Human Evolution

[Tinker Grey]

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.

I remember them coming out. Everyone I knew interpreted them as "please don't ram me". I have no idea what the manufacturer intended.

 

[doubtingmerle]

Cite the text.

Again, this is the post where you appear to be using a wedge strategy to insert theistic beliefs into science.

So a changing perception, in that example, does affect 'what something is' .. I'm saying the evidence shows that 'something' is a model created by a human mind and not some mind independent 'thing'. All of science's models are testable things.

I understand this is an extremely difficult concept for most of us to get .. but it dispenses with a majorly inconsistent notion that science is somehow dependent on the existence of mind independent things .. (it isn't) .. which if accepted, allows the introduction of beliefs, (usually philosophical, belief based ones), into the objective test method .. which then renders it as being unable to logically distinguish them from objectively testable notions.

As usual, your writings are cryptic, so if this is not what you mean, please clarify. I have already explained to you once that this looks like a wedge strategy to get theism into science.

You have been arguing nonstop that the universe does not exist independent of human minds. For instance.

I'm quite clear about there being *zip* objective evidence for the idea that 'actual physics' exists independently from human (scientifically thinking) minds.

This idea of physics being 'an approximation' of something existing independently from the observer's perceptions, is a hangover/belief in philosphical Realism, I mention above.

When I pointed out to you that the light from the distant stars could not be dependent on human minds you wrote:

So your conclusion that we have a 'limited understanding' assumes the independent existence of some other kind of, presumably, transcendently superior understanding then, eh?
How does that idea come about then, eh?

So you argue incessantly that nothing exists independent of mind, and then propose that a transcendently superior mind may be that mind that makes things exist beyond human observation. Then you topped it off with that wedge strategy quote, which says that if we accept this line you have been feeding us about the universe being mind-dependent, that this will allow introduction of beliefs into science.

 

[doubtingmerle]

'Reality' is whatever we decide it means.

No it isn't.

 

[doubtingmerle]

Then what are we supposed to think you mean whenever you type the phrase 'is real'?

If its not 'subject to our concepts or language', then why do you specifically, deliberately, use our concepts and language to tell us what is and isn't real?

Because that is how humans communicate--with language.

Language is imperfect. It is inherently circular. Words are defined by other words that are defined by other words, but eventually the definitions always loop back upon themselves. And yet the human brain and language have evolved simultaneously such that we humans can use such language to communicate with each other. Somehow are brains are able to make sense of it all and use language which is circularly based.

The words honest people speak attempt to model what we think is true.

There is nothing wrong with using inexact language to convey knowledge to another human.

 

[Mark Quayle]

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.”

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?

Notice the inconsistency between these two paragraphs. The first credits "perhaps" with intellectual rigor. The second doubts in a creator for lack of specificity.

 

[doubtingmerle]

Notice the inconsistency between these two paragraphs. The first credits "perhaps" with intellectual rigor. The second doubts in a creator for lack of specificity.

I don't see the inconsistency here. We don't know what ultimately is behind the cosmic inflation and quantum effects that are thought to have caused the universe. I have said many times that I don't know, that nobody knows. But that does not stop people from continuing to ask that I speculate on what caused the cosmic inflation, quantum mechanics, and the universe. So, I have speculated a number of different things that possibly may have caused inflation and quantum effects. I made it clear that I was speculating. I was doing this because people keep on asking me to speculate on what caused this. That ignited a furor over the fact that I speculated on such things, even though people are demanding--demanding!--that I speculate on these things.

Go figure.

Regarding the assertion that the ultimate cause of reality might have had a mind, yes, that is one possibility that we can speculate might have been behind it all. But there is a big problem with this view: How can a mind possibly operate in the absence of all substance? Every mind we know of uses an arrangement of matter to store memories. How can a mind make memories without matter that it can arrange to store those memories?

I have mentioned repeatedly that this thread was not intended to be a discussion of what is at the root behind it all. That did not stop this thread from becoming a discussion of what is at the root behind it all. And I have seen this same thing happen in many, many threads.

I could start a thread on the value of "baby on board" signs, and I can almost guarantee that, if the thread went long enough, somebody would demand that we start speculating on what caused the universe!

Perhaps I should propose a new law similar to Godwin's law: As an online discussion on Christian Forums grows longer (regardless of topic or scope), the probability of a question arising about the origin of the universe approaches 1.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Then what are we supposed to think you mean whenever you type the phrase 'is real'?

If its not 'subject to our concepts or language', then why do you specifically, deliberately, use our concepts and language to tell us what is and isn't real?

It is pretty evident that you are the only one who has a problem with knowing what I mean by it. In fact, I've got an inkling that you know what I mean by it too! And no, I don't disagree that not everyone holds the same concept that I do that is represented by the words, "is real" —in fact, I'd wager that none of us has precisely the same concept. But, close enough for understandable dialogue.

The facts are not subject to our understanding or language. It is only our concepts of the facts that are subject to our understanding or language.

 

[Mark Quayle]

I don't see the inconsistency here. We don't know what ultimately is behind the cosmic inflation and quantum effects that are thought to have caused the universe. I have said many times that I don't know, that nobody knows. But that does not stop people from continuing to ask that I speculate on what caused the cosmic inflation, quantum mechanics, and the universe. So, I have speculated a number of different things that possibly may have caused inflation and quantum effects. I made it clear that I was speculating. I was doing this because people keep on asking me to speculate on what caused this. That ignited a furor over the fact that I speculated on such things, even though people are demanding--demanding!--that I speculate on these things.

Go figure.

I don't value your speculations enough to ask you for them. I'm saying that your unwillingness to go there, seems to me, telling. Seems to me, too, that the form of your speculations are purposely nebulous as far as causation —you would not accept such reasoning from me about topics of ToE that I think cannot be proven. You have no reason to believe any of your speculations; they don't add up.

Regarding the assertion that the ultimate cause of reality might have had a mind, yes, that is one possibility that we can speculate might have been behind it all. But there is a big problem with this view: How can a mind possibly operate in the absence of all substance? Every mind we know of uses an arrangement of matter to store memories. How can a mind make memories without matter that it can arrange to store those memories?

Maybe a better question is, how can a mind operate when locked into material? (By 'substance', I'm assuming you are referring to material-as-we-know-it.) But there is reason to believe that the 'substance' of first cause —i.e. the economy from which first cause operates— is a more substantial sort of thing than the concentration of matter at the Big Bang.

And just because we see 'spirit' as lacking substance and form doesn't mean our temporal view is valid in the larger economy of the omni. That is to say, even if 'spirit' is unsubstantial, we have no reason to assume it cannot have mind.

And what difference does it make to the facts, what we know of "mind"? (Ok, I know such questions are frustrating). But really, why should we assume, since all the mind we can study is material, (i.e. scientifically accessible and falsifiable), that what cannot be studied empirically is useless to consider? How is it logical to discard the non-empirical simply because science can't go there, with the only alternative being to wear oneself out looking for an empirical explanation, that continues to elude us to this day?

I have mentioned repeatedly that this thread was not intended to be a discussion of what is at the root behind it all. That did not stop this thread from becoming a discussion of what is at the root behind it all. And I have seen this same thing happen in many, many threads.

You'll have to admit that the subject of the validity of the ToE is inducive to 'beginnings'. It is relevant to the subject matter.

I could start a thread on the value of "baby on board" signs, and I can almost guarantee that, if the thread went long enough, somebody would demand that we start speculating on what caused the universe!

Ha! Yep, you're probably right there!

Perhaps I should propose a new law similar to Godwin's law: As an online discussion on Christian Forums grows longer (regardless of topic or scope), the probability of a question arising about the origin of the universe approaches 1.

I like that! "Merle's Law".

 

[SelfSim]

It is pretty evident that you are the only one who has a problem with knowing what I mean by it. In fact, I've got an inkling that you know what I mean by it too! And no, I don't disagree that not everyone holds the same concept that I do that is represented by the words, "is real" —in fact, I'd wager that none of us has precisely the same concept. But, close enough for understandable dialogue.

i) The dependence on the meanings, (or concepts), conveyed by shared languages, is obvious. Scientifically speaking, there is no objective test evidence (or even tests) for 'reality' and 'exists' being held as exceptions to that;

ii) I understand from your posts, that when you use the phrase 'is real', you mean 'what it refers' to, exists independently from your mind (or any other human mind)? If so, suddenly you expect me to make an exception to (i) above, and completely ignore the lack of supporting evidence for that notion(?) If this is so, in your particular case, I can see a reason for that.
It is;
iii) That reason is a belief in the existence of a supreme being. I don't hold that same belief, but by the reasoning I have presented, I can also accept it as being a belief and move on from that in a humanly respectful, honest and consistent way.

The facts are not subject to our understanding or language. It is only our concepts of the facts that are subject to our understanding or language.

'Facts' also refers to concepts .. or do you make yet another exception to (i) above, for some other unknown/undisclosed reason? If so, what is that reason(?) Is it (iii) above?

 

[SelfSim]

.. I like that! "Merle's Law".

Then that "Law" would also apply for Human Evolution (as well as Biological Origins) .. and not just the universe.

 

[Mark Quayle]

i) The dependence on the meanings, (or concepts), conveyed by shared languages, is obvious. Scientifically speaking, there is no objective test evidence (or even tests) for 'reality' and 'exists' being held as exceptions to that;

ii) I understand from your posts, that when you use the phrase 'is real', you mean 'what it refers' to, exists independently from your mind (or any other human mind)? If so, suddenly you expect me to make an exception to (i) above, and completely ignore the lack of supporting evidence for that notion(?) If this is so, in your particular case, I can see a reason for that.
It is;
iii) That reason is a belief in the existence of a supreme being. I don't hold that same belief, but by the reasoning I have presented, I can also accept it as being a belief and move on from that in a humanly respectful, honest and consistent way.

'Facts' also refers to concepts .. or do you make yet another exception to (i) above, for some other unknown/undisclosed reason? If so, what is that reason(?) Is it (iii) above?

You believe in, let's say, evolution. Somehow we have become humans long after the big bang. All those evolutionary 'steps', before there was anyone there to talk about them or conceive of them, were they real or not?

 

[doubtingmerle]

You have no reason to believe any of your speculations; they don't add up.

LOL! One of those speculations was that maybe a first cause with a mind did it. I specifically said I would call that God. So, you don't believe the speculation that God might have done it either?

I better write this down! Be it hereby known to all that you, Mark Quayle, have told us that you don't believe my speculation that God might have been the source behind the universe. LOL!

Actually, I think what you meant to say was that you want only one speculation, God. But why not some of the other speculations? They seem more likely.

You like the idea of a source of the universe that has a mind. You even give that speculation a name: God. OK, lets name one of the other speculations: Hod. Would you like to meet Hod? Hod is eternally self existent, able to initiate cosmic inflation and quantum mechanics. Hod is infinite in space and has all eternity to work. How does Hod differ from God? Hod doesn't have a mind. He has no will or emotions. Hod doesn't think. He just acts. Hod is a name I will give to the possible set of physical existence that could have always existed and started off the processes that started the Big Bang.

And Hod seems more likely than God. For with God, you basically take the essence of Hod and add a mind, which is unnecessary. With all eternity to act, why couldn't Hod create universes? Why does Hod need a brain?

Here is another possible cause: Nod. Who is Nod, you ask? Simple. Nod is as close to nothing as you can get. You see, in our universe it is impossible to have nothing. There are always quantum effects even in what we call empty space. And, it could be that you can't even really get a state of nothing outside our universe. Maybe you always have something. Lets call that minimal state of reality Nod. Maybe Nod did it. See The Problem with Nothing: Why The Indefensibility of Ex Nihilo Nihil Goes Wrong for Theists • Richard Carrier.

So who done it? God, Hod or Nod? Drum roll, please--I don't know.

Maybe a better question is, how can a mind operate when locked into material? (By 'substance', I'm assuming you are referring to material-as-we-know-it.)

The overwhelming evidence shows that brains think, and are the place where we store our memories. See Is There Life after Death? - The Mind Set Free

But there is reason to believe that the 'substance' of first cause —i.e. the economy from which first cause operates— is a more substantial sort of thing than the concentration of matter at the Big Bang.

Which first cause are you talking about? God? Hod? Nod? There are so many possibilities.

Your view that a spirit God could have mind without there being matter is pure speculation, yes?

And just because we see 'spirit' as lacking substance and form doesn't mean our temporal view is valid in the larger economy of the omni. That is to say, even if 'spirit' is unsubstantial, we have no reason to assume it cannot have mind.

.
Uh, yes we do have reason to doubt that a spirit could have a mind. See The God Impossible • Richard Carrier

 

[SelfSim]

You believe in, let's say, evolution.
Somehow we have become humans long after the big bang. All those evolutionary 'steps', before there was anyone there to talk about them or conceive of them, were they real or not?

I don't believe in it, because I don't have to believe in it. Believing in it, is completely irrelevant.

The test evidence however, is abundant and consistent with the ToE. The data tests out well, therefore on that basis, the theory of biological evolution is our best explanation for how Earth life's in-common biology developed synchronously with the Earth, over the last 3.7by (approx). (The same reasoning applies for the ToE's distinct steps).

If you don't 'get' this reasoning by now, continuing with these discussions is pointless.

 

[Mark Quayle]

LOL! One of those speculations was that maybe a first cause with a mind did it. I specifically said I would call that God. So, you don't believe the speculation that God might have done it either?

I better write this down! Be it hereby known to all that you, Mark Quayle, have told us that you don't believe my speculation that God might have been the source behind the universe. LOL!

What I think I said was that YOU don't.

 

[doubtingmerle]

What I think I said was that YOU don't.

Ah, so you have a reason to believe my speculations on the origin of the universe, but I don't?

 

[ViaCrucis]

My good sir I believe the problem is perhaps you believe in a different god than the god of the bible....or perhaps none at all?

They are a Deist.

However millions of Bible affirming and believing Christians have no problem accepting the science of evolution.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Mark Quayle]

Ah, so you have a reason to believe my speculations on the origin of the universe, but I don't?

C'mon, man! YOU, not me. The fact YOU don't have reason to believe your speculations doesn't mean I do have reason to believe your speculations. The fact, that one of your speculations barely describes what I believe, is irrelevant.

 

[doubtingmerle]

C'mon, man! YOU, not me. The fact YOU don't have reason to believe your speculations doesn't mean I do have reason to believe your speculations. The fact, that one of your speculations barely describes what I believe, is irrelevant.

Again, one of those speculations was that a creator with a mind might possibly have initiated the universe. If you say I have no reason to speculate that a creator with a mind did it, fine, I won't speculate that a creator with a mind could have possibly done it.

That's it? Discussion over?

 

[Astrid]

Because that is how humans communicate--with language.

Language is imperfect. It is inherently circular. Words are defined by other words that are defined by other words, but eventually the definitions always loop back upon themselves. And yet the human brain and language have evolved simultaneously such that we humans can use such language to communicate with each other. Somehow are brains are able to make sense of it all and use language which is circularly based.

The words honest people speak attempt to model what we think is true.

There is nothing wrong with using inexact language to convey knowledge to another human.

I think our friend would have enormous
problems with us seemingly never saying what we mean
in Chinese.

 

[Astrid]

Again, one of those

.........That's it? Discussion over?

Please?