Lets Talk About Things Science Cannot Explain

[JunkMonkey]

Was this aimed at me? I'm an evolutionary deist. This means that God worked through evolution to bring the earth to exactly this point at this time. So Dawkins being right about the evolutionary process has no bearing on my theology.

I really am going to have to walk away from this... but - god is a eugenicist? God has been manipulating evolution? We are just cattle? (or 'sheep' if you prefer).

 

[Mirannan]

Was this aimed at me? I'm an evolutionary deist. This means that God worked through evolution to bring the earth to exactly this point at this time. So Dawkins being right about the evolutionary process has no bearing on my theology.

I think some of the more rabid Bible-literalists are missing the point by a country mile. Their prevailing view seems to be that God made everything, not very long ago, "by hand". Although the Abrahamic religions' God can do anything, virtually by definition, this seems inelegant at the very least.

A more elegant solution: Set up an array of laws, in precise mathematical and logical order, designed in the fullness of time (a heck of a lot of time, of the order of 10E10 years) to inevitably lead to the emergence of an intelligence able to have at least some comprehension of God. And then apply the spark ("breathe fire into the equations") and let it run. And interfere as little as possible to keep it all running according to the Plan. (It would appear that God has found it necessary to apply corrections at least once, quite recently in relation to the timespan just mentioned.)

 

[JunkMonkey]

A scientific description of the human condition is absolutely essential before any major changes in how humanity culturally evolves, and we're only 30 year since we started to understand consciousness. There's still a very very long away to go… But we are on the right road, I think. At last.

One of the major things that needs explaining/researching is why we (as a species) can be so incredibly self-contradictory. We are both incredibly curious, exploratory, and inventive - and yet so amazingly risk-averse, and scared of the unknown at the same time. We waste so much of our time trying to cling onto obviously outmoded concepts, entrenched views, and fears while embracing (seemingly without thinking) new and potentially dangerous methods of dealing with them. The human ability to hold as valid two mutually contradictory concepts is what I need explaining.

I suspect this ability comes about because most people are not as smart as they think they are - apart from me. I'm not included. I know I'm not as smart as I think I am.

 

[Vertigo]

One of the major things that needs explaining/researching is why we (as a species) can be so incredibly self-contradictory. We are both incredibly curious, exploratory, and inventive - and yet so amazingly risk-averse, and scared of the unknown at the same time. We waste so much of our time trying to cling onto obviously outmoded concepts, entrenched views, and fears while embracing (seemingly without thinking) new and potentially dangerous methods of dealing with them. The human ability to hold as valid two mutually contradictory concepts is what I need explaining.

I suspect this ability comes about because most people are not as smart as they think they are - apart from me. I'm not included. I know I'm not as smart as I think I am.

I don't have a problem with that contradiction. I think all creatures have it to a certain extent. But... too much curiosity killed the cat and too little means stagnation and no development (beyond evolutionary development) and that latter is the 'safe' road that most species walk. Too much of the curiosity and the species is unlikely to survive. But get the balance just right and you end up with us. Or at least I hope we have the balance just right; it's still perfectly possible we will be killed by our curiosity.

 

[Tracy]

We've only had 120 years of grasping the basics of the human condition, since Freud's game-changing work on the unconscious. Before then, no human being had any idea that 99% of their self was beneath their conscious perception.

A scientific description of the human condition is absolutely essential before any major changes in how humanity culturally evolves, and we're only 30 year since we started to understand consciousness. There's still a very very long away to go… But we are on the right road, I think. At last.

Frankly, I'd rather we not understand too well how the human mind works. Understanding something usually allows you to manipulate it and I'd rather that opportunity not exist. While I'd like to believe most people wouldn't abuse this (or only use their understanding for minor purposes) all you really need are a few who are willing to exploit it (be it in favor of greed or idealism) for it to be really catastrophical (and this is coming from a guy who hates reading dystopias). On the plus side our understanding of the human mind is tenuous at best, seeing as how psychological studies have a hard time replicating studies successfully (The Crusade Against Multiple Regression Analysis | Edge.org - for anyone who's interested) so I wouldn't be expecting any significant evolutions in human thinking anytime soon. Then again I wouldn't not be expecting them either, since you just never know.

 

[Stephen Palmer]

The human ability to hold as valid two mutually contradictory concepts is what I need explaining.

I take your point, but I was thinking on rather larger themes - like, What is love? Why do we have emotions? What is humour?

And so forth…

 

[Stephen Palmer]

Frankly, I'd rather we not understand too well how the human mind works. Understanding something usually allows you to manipulate it and I'd rather that opportunity not exist.

Wow. That's an extraordinarily, erm… pessimistic viewpoint.

Do you think though that it might be easier to manipulate stupid people than intelligent people?

 

[Tracy]

Wow. That's an extraordinarily, erm… pessimistic viewpoint.

Do you think though that it might be easier to manipulate stupid people than intelligent people?

First of all, intelligence is not a concept that we have a quantified definition of. Our current methods of measuring intelligence (including personal intuition etc.) are rarely on point and the concept itself requires that you state what the goal of intelligence is (i.e. is intelligence the ability to divine patterns within natural phenomena or the ability to make sure that your life is more conductive to spreading your genes, or both or none of these and something else - well, we just don't know. But to answer your question - if our level of understanding of the mind ever reaches levels comparable to our understanding of physics (if this is even possible in such a complex system as the human brain and the mind is truly ruled by deterministic principles) then it wouldn't matter who you are as you would be much like an atom or a planet - to one who possesses the laws of thought your actions would be predictable and therefore such a person could manipulate the conditions around you in a precise way to meet their own goals. My viewpoint is not pessimistic - it's realistic and I'm simply taking into account the inherent risks of any knowledge. Knowledge of particle physics gave us a new way to generate energy and a new understanding of the universe, along with a host of inventions, but it also led to the creation of nuclear weapons and incidents such as Chernobyl. Same goes for biology. A deeper understanding of viruses and how to cure them led to the creation of biological weapons and GMO foods whose risks are yet to be seen. I don't see why things should be any different in the case of the mind. My opinion is a simple risk assessment - I'd rather not bet that people won't use this knowledge in a destructive way since history has shown us that individuals who will do this exist in any period.

 

[Parson]

I really am going to have to walk away from this... but - god is a eugenicist? God has been manipulating evolution? We are just cattle? (or 'sheep' if you prefer).

Eugenicist? in the sense that he has let species die out? ---- Yes, (if that's your meaning)but I had in mind much more what @Mirannan said. I see God (in the sense of creator) as more as the setter of the equation than a micro-manager.

 

[Stephen Palmer]

But to answer your question - if our level of understanding of the mind ever reaches levels comparable to our understanding of physics (if this is even possible in such a complex system as the human brain and the mind is truly ruled by deterministic principles) then it wouldn't matter who you are as you would be much like an atom or a planet - to one who possesses the laws of thought your actions would be predictable and therefore such a person could manipulate the conditions around you in a precise way to meet their own goals.

I think determinism went out about a century ago…

 

[Stephen Palmer]

My viewpoint is not pessimistic - it's realistic and I'm simply taking into account the inherent risks of any knowledge. Knowledge of particle physics gave us a new way to generate energy and a new understanding of the universe, along with a host of inventions, but it also led to the creation of nuclear weapons and incidents such as Chernobyl.

I see what you mean, but you do perhaps assume that human nature is the same as the human condition? imo human nature is historical-period-specific, whereas the human condition is constant and derived entirely from our evolutionary history. i.e. - human nature derives from the human condition, with the former being variable and the latter not. If human cultural evolution is, as I was suggesting, a one-way process, then the former converges on the latter. Or at least, that's the hope…

 

[Tracy]

I think determinism went out about a century ago…

First of all - that's not even a little true. It's an undecided question. There are many different interpretations of quantum mechanics and a lot of them do suppose that the universe is indeed random, but there are also a number that suggest that we simply don't have the capabilities to see the principles below them. Either side's arguments are inconclusive, but there is one pretty definite and irrefutable fact - the world that we inhabit and understand (the one above the planck constant) IS completely deterministic, so far as we know. Seeing as how we are a part of this world it is very likely that our minds are also based on deterministic processes.

But leaving this aside - if you think determinism is out, how do you suppose that we would be able to figure out the mind? If randomness underlies reality then the possibility of understanding is nonexistent as causality will be nonexistent and having knowledge will be impossible - you cannot predict randomness... I believe that would be even worse for your theory.

 

[Tracy]

I see what you mean, but you do perhaps assume that human nature is the same as the human condition? imo human nature is historical-period-specific, whereas the human condition is constant and derived entirely from our evolutionary history. i.e. - human nature derives from the human condition, with the former being variable and the latter not. If human cultural evolution is, as I was suggesting, a one-way process, then the former converges on the latter. Or at least, that's the hope…

Can you please define specifically the difference between the human condition and human nature. I suspect our definitions of the two are kind of different, so I'm not sure if I got your argument

 

[J Riff]

Meanwhile, science just goes on unexplaining how I can put my keys down and they disappear.

 

[Cathbad]

Meanwhile, science just goes on unexplaining how I can put my keys down and they disappear.

Here Here!

With me, it's pens. Anyone know where mine went?

 

[J Riff]

I now use a magnet, a strong one, and hurl the keys at it when I come in. So far they have stuck around.

 

[BAYLOR]

Meanwhile, science just goes on unexplaining how I can put my keys down and they disappear.

The Hadron Super collider could be causing a wormhole to form near your keys. The keys get sucked into the wormhole and deposited somewhere else in your home.

 

[Stephen Palmer]

Either side's arguments are inconclusive, but there is one pretty definite and irrefutable fact - the world that we inhabit and understand (the one above the planck constant) IS completely deterministic, so far as we know. Seeing as how we are a part of this world it is very likely that our minds are also based on deterministic processes.

I can assure you, that's exactly what I think. There's not much that annoys me more than New Age mystical nonsense about "quantum consciousness"…

 

[JoanDrake]

What about the fact that the Universe's rate of expansion is speeding up? This is something that makes no sense at all

 

[Vertigo]

What about the fact that the Universe's rate of expansion is speeding up? This is something that makes no sense at all

That sort of came up early in the thread. Dark energy was invented to provide a plausible cause/mechanism for the acceleration; we just don't understand what it is yet!