an attack on me.

Nonsense.

Sorry, I do like honest answers. You have no reason to think I don't.

Then please seek and recognise the honesty (and integrity) that has gone into my posts, rather than demanding statements that might merely confirm your own undistinguished beliefs(?) Perhaps then you'll like them(?)

This thread is a matter of public record. Anybody who want to check it out can see all the times I asked you if you thought the Big Bang happened and your refusal to answer.

The records show my multiple answers .. along with demonstrations which illustrate the concepts underlying those answers.

Sir, you are here in a public debate making fun of aspects of the Big Bang.

False claim.

Also, you were not being clear if you even thought the Big Bang occurred. Under those circumstances, it is more than appropriate to ask you if you think the universe came from the Big Bang.

'Appropriate' for what purpose, precisely?
Certainly not the purpose of demonstrating the consistency of the Standard Cosmological Model with astronomical observations.

Yes, of course I know by beliefs. I have written extensively about where I stand on Christianity and science at Dare to Question - The Mind Set Free

I am not interested in the propagating the beliefs you do distinguish.
My stance is in response to the ones you don't (or can't).

.. but deny much of what science concludes."

False claim.

And, I wrote that because it wasn't clear if you agreed with science. You had said you support science, but that is not the same thing as saying you agree with science on the Big Bang.

Your nitpick .. its still science. Asking if I concur with the science supporting the Standard Cosmological model, would solicit a resounding 'affirmative' response from me because it asks a different question.

So I was explaining to you that, when I ask if you agree that the Big Bang happened, I need a better answer than that you support science. ID proponents would say they support science when asked the same question, but many would actually deny the Big Bang.

Why are you so worried about what IDers have to say? If you believe in what science has to say, one might then reasonably expect you to acknowedge demonstrations of objective thinking, such as neutralising one's beliefs when discussing science's inference based conclusions? That sets up the possibility of intellectual honesty in scientific conclusions.

From most of your posts, (including your personal website's posts), it appears you are presenting yourself as just another story teller .. and not a scientific thinker at all(?)

Moreso, based on the evidence of those posts, I have reached the conclusion that you are attempting to turn the concept of Humanism into the very kind of thinking you oppose .. aka: yet another belief-based religion.

The "attack" on the Big Bang was when you wrote, "????????!!!" in response to a mainstream statement on the Big Bang.

Another false claim.
The post you refer to is here. Physics does not start out with the assumption: 'Let there be a First Cause'.
Your statement was thus, not an objective mainstream objective science based statement. Claims of anything prior to the rapid expansion of the obs. universe, more than (approx) 13.8bya, are pure beliefs, or beliefs about purely theoretical thinking.

That link ( Humanism and Its Aspirations: Humanist Manifesto III, a Successor to the Humanist Manifesto of 1933 - American Humanist Association ). It is a leading definition of Humanism by a leading Humanist organization. The preamble says:

This document is part of an ongoing effort to manifest in clear and positive terms the conceptual boundaries of Humanism, not what we must believe but a consensus of what we do believe. It is in this sense that we affirm the following:​

So if there is an organization where the consensus believes certain things, what is so bad with stating that in a clear document?

Your so-called 'leading definition' there, asserts Humanism as being based on: 'what we do believe'. It doesn't matter whether one 'must' believe those things or not .. its still a declaration based on belief. Aka: yet another belief-based movement, by self-declaration, what's more(?)

If however, when you identify as a Humanist, you actually mean something else, what do you mean?

Already answered. The principles of Humanism are what remains following the application of the scientific method .. those principles are thus, not based on 'what we do believe'. Science is not based on believed assumptions .. it tests its assumptions .. (and those principles have been well tested and evidenced).

At best your so-called 'leading definition' requires rethinking, (or the declaration requires revision excluding a declaration of beliefs).

Everybody has opinions that they believe are true. For example, I believe that the Big Bang happened. As another example, after reading your post, I believe I will have another beer!

And no, you cannot simply neutralize having opinions so you can get on with science.

So you're now using the informal meaning of beliefs and belief based opinions there(?) Which is fine by me, if so.
But putting those in a declaration and calling it a 'Manifesto', demonstrates gross inconsistency with the notion of a formalised objective statement as far as scientific thinking and the scientific method is concerned.

Again, two different things. The attacks are the negative things you say about humanism here. The big nothingburger is the repeated times I asked if you had anything postiive to say about humanism and you did not respond with anything positive. I still see nothing positive from you about humanism.

Give me a revised declaration on that website of what Humanism is .. excluding the belief basis then. I mean is a Humanist just an extreme, rabid Atheist?
(Because it sure looks that way from the declaration of a 'Manifesto'?)

The law of non contradiction is true. That is the same as saying the law of non contradiction is not false.

Assumed truths don't lead to consistent science. Any notion of 'truth' in science, is never better than the last best tested theory. Science wouldn't work if it went further than that. It would cease to be science and would become something entirely different.
The kind of truth referred to in the assumed law of non contradiction is a rule of logic .. which is not science. Science observably works differently to the way logic works.

 

[SelfSim]

So much patience you have

Thanks.

 

[Astrid]

Thanks.

Any time

 

[Mark Quayle]

Who is Ayn Rand?

I wanted a bumper sticker once, that said, Who is JR?

 

[AV1611VET]

I wanted a bumper sticker once, that said, Who is JR?

You mean "Who shot JR?"

 

[Mark Quayle]

You mean "Who shot JR?"

Back during that craze, yeah, I wanted one for my car that said, "Who is JR?", to show my attitude about such things.

 

[SelfSim]

Back during that craze, yeah, I wanted one for my car that said, "Who is JR?", to show my attitude about such things.

Did you really need the sticker?

 

[AV1611VET]

Back during that craze, yeah, I wanted one for my car that said, "Who is JR?", to show my attitude about such things.

Ah -- got it!

That's funny!

 

[Mark Quayle]

Did you really need the sticker?

No, not at all. As a matter of fact, I hate stickers. To me they're generally tacky and stupid. I'm 65 and other than inspection stickers, or college parking, etc, I've only ever put 2 on my cars —one was a Watch For Motorcycles and the other was My Son Is A Marine.

 

[SelfSim]

No, not at all. As a matter of fact, I hate stickers. To me they're generally tacky and stupid. I'm 65 and other than inspection stickers, or college parking, etc, I've only ever put 2 on my cars —one was a Watch For Motorcycles and the other was My Son Is A Marine.

I've always found the 'Baby On Board' style stickers amusing.
I think: 'So what?' whenever I see them.

Given that I'm always driving, to my best conscious capacity, in accordance with the rules and principles of driving on the road, I couldn't care less what other humans are in their car.

The sticker is thus completely irrelevant to me, other than it shows how its driver must be frequently disrespecting those rules and principles whilst driving .. (Otherwise, like me, they wouldn't expect any results what from the sticker says .. not worth the goo).

 

[doubtingmerle]

SelfSim,

Once again here is the statement that I made about origin that led to this exchange. At this post I quoted my website regarding the origin of the universe:

What is the ultimate thing that drove this all? We don’t know. Perhaps there is an infinite series of causation that never ends. Or perhaps, at root, there is a circular causation where A causes B that causes C that causes A ad infinitum. Or perhaps there is some root cause of everything, A, that simply is, and could not be otherwise. Perhaps the root cause is nothing more than, “Things happen.”​

Regardless of whether the root cause is a distinct something (A) or a circular something (ABC), an infinite regress, or things just happening, let’s call this root cause of any physics the first cause.​

This first cause could either have a mind or not have a mind.​

If it has a mind, how could that mind remember anything before there was any matter that can be arranged to save the memories? All memories we know of (brains, computers, books, etc.) consist of an arrangement of atoms that document things. How can a creator’s mind do this, if there is not yet any matter to arrange to preserve those memories?​

If the first cause, the process that started it all, had a mind, we should probably call it God. If it didn’t have a mind, we probably should not call it God. Source​

You responded with attacks on this, even though this is right in line with mainstream science.

I see now that you most likely responded thus because your worldview is very different from mine. Yes, it appears you do agree that the universe came from the Big Bang, but you also believe that this was caused by a transcendent eternal mind. You admit you have no evidence of this, that this is just a belief. In spite of the fact that you have no evidence for this theistic claim, I understand you think this belief should be included as science.

That is my best understanding of what you have written about your views in recent posts.

Your view on origins is far from my view expressed above.

From most of your posts, (including your personal website's posts), it appears you are presenting yourself as just another story teller .. and not a scientific thinker at all(?)

I am an engineer with a lifetime interest in science and religion. I am definitely a scientific thinker.

As you know, I nowhere presented myself as just another story teller. Nowhere. So, since you know that I never said that, why do you make it up that I presented myself that way?

I, as a Humanist, believe it is wrong to make up false things about other people in order to make a point. Do you also agree that this type of behavior is wrong?

Moreso, based on the evidence of those posts, I have reached the conclusion that you are attempting to turn the concept of Humanism into the very kind of thinking you oppose .. aka: yet another belief-based religion.

Huh? Where did I do anything remotely close to this?

I actually state the exact opposite, that I seek to base understanding on observation and reason, not on belief. See Dare to Question - The Mind Set Free

Another false claim.
The post you refer to is here. Physics does not start out with the assumption: 'Let there be a First Cause'.

As you know, I never said, "Let there be a First Cause". For the record, what I actually said is at the top of this post.

Can you please go by what I actually said rather than making stuff up?

Claims of anything prior to the rapid expansion of the obs. universe, more than (approx) 13.8bya, are pure beliefs, or beliefs about purely theoretical thinking.

False. There is evidence that there was massive cosmic inflation and quantum effects at the Big Bang Bang, and that this was going on before the Big Bang. See the video I linked to twice.

So yes, we do have evidence for what was before the Big Bang.

Your so-called 'leading definition' there, asserts Humanism as being based on: 'what we do believe'. It doesn't matter whether one 'must' believe those things or not .. its still a declaration based on belief.
Aka: yet another belief-based movement, by self-declaration, what's more(?)

Flapdoodle.

Nowhere do they state that knowledge is based on belief. What they actually say is:

Knowledge of the world is derived by observation, experimentation, and rational analysis. Humanists find that science is the best method for determining this knowledge as well as for solving problems and developing beneficial technologies.​

Humanism and Its Aspirations: Humanist Manifesto III, a Successor to the Humanist Manifesto of 1933 - American Humanist Association

Give me a revised declaration on that website of what Humanism is .. excluding the belief basis then. I mean is a Humanist just an extreme, rabid Atheist?

Sigh. Once again Humanism and Its Aspirations: Humanist Manifesto III, a Successor to the Humanist Manifesto of 1933 - American Humanist Association says nothing about being a belief based religion.

What they said is they have a consensus belief in these things. If you are going to exclude the validity of everybody who ever believed that something is true, then you would be excluding everybody. You would be excluding yourself, for you also believe things.

Humanists do not oppose believing things. They oppose saying something is true because you have faith it is truth. That is a big difference.

Once again you have shown nothing but venim for humanism, and yet you claim to be a humanist. I have asked you repeatedly if you have something good to say about humanism. You have not responded with anything substantial that you like about humanism. How can you identify as a humanist, but disparage it continually without ever saying one thing that you like about humanism?

 

[SelfSim]

SelfSim,

Once again here {etc}..

Nup .. not going to respond further to you, due a preponderance of outright mischaracterisations, or even outright lies, such as this rubbish:

.. but you also believe that this was caused by a transcendent eternal mind.

Do you honestly think you are going to get away with that? Cite the text.
Pfftt forget it .. your claims aren't worth more of my time, or the electrons ..

 

[Shemjaza]

I've always found the 'Baby On Board' style stickers amusing.
I think: 'So what?' whenever I see them.

Given that I'm always driving, to my best conscious capacity, in accordance with the rules and principles of driving on the road, I couldn't care less what other humans are in their car.

The sticker is thus completely irrelevant to me, other than it shows how its driver must be frequently disrespecting those rules and principles whilst driving .. (Otherwise, like me, they wouldn't expect any results what from the sticker says .. not worth the goo).

While they are a little silly, their original purpose isn't "Please don't intentionally ram me.", the point is if the car is in an accident any rescuers know that there is a child involved who may not be able to call for help if they are hidden or trapped under something else.

 

[SelfSim]

While they are a little silly, their original purpose isn't "Please don't intentionally ram me.", the point is if the car is in an accident any rescuers know that there is a child involved who may not be able to call for help if they are hidden or trapped under something else.

Surely any 'rescuers' would just look in the window to find out .. and not look for some sticker on the bumper(?)

Nah .. I'm gonna go with the "Don't hit me because I'm with Baby Onboard (so I'm privileged)".
(IOW: extending the 'privilege' of pregnancy .. "When does that end?", I ask)