aa: Religion, Science and Art
Jim (Red)
Among the posters here on aa, is there a tendency toward more emphasis
and respect for science, and less for the arts? Is there a general
view that the sciences are independent of, or even 'antidotes' to
religion, in ways that the arts are not? Are the arts more easily put
to the service of religion, than are the sciences? Is what science
seems to value (e.g., the interplay of evidence and logic experienced
in scientific works) held to be somehow, more respectable than what
art seems to value (e.g., aesthetic expression and feeling,
experienced in artistic works)?
Thanks for your comments on Atheism and Scientism, by the way.
Jim
Myself when young did eagerly frequent
Doctor and Saint, and heard great Argument
About it and about: but evermore
Came out by the same Door as in I went.
Rubaiyat of Omar Khayyam, 27
Denis Loubet
"Jim (Red)" <us...@nospam.batnet.com> wrote in message
news:3bff38e...@news.inreach.com...
> Hi,
>
> Among the posters here on aa, is there a tendency toward more emphasis
> and respect for science, and less for the arts? Is there a general
> view that the sciences are independent of, or even 'antidotes' to
> religion, in ways that the arts are not? Are the arts more easily put
> to the service of religion, than are the sciences? Is what science
> seems to value (e.g., the interplay of evidence and logic experienced
> in scientific works) held to be somehow, more respectable than what
> art seems to value (e.g., aesthetic expression and feeling,
> experienced in artistic works)?
>
> Thanks for your comments on Atheism and Scientism, by the way.
I can only speak for myself.
I think science is the best way to arrive at knowledge.
I think art is the best way to express oneself.
I think religion is the best way to delude oneself.
I think that both science and art are vitally important.
Denis Loubet
dlo...@io.com
http://www.io.com/~dloubet
Megafrim
"Jim (Red)" wrote:
Although I'm a confirmed atheist, and a believer in the scientific
process, I find a dismaying dullness and frigidity to most of the
atheists' posts I read here. Personally, I am in awe of life. I am
mystified by the nature of humanity, and staggered by my own sentience. I
cannot relate to so many here who brush aside such mysteries as simply
stuff that science hasn't gotten around to explaining yet. I believe there
is a spark within a human that transcends the biological hardware, and
that science can never explain some things. Such as music. Such as poetry.
-megafrim
ic...@ichimusai.org
> Among the posters here on aa, is there a tendency toward more
> emphasis and respect for science, and less for the arts?
I don't think so, but art does not run counter to religion so it is
kind of not the issue here. But I myself is a great lover of poetry,
music and other works of art.
> Is there a general view that the sciences are independent of, or
> even 'antidotes' to religion, in ways that the arts are not?
Kind of, science at least tells us there are no evidence for any gods.
> Are the arts more easily put to the service of religion, than are
> the sciences?
Much of the most celebrated arts were created by religious people for
this purpose. That does not mean that non-religious can not enjoy it,
but yes, I think art is much easier to employ in promoting religion
then science is...
Art is not restrained by the scientific method - however it does have
a kind of peer review feedback system, but not as rigid.
> Is what science seems to value (e.g., the interplay of evidence and
> logic experienced in scientific works) held to be somehow, more
> respectable than what art seems to value (e.g., aesthetic expression
> and feeling, experienced in artistic works)?
That's like comparing welding aggregates and kittens kind of...
> Thanks for your comments on Atheism and Scientism, by the way.
Scientism seems to be invented by fundies to be able to say "you are
no better then us because you are religious too".
--
AA#769 ICQ 1645566 Yahoo: Ichimusai www.ichimusai.org
ATAGUN http://groups.yahoo.com/group/atagun
dral...@farside.fr
wrote:
>Hi,
>
>Among the posters here on aa, is there a tendency toward more emphasis
>and respect for science, and less for the arts? Is there a general
>view that the sciences are independent of, or even 'antidotes' to
>religion, in ways that the arts are not? Are the arts more easily put
>to the service of religion, than are the sciences? Is what science
>seems to value (e.g., the interplay of evidence and logic experienced
>in scientific works) held to be somehow, more respectable than what
>art seems to value (e.g., aesthetic expression and feeling,
>experienced in artistic works)?
>
>Thanks for your comments on Atheism and Scientism, by the way.
>
(drala)
frankly, I don't think that arts are really linked to religion or to
science: many fine work of arts have been created through religious
themes but it was because religious had the money to buy the artists!
there are less religion today and as much if not more art.
something that is beautifull is still beautifull whatever could be the
reigous ground of the artist.
I'm an atheist yet I like visiting european churches, cathedrals and
other ancient religious work of art!
BTW, I do think that today's religious art is really crappy!
to sum it: art is in the service of whoever has the money to pay the
artist...
your last sentence is a bit strange: art and science don't have the
same objective: art is to trigger emotionnal responses (without any
other utility) while science is based on intelectual advancement and
the pursuit of knowledge.
these are two distinct domains, I think...
>Jim
>Myself when young did eagerly frequent
>Doctor and Saint, and heard great Argument
>About it and about: but evermore
>Came out by the same Door as in I went.
>Rubaiyat of Omar Khayyam, 27
The Flying Frenchman
Never forgets Montsegur.
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
Check out our new Unlimited Server. No Download or Time Limits!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! ==-----
Denis Loubet
"Megafrim" <fri...@pioneeris.net> wrote in message
news:3BFF75D4...@pioneeris.net...
>
>
> "Jim (Red)" wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > Among the posters here on aa, is there a tendency toward more emphasis
> > and respect for science, and less for the arts? Is there a general
> > view that the sciences are independent of, or even 'antidotes' to
> > religion, in ways that the arts are not? Are the arts more easily put
> > to the service of religion, than are the sciences? Is what science
> > seems to value (e.g., the interplay of evidence and logic experienced
> > in scientific works) held to be somehow, more respectable than what
> > art seems to value (e.g., aesthetic expression and feeling,
> > experienced in artistic works)?
> >
> > Thanks for your comments on Atheism and Scientism, by the way.
> >
> > Jim
> > Myself when young did eagerly frequent
> > Doctor and Saint, and heard great Argument
> > About it and about: but evermore
> > Came out by the same Door as in I went.
> > Rubaiyat of Omar Khayyam, 27
>
> Although I'm a confirmed atheist, and a believer in the scientific
> process, I find a dismaying dullness and frigidity to most of the
> atheists' posts I read here.
Really? That's weird. I see atheists poo-pooing the starstruck religious
explaination of the universe, but I don't see them saying that they are not
mystified and in awe of the wonders of the universe. Quite the contrary, I
see atheists with scientific knowledge able to appreciate those wonders on
additional levels that a "Goddidit" can't hope to match.
> Personally, I am in awe of life.
I don't think you'll get an argument against that position from any atheist
here.
> I am
> mystified by the nature of humanity, and staggered by my own sentience.
Me too. You'll find that scientists are mystified and staggered too, and
that that's why they want to learn more, and feel that it's important that
they do.
> I
> cannot relate to so many here who brush aside such mysteries as simply
> stuff that science hasn't gotten around to explaining yet.
I think what you're seeing is a deliberate attitude in response to specific
religious arguments only.
For example, when theists try to peddle their "soul" concept, I often
respond by describing people as nothing more than meat machines. That is a
deliberate overstatement designed to point out that one does not need to
resort to a made-up flight of fancy like a soul to explain the amazing
complexity and wonder of human conciousness. I am in awe of that meat
machine, and want to know all I can about it.
> I believe there
> is a spark within a human that transcends the biological hardware, and
> that science can never explain some things. Such as music. Such as poetry.
Why do you insist that an explaination equates to lack of respect, or lack
of wonder? I'm an artist, and I have no problem with the idea that science
may explain the source of my inspirations. I look forward to that
explaination so that I may appreciate it on another level. I fully expect
that that knowledge can only allow me to do my art better than I do now.
Knowledge does not mean the elimination of wonder and awe. Quite the
opposite.
Atheists are not a bunch of Mr. Spocks.
Jim (Red)
I like to think of such works as Beethoven's Fifth Symphony as the
artistic equivalent of a well-worked out scientific or mathematical
theory/theorum. Or perhaps, vice versa. Science without aesthetics
seems to require or deserve no human attention.
cloidheamh
>Hi,
>
>Among the posters here on aa, is there a tendency toward more emphasis
>and respect for science, and less for the arts?
Not that I'm aware of.
> Is there a general
>view that the sciences are independent of, or even 'antidotes' to
>religion, in ways that the arts are not?
Science explains observation. Art is a subjective form of expression. Religion is a form of
philosophy.
Science can examine religion and art.
Art can express science and religion.
Religion can incorporate both art and science.
> Are the arts more easily put
>to the service of religion, than are the sciences?
Not necessarily, but it depends upon the religion.
> Is what science
>seems to value (e.g., the interplay of evidence and logic experienced
>in scientific works) held to be somehow, more respectable than what
>art seems to value (e.g., aesthetic expression and feeling,the
Science is a method. Art is an expression. Value is an emotional or economic consideration.
Science does not 'value' evidence and logic, it requires it.
Same thing for art and expression.
As for 'respect': Neither one holds more than the other.
My favorite artist is William Bouguereau. 19th - 20th c, Academic oil painting - including many
religious works, some of which are quite nice (e.g. Madonna of the roses, The Nymphaeum, and
Cupidon). But my favorites are the ... (can't recall the name of the genre right now, sorry) ...
such as The Shepherdess, Temptation, and Little Beggar Girls.
I don't have a 'favorite' scientist.
>Thanks for your comments on Atheism and Scientism, by the way.
>
I haven't commented on either one.
GoDrex
>
William Wingstedt
wrote:
>Hi,
>
>Among the posters here on aa, is there a tendency toward more emphasis
>and respect for science, and less for the arts?
Not for me. To me, science, art and technology are fundamental
characteristics of what it is to be human.
> Is there a general
>view that the sciences are independent of, or even 'antidotes' to
>religion, in ways that the arts are not? Are the arts more easily put
>to the service of religion, than are the sciences? Is what science
>seems to value (e.g., the interplay of evidence and logic experienced
>in scientific works) held to be somehow, more respectable than what
>art seems to value (e.g., aesthetic expression and feeling,
>experienced in artistic works)?
Art and science are both human expressions. They support each other.
Art may be put into the service of religion through science and vice
versa. Both are the result of the human ability to manipulate mental
symbols and then express these symbols using technology. To me, they
have equal value, each being more valuable than the other.
Etherman
>
> Among the posters here on aa, is there a tendency toward more
emphasis
> and respect for science, and less for the arts?
I think science is just more relevant to the god problem. I can
sculpt an image of god but that has no bearing on whether god exists
or not.
> Is there a general
> view that the sciences are independent of, or even 'antidotes' to
> religion, in ways that the arts are not?
Art need not reflect reality. Science must at least approximate it.
I think that makes science more of an antidote. However, people will
often respond better to art than science. For propaganda value art is
superior to science.
> Are the arts more easily put
> to the service of religion, than are the sciences?
I believe so. See above.
> Is what science
> seems to value (e.g., the interplay of evidence and logic
experienced
> in scientific works) held to be somehow, more respectable than what
> art seems to value (e.g., aesthetic expression and feeling,
> experienced in artistic works)?
Depends, I think, on what you're trying to apply art or science to.
Personally, I value scientific truth more than I do artistic truth.
Yet I can listen to a piece of music, enjoy it very much, and not care
at all about the math and physics that go into it. Of course if I want
to learn the principles of aerodynamics I'm not going to study
paintings of airplanes.
--
Etherman
AA # pi
EAC Director of Ritual Satanic Abuse Operations
RAFC
AMTCode(v2): [Poster][TÆ][A5][Lx][Sx][Bx][FD][P-][CC]
Etherman
"Denis Loubet" <dlo...@io.com> wrote in message
news:GVTL7.16870$GA2.5...@typhoon.austin.rr.com...
> Why do you insist that an explaination equates to lack of respect,
or lack
> of wonder? I'm an artist, and I have no problem with the idea that
science
> may explain the source of my inspirations. I look forward to that
> explaination so that I may appreciate it on another level. I fully
expect
> that that knowledge can only allow me to do my art better than I do
now.
I love both art and science. I hope that someday science will allow
me to better tap into my creative potential.
chib
<us...@nospam.batnet.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Among the posters here on aa, is there a tendency toward more emphasis
> and respect for science, and less for the arts? Is there a general
> view that the sciences are independent of, or even 'antidotes' to
> religion, in ways that the arts are not? Are the arts more easily put
> to the service of religion, than are the sciences? Is what science
> seems to value (e.g., the interplay of evidence and logic experienced
> in scientific works) held to be somehow, more respectable than what
> art seems to value (e.g., aesthetic expression and feeling,
> experienced in artistic works)?
Speaking for myself, a great deal of art (even its aesthetics) is no
less rigorous than the most difficult science. You can slap some paint
on a canvas and call it art (unfortunately, too many do), but to be
really good what you're doing when you create art, you have to
understand a great many things about the medium you're working in. If
it's oil paint (just to take one example), you have to understand color
science, the chemistry and stability of pigments (Ralph Mayer's
_Artist's Handbook_ lists *43 pages* of oil pigments!), binders,
solvents and thinners, drying times (why does burnt umber dry overnight
while cadmium red takes weeks?), structure of paint films, varnishes,
resins, glazes, oxidation, polymerization . . . and we haven't even
touched on brushes and knives for applying the paint, which is a whole
science all by itself, or on substrates such as the canvas. (In the old
days of art school, you could take an entire course merely to learn to
properly stretch and gesso a canvas -- you never saw a tube of paint
until you could create a flawless _stable_ surface to paint on.)
In my view, art is synonymous with craftsmanship and knowledge. It's a
means of expression, yes, but one can't express oneself until one
learns the basics of one's language.
It's the same with any endeavor, actually, so I don't know why art is
singled out as a non-technical (or frivolous) science.
-chib
--
Member of SMASH
Sarcastic Middle-aged Atheists with a Sense of Humor
(Email: change out to in)
Megafrim
Denis Loubet wrote:
I'll admit that one can't judge another's entire attitude through a few
posts in a newsgroup, but an awful lot of the stuff I read here from my fellow
atheists does come off as Spockism. Your own admitted use of a term like "meat
machine" is a good example. Any theist who who speaks of a "soul" has at least
shown the perception to realize there is something to human consciousness
besides meat and motion. Observation is, after all, the first tool of science,
and to classify the human experience in so mundane a term as "meat machine"
shows a lack of observational skills. Even if you use the term as an intentional
exaggeration in the heat of argument, you are undermining your own position.
As for the creative arts, I don't "insist that an explanation equates to
lack of respect", and I never said anything of the sort. Rather, I said that
science *can't* explain some things. When a theist here argues that science
cannot account for anything pre-BigBang, the standard aa response is that
science just hasn't done so yet. This attitude shows a faith in the scientific
method that I don't share. And in terms of the creative arts, I find science a
minor force. It is the subjectivity of the arts that separates them from the
sciences, a quality that defies quantification. Science can never demonstrate
why Beethoven's Ninth is a superior work of art as long as there are thousands
of Texans who prefer "Achy Breaky Heart". *
-megafrim (UTTERLY faithless, in both god and science)
*oh, I'm KIDDING, I'm KIDDING. I'm fully aware some Cyrus fans are from
Georgia!
Megafrim
chib wrote:
Pigments, solvents, drying time... you can teach that stuff to (almost)
anyone. The art only begins afterwards.
-megafrim
chib
<fri...@pioneeris.net> wrote:
> Pigments, solvents, drying time... you can teach that stuff to (almost)
> anyone.
No, you can't. Craftmanship can't be taught. It has to be acquired,
slowly and painfully.
> The art only begins afterwards.
I agree with that.
Martin Crisp
wrote (in message <3bff38e...@news.inreach.com>):
> Hi,
>
> Among the posters here on aa, is there a tendency toward more emphasis
> and respect for science, and less for the arts? Is there a general
Glances at the Dali print over my shoulder, then photo of a weddell
(I think) seal on some pack ice printed from a test-CD image from a
semi-automated scanning-cd-burning DB I've redeveloped for Aust
Antarctic Division.
Science and art interact with each other. Without science (optics
and medicine) my wife could not see to paint watercolour landscapes
(no digital versions to hand sorry, her computer is on loan to a
musician...), or take photos like this:
http://members.ozemail.com.au/~martincrisp/gulls.jpg
Without optics, math and computers I could not:
http://members.ozemail.com.au/~martincrisp/fractal1.jpg
It is probably easier to convey a religious notion by art than a
scientific one by art.
But then again, do you know what the obvious symptom of Reynaud's
Phenomenon is?
http://members.ozemail.com.au/~martincrisp/reynauds.jpg
> view that the sciences are independent of, or even 'antidotes' to
> religion, in ways that the arts are not? Are the arts more easily put
> to the service of religion, than are the sciences? Is what science
> seems to value (e.g., the interplay of evidence and logic experienced
> in scientific works) held to be somehow, more respectable than what
> art seems to value (e.g., aesthetic expression and feeling,
> experienced in artistic works)?
several others have already given opinons similar to mine (Etherman
William W, Cloidheamh, ichi...)
> Thanks for your comments on Atheism and Scientism, by the way.
?
Have Fun
Martin
--
aa #(2^8)*(2^3-2^0)
[...]Et sepultus resurrexit; certum est, quia impossibile.
-- Tertullian
PGP Key (ID 0xED55A6D0) Fingerprint:
A7C7 F865 B317 ABBB B10E D8AC F4AD 347D ED55 A6D0
Denis Loubet
And that's only because when arguing with theists, most atheists will try to
stick with arguments and claims that they can actually support. And that
support requires that the atheist use precise terminology and careful
reasoning. In contrast to the theist's use of vague and contradictory
terminology, atheists end up sounding like Mr. Spock.
> Your own admitted use of a term like "meat
> machine" is a good example.
Granted, as I said.
> Any theist who who speaks of a "soul" has at least
> shown the perception to realize there is something to human consciousness
> besides meat and motion.
I'm sorry, but to use this claim in support of your position, you will have
to back it up. Why do you claim that there is more to human conciousness
than "meat and motion"? (or electrochemical activity, etc.)
Why are you trying to shoehorn this unevidenced claim into your argument?
This does not help your position.
> Observation is, after all, the first tool of science,
> and to classify the human experience in so mundane a term as "meat
machine"
> shows a lack of observational skills.
Point out the observation that suggests otherwise. If you cannot, then this
doesn't constitute a criticism of my observational skills.
If I'm starting to sound like Mr. Spock, it's because you're starting to
make vague claims that I feel I must address. To address them, I must use
careful reasoning and careful terminology to avoid misunderstanding and make
my position clear.
> Even if you use the term as an intentional
> exaggeration in the heat of argument, you are undermining your own
position.
Nonsense. It is technically true. I am just putting the worst spin on it
from the targets perspective. Personally I have no problem with being a
fantastically complex meat machine. Do you?
> As for the creative arts, I don't "insist that an explanation equates
to
> lack of respect", and I never said anything of the sort. Rather, I said
that
> science *can't* explain some things.
Ok, what IS your position? If science can't explain music and poetry,
then...? What?
> When a theist here argues that science
> cannot account for anything pre-BigBang, the standard aa response is that
> science just hasn't done so yet. This attitude shows a faith in the
scientific
> method that I don't share.
I share it only because of science's amazing historical track record of
explaining things that haven't been explained yet. Have you not observed
that? Are you not justified in drawing a possible conclusion from that
observation?
> And in terms of the creative arts, I find science a
> minor force.
Then you haven't been looking. The rules of composition and color are the
result of a long sequence of trial and error. They were arrived at
empirically, by observing what works and what doesn't. For example, cool
colors recede, warm colors advance, that constitutes an observation.
Executing a painting utilizing that observation constitutes hypothesis and
prediction in the planning, experiment in the painting, and results in the
finished art. The prediction fulfilled, the hypothesis becomes a theory, and
part of the artist's library of techniques. All, unwittingly, through the
scientific method. Or wittingly, as the case may be.
Your mistake lies in thinking of science only in terms of lab coats and test
tubes. When you understand the scientific method, you'll discover that you
use it loosely all the time in your day-to-day affairs, completely unaware
that you are doing so.
> It is the subjectivity of the arts that separates them from the
> sciences, a quality that defies quantification.
Again with the claims. Why do you claim subjectivity defies quantification?
What do you think a poll is other than quantifying subjectivity? Science can
study subjectivity just fine, and has been doing so for decades, if not
centuries.
> Science can never demonstrate
> why Beethoven's Ninth is a superior work of art as long as there are
thousands
> of Texans who prefer "Achy Breaky Heart". *
Perhaps it's meaningless to measure art as superior or inferior as you seem
to want to do. Just like trying to measure volume in miles per hour. Don't
blame science for failing to meet unreasonable demands.
(snip)
Elf Sternberg
us...@nospam.batnet.com (Jim (Red)) writes:
>Among the posters here on aa, is there a tendency toward more emphasis
>and respect for science, and less for the arts? Is there a general
>view that the sciences are independent of, or even 'antidotes' to
>religion, in ways that the arts are not? Are the arts more easily put
>to the service of religion, than are the sciences? Is what science
>seems to value (e.g., the interplay of evidence and logic experienced
>in scientific works) held to be somehow, more respectable than what
>art seems to value (e.g., aesthetic expression and feeling,
>experienced in artistic works)?
I'm afraid I don't understand what you mean about "the arts."
What are "the arts" that you use in this specific sense? If you mean
the creative talents used to entertain the senses and illustrate the
workings of the inner mind, then any naturalist will tell you that they
are attempts to communicate, and that their imprecision and grey areas
are what make them valuable. But to rank them in importance against
science or religion is absurd.
Elf
--
Elf M. Sternberg, rational romantic mystical cynical idealist
http://www.halcyon.com/elf/
Dvorak Keyboards: Frgp ucpoy ncb. ru e.u.bo.v
Megafrim
Denis Loubet wrote:
You observe nothing in the human condition that transcends the meat and
motion? I would think that sentience itself would fit the bill, self-awareness,
the ability to generate an idea or to dream. Linked to the meat machine, surely,
but strictly a mechanical or electrochemical effect? As science has never been
able to confer life on anything inanimate, we cannot draw the scientific
conclusion that life stems solely from the bodies that contain it. I am not
implying a supernatural origin, but I am implying something yet unknown to man.
And perhaps unknowable through science. Also, the very term "machine" implies an
inventor, which sort of plays into the theists' hands, doesn't it?
As for your faith that science can eventually explain everything (or at
least explain the Pre-Big-Bang) because of its "amazing historical track
record"; well, that IS taking science into the realm of religion, a sort of
"Scientism". Because science has taken us from point a to point b, you conclude
that it can take us to point z. That's not a scientific conclusion, that's
faith.
By "subjectivity" of the the arts, I'm referring to the emotional effect of
a painting on its viewers, the subtle change of mood an etude can effect on its
listeners. By what scale is that quantified? Not quite the same as a Gallup poll
on whether one favors gun control.
Just as I find an incredible feebleness in theistic thought, which "answers"
mysteries by hiding them behind a god, I find an incredible arrogance in those
who think all mysteries are knowable by man. Don't get me wrong, Science should
go as far as it can, answer all it can. Science progresses. Unlike religion, it
works! Demonstrably! But can it eventually answer all? Why should I believe so,
any more than I should believe in a god?
-megafrim
Denis Loubet
No.
> I would think that sentience itself would fit the bill, self-awareness,
> the ability to generate an idea or to dream. Linked to the meat machine,
surely,
> but strictly a mechanical or electrochemical effect?
Since changing the electrochemical balances of the brain with drugs, or
electrical stimulus, or even physical alteration, can result in the
generation of a completely different idea, or dream, or emotion, there
doesn't seem to be a quality of the brain that is NOT directly dependant on
a purly physical structure. Even self awareness.
Given that, it's facinating the range of experience and emotion that meat
can contain. I am in awe.
> As science has never been
> able to confer life on anything inanimate, we cannot draw the scientific
> conclusion that life stems solely from the bodies that contain it.
But since we have no observation that suggests life exists outside of bodies
that possess the quality of life, to propose that life stems from something
else is called "Making Something Up" based on nothing.
Here's a question for you. Do animals have this trancendant something that
you seem so intent on having? Do Dogs and cats have it? Do worms? Do
bacteria? Do viruses? DNA? Where are you drawing the line?
Viruses are pretty darn machine-like, and I'm made of the same molecules.
Why am I not machine-like?
> I am not
> implying a supernatural origin, but I am implying something yet unknown to
man.
There is no observation that points to that conclusion.
When we have such an observation, then we can attempt to examine it.
Making Something Up gets us nowhere.
> And perhaps unknowable through science. Also, the very term "machine"
implies an
> inventor, which sort of plays into the theists' hands, doesn't it?
I never claimed my meat machine comment was perfect.
> As for your faith that science can eventually explain everything (or
at
> least explain the Pre-Big-Bang) because of its "amazing historical track
> record"; well, that IS taking science into the realm of religion, a sort
of
> "Scientism".
If I stated that science will discover everything, you might have a point.
But I do not state that.
I state that because science has a good track record of offering the best
explaination given the data, there is a chance that it will continue to do
so, and perhaps offer an explaination that encompasses ALL the current data.
I do not know how good the chance is, but I afford it some value that is
admittedly an opinion.
I hope you're not going to call that qualifier-filled claim religious dogma.
> Because science has taken us from point a to point b, you conclude
> that it can take us to point z. That's not a scientific conclusion, that's
> faith.
No, I conclude that there is a chance that it can take us to z, based on the
evidence that it took us to b, and that there's no evidence that z is a
qualitative difference.
> By "subjectivity" of the the arts, I'm referring to the emotional
effect of
> a painting on its viewers, the subtle change of mood an etude can effect
on its
> listeners.
Why didn't you say that?
> By what scale is that quantified? Not quite the same as a Gallup poll
> on whether one favors gun control.
Well, how much are you affected by the painting or music? Can you evaluate
the level of effect each has upon you? Well, there you go, you've crudely
quantified it.
We can record your brain waves as you look at the paintings and listen to
music. The subtle emotional nuances can be captured on hard-copy and cross
referenced to your emotional quantization scale.
Using your emotional quantization scale, and cross indexing it with readings
off the MRI and encephalograph, we can now tell you how much you like a
picture or piece of music.
It's amazing and wonderful what meat can do.
> Just as I find an incredible feebleness in theistic thought, which
"answers"
> mysteries by hiding them behind a god, I find an incredible arrogance in
those
> who think all mysteries are knowable by man.
Except there's one thing you can say about the effectiveness of science that
you can't about theistic thought, "So Far So Good."
Currently, we find no evidence that suggests that there is any observation
that is not examinable by science.
If you don't observe something, what is there to examine?
> Don't get me wrong, Science should
> go as far as it can, answer all it can. Science progresses. Unlike
religion, it
> works! Demonstrably! But can it eventually answer all? Why should I
believe so,
> any more than I should believe in a god?
Religious faith in a god is supposedly absolute, and not to be questioned.
Faith that science might explain all is merely a probability that you can
assign a value to if you feel like it.
Regardless, science never claims 100% truth. Science claims the best
explaination given the current data. If we never get data that shines light
on the creation of the universe, then oh well, we might not have an
explaination for that.
Boo hoo.
Bob Dog
<3bff38e...@news.inreach.com>:
>Hi,
>
>Among the posters here on aa, is there a tendency toward more emphasis
>and respect for science, and less for the arts? Is there a general
>view that the sciences are independent of, or even 'antidotes' to
>religion, in ways that the arts are not? Are the arts more easily put
>to the service of religion, than are the sciences? Is what science
>seems to value (e.g., the interplay of evidence and logic experienced
>in scientific works) held to be somehow, more respectable than what
>art seems to value (e.g., aesthetic expression and feeling,
>experienced in artistic works)?
A Spartan soldier once said about an Athenian lyrist:
"He twiddles alright." The Spartans considered the
arts only as a suppliment to a military life, much
the same way as Jerry Falwell and his ilk view film
and TV - "if we don't approve of it, it's offensive".
When you're narrow-minded and only see the arts in
terms of what they can do for your own agendas, you
render yourself incapable of seeing the aesthetic
value of them. Theistic and self-righteous nuts
from Tipper Whore to Ed Meese have demonstrated
that time and again. Mapplethorpe created the
"piss-christ" piece *because* there are idiots like
those I mentioned who think it offends them; if art
*doesn't* offend somebody, it's not doing it's job.
I don't buy Marilyn Manson's records. Not because
he's "satanic" or any such nonsense (in fact I agree
with his statements that he's counter to it) but
because he doesn't have half the talent of Alice
Cooper who did it first and did it better. <puts
on asbestos suit> Should people be more concerned
with the content or with the talent?
Bob Dog
Atheist #153
+---------------------------------------------------+
|\Read widely, think deeply, but don't talk lengthy. \
+ +---------------------------------------------------+
\|Religion...when you don't want to work for answers.|
+---------------------------------------------------+
Jim (Red)
>
>"Megafrim" <fri...@pioneeris.net> wrote in message
>news:3C019E3F...@pioneeris.net...
>>
>>
....
Butting in...
>>
>> You observe nothing in the human condition that transcends the meat
>and
>> motion?
>
>No.
'Perhaps 'observe' as used by Denis is a term of science, not a term
of art. As a term of science, then, there would be nothing observable
to science, outside science.
IOW, he who defines the terms, defines the game.
Would another question be 'You feel nothing in being human that
transcends what you imagine meat in motion to comprise? And then the
answer would be idiosyncratic; it would be about Denis, not about the
world. This would be more compatible with the view from art's
perspective.
....
>
>> I am not
>> implying a supernatural origin, but I am implying something yet unknown to
>man.
>
>There is no observation that points to that conclusion.
Which is another way of saying that science doesn't see it. That much
seems to be agreed.
>
jam...@spambegone.ctel.net
wrote:
<-- snip -->
> You observe nothing in the human condition that transcends the meat and
>motion? I would think that sentience itself would fit the bill, self-awareness,
>the ability to generate an idea or to dream. Linked to the meat machine, surely,
>but strictly a mechanical or electrochemical effect? As science has never been
>able to confer life on anything inanimate, we cannot draw the scientific
>conclusion that life stems solely from the bodies that contain it. I am not
>implying a supernatural origin, but I am implying something yet unknown to man.
>And perhaps unknowable through science. Also, the very term "machine" implies an
>inventor, which sort of plays into the theists' hands, doesn't it?
<-- snip -->
Look up the case of Phineas P. Gage....
The fact that such radical personality changes can be worked by the
scrambling of a few teaspoons worth of the near-gelatinous mass inside
our skulls is good evidence that everything that makes us concious
beings resides in that spongy pinkish-grey stuff -- change the grey
stuff and you change the man. Kill the grey stuff and the man dies
also, even if the body continues to breath.
Since all matters of personality, memory, and thought are so closely
tied to a working brain, I see no reason to posit something else (like
a soul) to explain who or what we are. Unless, of course, you can
show me something of a person's awareness that persists after brain
death.... It's that whole Occam's Razor thang.
-- WhiskeyJack
jam...@spambegone.ctel.net
wrote:
<-- snip -->
>For example, when theists try to peddle their "soul" concept, I often
>respond by describing people as nothing more than meat machines.
<-- snip -->
http://www.terrybisson.com/meat.html
Excerpt:
--------------------
THEY'RE MADE OUT OF MEAT
by Terry Bisson
"They're made out of meat."
"Meat?"
"Meat. They're made out of meat."
"Meat?"
"There's no doubt about it. We picked up several from different parts
of the planet, took them aboard our recon vessels, and probed them all
the way through. They're completely meat."
"That's impossible. What about the radio signals? The messages to the
stars?"
"They use the radio waves to talk, but the signals don't come from
them. The signals come from machines."
"So who made the machines? That's who we want to contact."
"They made the machines. That's what I'm trying to tell you. Meat made
the machines."
"That's ridiculous. How can meat make a machine? You're asking me to
believe in sentient meat."
"I'm not asking you, I'm telling you. These creatures are the only
sentient race in that sector and they're made out of meat."
....
______
-- WhiskeyJack
Denis Loubet
> "Denis Loubet" <dlo...@io.com> proffered:
>
> >
> >"Megafrim" <fri...@pioneeris.net> wrote in message
> >news:3C019E3F...@pioneeris.net...
> >>
> >>
> ....
>
> Butting in...
> >>
> >> You observe nothing in the human condition that transcends the meat
> >and
> >> motion?
> >
> >No.
>
> 'Perhaps 'observe' as used by Denis is a term of science, not a term
> of art. As a term of science, then, there would be nothing observable
> to science, outside science.
But of course, Megafirm is using the term scientifically as well.
> IOW, he who defines the terms, defines the game.
And Megafirm and I are agreed on the definition.
> Would another question be 'You feel nothing in being human that
> transcends what you imagine meat in motion to comprise? And then the
> answer would be idiosyncratic; it would be about Denis, not about the
> world. This would be more compatible with the view from art's
> perspective.
True. However, that answer would be more a measure of my own ignorance,
since what I feel does not necessarily have anything to do with what's true.
> ....
> >
> >> I am not
> >> implying a supernatural origin, but I am implying something yet unknown
to
> >man.
> >
> >There is no observation that points to that conclusion.
>
> Which is another way of saying that science doesn't see it. That much
> seems to be agreed.
Please provide an example of something that exists that science cannot see.
If you cannot, then the distinction is irrelevant.
Jim (Red)
>
>"Jim (Red)" <us...@nospam.batnet.com> wrote in message
>news:3c026578...@news.inreach.com...
>> "Denis Loubet" <dlo...@io.com> proffered:
>>
>> >
>> >"Megafrim" <fri...@pioneeris.net> wrote in message
>> >news:3C019E3F...@pioneeris.net...
>> >>
>> >>
>> ....
>>
>> Butting in...
>> >>
>> >> You observe nothing in the human condition that transcends the meat
>> >and
>> >> motion?
>> >
>> >No.
>>
>> 'Perhaps 'observe' as used by Denis is a term of science, not a term
>> of art. As a term of science, then, there would be nothing observable
>> to science, outside science.
>
>But of course, Megafirm is using the term scientifically as well.
>
>> IOW, he who defines the terms, defines the game.
>
>And Megafirm and I are agreed on the definition.
OK, I'll withdraw from that butting-in.
>
>> Would another question be 'You feel nothing in being human that
>> transcends what you imagine meat in motion to comprise? And then the
>> answer would be idiosyncratic; it would be about Denis, not about the
>> world. This would be more compatible with the view from art's
>> perspective.
>
>True. However, that answer would be more a measure of my own ignorance,
>since what I feel does not necessarily have anything to do with what's true.
My sense of what is true is heavily influenced by my feelings. This
occurs in two ways, at least, of which I will give examples:
1. The feeling of satisfaction in solving a problem by determining the
'true' answer to a puzzle of some sort.
2. Appreciating the beauty of an 'elegant' solution to a problem
(which may differ from the 'true' answer or may be the 'simplest' true
answer). I thing a major appeal of Occam's Razor, to scientists, is
aesthetic, in fact I think the aesthetic sense is highly developed in
certain directions,and is heavily relied on, in many scientists.
>> ....
>> >
>> >> I am not
>> >> implying a supernatural origin, but I am implying something yet unknown
>to
>> >man.
>> >
>> >There is no observation that points to that conclusion.
>>
>> Which is another way of saying that science doesn't see it. That much
>> seems to be agreed.
>
>Please provide an example of something that exists that science cannot see.
It would be an argument ad ignorantium, if you went on to say "science
can see everything that exists, prove me wrong; oh you won't do it, so
I'm right". I am saying that science 'sees' a field of reality.
Whether that field of reality exhausts reality is for me, an open
question. But it does not make sense to resolve the question using the
tools of science, does it? Isn't that a form of question-begging? I'm
wondering.
Megafrim
Denis Loubet wrote:
> "
> > You observe nothing in the human condition that transcends the meat
> and
> > motion?
>
> No.
How about life itself?
> > I would think that sentience itself would fit the bill, self-awareness,
> > the ability to generate an idea or to dream. Linked to the meat machine,
> surely,
> > but strictly a mechanical or electrochemical effect?
>
> Since changing the electrochemical balances of the brain with drugs, or
> electrical stimulus, or even physical alteration, can result in the
> generation of a completely different idea, or dream, or emotion, there
> doesn't seem to be a quality of the brain that is NOT directly dependant on
> a purly physical structure. Even self awareness.
I've admitted these qualities of mind are certainly linked to the physical
body. But I can change the program on my TV by pushing buttons, that doesn't
prove the programs originate in the set.
> Given that, it's facinating the range of experience and emotion that meat
> can contain. I am in awe.
>
> > As science has never been
> > able to confer life on anything inanimate, we cannot draw the scientific
> > conclusion that life stems solely from the bodies that contain it.
>
> But since we have no observation that suggests life exists outside of bodies
> that possess the quality of life, to propose that life stems from something
> else is called "Making Something Up" based on nothing.
Not at all. Put your fern in the closet for a week, then tell me life
doesn't stem from something other than the body that contains it. Machines don't
create energy, they convert it. Isn't life a form of energy?
> Here's a question for you. Do animals have this trancendant something that
> you seem so intent on having? Do Dogs and cats have it? Do worms? Do
> bacteria? Do viruses? DNA? Where are you drawing the line?
I have no idea. I'm in no position to make those observations.
> Viruses are pretty darn machine-like, and I'm made of the same molecules.
> Why am I not machine-like?
Everything made from the same molecules has all the same properties? You're
losing me here. Anyway, I don't deny that the machine analogy is useful, it just
doesn't encompass the quality of life.
> > I am not
> > implying a supernatural origin, but I am implying something yet unknown to
> man.
>
> There is no observation that points to that conclusion.
I'm not sure what you're referring to here. I'm talking about the origin of
the spark of life; I thought it was pretty safe to conclude this was something
yet unknown to man.
> When we have such an observation, then we can attempt to examine it.
>
> Making Something Up gets us nowhere.
>
> > And perhaps unknowable through science. Also, the very term "machine"
> implies an
> > inventor, which sort of plays into the theists' hands, doesn't it?
>
> I never claimed my meat machine comment was perfect.
>
> > As for your faith that science can eventually explain everything (or
> at
> > least explain the Pre-Big-Bang) because of its "amazing historical track
> > record"; well, that IS taking science into the realm of religion, a sort
> of
> > "Scientism".
>
> If I stated that science will discover everything, you might have a point.
> But I do not state that.
>
> I state that because science has a good track record of offering the best
> explaination given the data, there is a chance that it will continue to do
> so, and perhaps offer an explaination that encompasses ALL the current data.
> I do not know how good the chance is, but I afford it some value that is
> admittedly an opinion.
>
> I hope you're not going to call that qualifier-filled claim religious dogma.
No, but it does seem like a begrudging admission of faith. Oh, and as far as
"track records": I suspect you don't actually play the horses, or you'd have a
lot less confidence in such stats.
> > Because science has taken us from point a to point b, you conclude
> > that it can take us to point z. That's not a scientific conclusion, that's
> > faith.
>
> No, I conclude that there is a chance that it can take us to z, based on the
> evidence that it took us to b, and that there's no evidence that z is a
> qualitative difference.
There's no evidence on z.
> > By "subjectivity" of the the arts, I'm referring to the emotional
> effect of
> > a painting on its viewers, the subtle change of mood an etude can effect
> on its
> > listeners.
>
> Why didn't you say that?
I thought we were talking about the creative arts; polling sciences came out
of left field.
>
>
> > By what scale is that quantified? Not quite the same as a Gallup poll
> > on whether one favors gun control.
>
> Well, how much are you affected by the painting or music? Can you evaluate
> the level of effect each has upon you? Well, there you go, you've crudely
> quantified it.
>
> We can record your brain waves as you look at the paintings and listen to
> music. The subtle emotional nuances can be captured on hard-copy and cross
> referenced to your emotional quantization scale.
>
> Using your emotional quantization scale, and cross indexing it with readings
> off the MRI and encephalograph, we can now tell you how much you like a
> picture or piece of music.
You ARE joking, right?. For your "emotional response indicator" to produce
any meaningful results, you'd have to isolate the results of the stimulus (the
painting or whatever) from all other ambient stimuli results, and then
demonstrate that repeated exposure to the same stimuli would produce similar
results. And even then, what meaning would your final "rating" have? Led
Zeppelin might send the needles into the red while Beethoven's Pastoral Symphony
would produce more moderate results, without indicating anything about "how much
you like it". And what is the name of this machine that can capture subtle
emotional nuances on hard-disc?
>
> It's amazing and wonderful what meat can do.
>
> > Just as I find an incredible feebleness in theistic thought, which
> "answers"
> > mysteries by hiding them behind a god, I find an incredible arrogance in
> those
> > who think all mysteries are knowable by man.
>
> Except there's one thing you can say about the effectiveness of science that
> you can't about theistic thought, "So Far So Good."
No argument except that "so far" isn't really very far.
>
>
> Currently, we find no evidence that suggests that there is any observation
> that is not examinable by science.
>
> If you don't observe something, what is there to examine?
>
> > Don't get me wrong, Science should
> > go as far as it can, answer all it can. Science progresses. Unlike
> religion, it
> > works! Demonstrably! But can it eventually answer all? Why should I
> believe so,
> > any more than I should believe in a god?
>
> Religious faith in a god is supposedly absolute, and not to be questioned.
>
> Faith that science might explain all is merely a probability that you can
> assign a value to if you feel like it.
Faith in the eventual omniscience of science is "merely a probability...".
Don't be so wishy-washy.
>
>
> Regardless, science never claims 100% truth. Science claims the best
> explaination given the current data. If we never get data that shines light
> on the creation of the universe, then oh well, we might not have an
> explaination for that.
>
>
> Boo hoo.
Not in our lifetimes, anyway, so boo hoo for us.
-megafrim
stoney
On Mon, 26 Nov 2001 14:42:45 GMT, now...@nospam.com (Bob Dog), Message ID:
<Xns9165F1DEDD79E...@210.220.163.24> wrote in alt.atheism;
I can't comment on MM as haven't heard any of his stuff. For myself, I'm more
interested in the talent.
There's one rock song I can't recall the name of that's several years old now,
(used to hear it on the radio) I loathe the lyrics. However, I like the song
because of the synergy of the music and the lyrics.
--
Stoney
"Designated Rascal and Rapscallion
and
SCAMPERMEISTER!"
When in doubt, SCAMPER about!
When things are fair, SCAMPER everywhere!
When things are rough, can't SCAMPER enough!
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 90,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
Denis Loubet
But what IS true is not affected in the least by your feelings, or mine.
> This
> occurs in two ways, at least, of which I will give examples:
>
> 1. The feeling of satisfaction in solving a problem by determining the
> 'true' answer to a puzzle of some sort.
How does this affect the truth value of the answer? Your feeling have
nothing to do with it.
> 2. Appreciating the beauty of an 'elegant' solution to a problem
> (which may differ from the 'true' answer or may be the 'simplest' true
> answer). I thing a major appeal of Occam's Razor, to scientists, is
> aesthetic, in fact I think the aesthetic sense is highly developed in
> certain directions,and is heavily relied on, in many scientists.
This does not affect the truth of the answer either. I'm not sure what
you're trying to say.
> >> ....
> >> >
> >> >> I am not
> >> >> implying a supernatural origin, but I am implying something yet
unknown
> >to
> >> >man.
> >> >
> >> >There is no observation that points to that conclusion.
> >>
> >> Which is another way of saying that science doesn't see it. That much
> >> seems to be agreed.
> >
> >Please provide an example of something that exists that science cannot
see.
>
> It would be an argument ad ignorantium, if you went on to say "science
> can see everything that exists, prove me wrong; oh you won't do it, so
> I'm right".
I will state that science can, in principle, detect anything that affects
the universe. I will go further and state that anything that does not affect
the universe is irrelevant, and can not be said to exist.
> I am saying that science 'sees' a field of reality.
> Whether that field of reality exhausts reality is for me, an open
> question.
Of course. No one says that science has examined everything.
Or are you suggesting that there's something that science cannot examine?
The only thing science cannot, in principle, examine, is something that does
not affect the universe. If something does not affect the universe, then
there can be no observation that suggests its existance. Lacking an
observation, we are justified in assuming the something is just Made Up.
> But it does not make sense to resolve the question using the
> tools of science, does it?
The explaination for observations is what science is designed for. Do you
know of something that is unobservable?
> Isn't that a form of question-begging? I'm
> wondering.
Point me at something that is unobservable and you will have support for
your position.
> >If you cannot, then the distinction is irrelevant.
Denis Loubet
dlo...@io.com
http://www.io.com/~dloubet
Denis Loubet
>
>
> Denis Loubet wrote:
>
> > "
> > > You observe nothing in the human condition that transcends the
meat
> > and
> > > motion?
> >
> > No.
>
> How about life itself?
Well, I asked that question of you, but you were unable to answer it. I
asked if a virus is alive. What you are talking about hinges on the answer
to questions like that.
The problem for you is that there exists a pretty smooth graduation from
"lifeless matter" to living things. Any line you draw is going to be
arbitrary. Why should I agree with your arbitrary line when it is so
obviously Made Up?
Define Life.
> > > I would think that sentience itself would fit the bill,
self-awareness,
> > > the ability to generate an idea or to dream. Linked to the meat
machine,
> > surely,
> > > but strictly a mechanical or electrochemical effect?
> >
> > Since changing the electrochemical balances of the brain with drugs, or
> > electrical stimulus, or even physical alteration, can result in the
> > generation of a completely different idea, or dream, or emotion, there
> > doesn't seem to be a quality of the brain that is NOT directly dependant
on
> > a purly physical structure. Even self awareness.
>
> I've admitted these qualities of mind are certainly linked to the
physical
> body. But I can change the program on my TV by pushing buttons, that
doesn't
> prove the programs originate in the set.
So now you are relegating the mind to be nothing more than a radio receiver?
And you object when I call people meat machines?
At least I can experience wonder over the bald facts. You apparently have to
Make Stuff Up, like some mysterious unevidenced source of signals for our
brains to pick up, to feel a sense of wonder.
Frankly, I find the idea that meat can produce the experience of
conciousness much more amazing.
> > Given that, it's facinating the range of experience and emotion that
meat
> > can contain. I am in awe.
> >
> > > As science has never been
> > > able to confer life on anything inanimate, we cannot draw the
scientific
> > > conclusion that life stems solely from the bodies that contain it.
> >
> > But since we have no observation that suggests life exists outside of
bodies
> > that possess the quality of life, to propose that life stems from
something
> > else is called "Making Something Up" based on nothing.
>
> Not at all. Put your fern in the closet for a week, then tell me life
> doesn't stem from something other than the body that contains it.
Huh? What are you claiming now, that light is alive?
What was alive? The plant. What's dead? The plant. What's the constant in
that little equation? The plant. The plant is either alive or dead, nothing
else. When you said "we cannot draw the scientific conclusion that life
stems solely from the bodies that contain it." you were not talking about
nutrients and sunlight. You were clearly talking about vitalism.
> Machines don't
> create energy, they convert it. Isn't life a form of energy?
What do you mean "form of energy?" Life is just molecules doing what
molecules do. They join or break according to understandable rules. They
operate under the same physics as everything else. If any scientist saw
molecules behaving differently in living matter as opposed to dead matter,
you might have a leg to stand on, but they don't. The molecules in living
matter follow the same rules as the molecules in dead matter.
> > Here's a question for you. Do animals have this trancendant something
that
> > you seem so intent on having? Do Dogs and cats have it? Do worms? Do
> > bacteria? Do viruses? DNA? Where are you drawing the line?
>
> I have no idea. I'm in no position to make those observations.
Can you even define "alive"? If you can't, then what have you been talking
about?
> > Viruses are pretty darn machine-like, and I'm made of the same
molecules.
> > Why am I not machine-like?
>
> Everything made from the same molecules has all the same properties?
The molecules all behave the same whether they're in a rock, a virus, or a
person.
> You're
> losing me here. Anyway, I don't deny that the machine analogy is useful,
it just
> doesn't encompass the quality of life.
You have still not provided a reason for me to agree with you.
> > > I am not
> > > implying a supernatural origin, but I am implying something yet
unknown to
> > man.
> >
> > There is no observation that points to that conclusion.
>
> I'm not sure what you're referring to here. I'm talking about the
origin of
> the spark of life; I thought it was pretty safe to conclude this was
something
> yet unknown to man.
Pardon, I thought you were referring to some kind of vitalism as the spark
of life itself.
Where did the first living thing came from, what's the source of life? Well,
if you can't even define alive, the question is currently meaningless.
But clearly not a religious kind of faith. Merely a level of confidence.
> Oh, and as far as
> "track records": I suspect you don't actually play the horses, or you'd
have a
> lot less confidence in such stats.
The fact that I don't live in a cave, wrapped in animal hides, with a life
expectancy of 20, supports my confidence in science. The very medium through
which we are having this discussion supports my confidence in science. I
have no reason to believe these wonders will stop.
> > > Because science has taken us from point a to point b, you conclude
> > > that it can take us to point z. That's not a scientific conclusion,
that's
> > > faith.
> >
> > No, I conclude that there is a chance that it can take us to z, based on
the
> > evidence that it took us to b, and that there's no evidence that z is a
> > qualitative difference.
>
> There's no evidence on z.
Sorry, I thought z referred to things we don't know yet.
If z refers to things unobservable, then z is just Made Up. Science probably
won't get us there.
> > > By "subjectivity" of the the arts, I'm referring to the emotional
> > effect of
> > > a painting on its viewers, the subtle change of mood an etude can
effect
> > on its
> > > listeners.
> >
> > Why didn't you say that?
>
> I thought we were talking about the creative arts; polling sciences
came out
> of left field.
You asked for a quantification of subjectivity. Polling provides that.
> > > By what scale is that quantified? Not quite the same as a Gallup poll
> > > on whether one favors gun control.
> >
> > Well, how much are you affected by the painting or music? Can you
evaluate
> > the level of effect each has upon you? Well, there you go, you've
crudely
> > quantified it.
> >
> > We can record your brain waves as you look at the paintings and listen
to
> > music. The subtle emotional nuances can be captured on hard-copy and
cross
> > referenced to your emotional quantization scale.
> >
> > Using your emotional quantization scale, and cross indexing it with
readings
> > off the MRI and encephalograph, we can now tell you how much you like a
> > picture or piece of music.
>
> You ARE joking, right?.
No.
> For your "emotional response indicator" to produce
> any meaningful results, you'd have to isolate the results of the stimulus
(the
> painting or whatever) from all other ambient stimuli results, and then
> demonstrate that repeated exposure to the same stimuli would produce
similar
> results. And even then, what meaning would your final "rating" have? Led
> Zeppelin might send the needles into the red while Beethoven's Pastoral
Symphony
> would produce more moderate results, without indicating anything about
"how much
> you like it".
On the contrary, that's exactly what it would measure.
> And what is the name of this machine that can capture subtle
> emotional nuances on hard-disc?
An encephalograph. I said hard copy.
> > It's amazing and wonderful what meat can do.
> >
> > > Just as I find an incredible feebleness in theistic thought, which
> > "answers"
> > > mysteries by hiding them behind a god, I find an incredible arrogance
in
> > those
> > > who think all mysteries are knowable by man.
> >
> > Except there's one thing you can say about the effectiveness of science
that
> > you can't about theistic thought, "So Far So Good."
>
> No argument except that "so far" isn't really very far.
So you would prefer to be in that cave, wrapped in animal hides, with a life
expectancy of 20?
Science has gotten us to the fricking moon, how far is far to you?
Can you name one single thing that has gotten us further than science?
> > Currently, we find no evidence that suggests that there is any
observation
> > that is not examinable by science.
> >
> > If you don't observe something, what is there to examine?
> >
> > > Don't get me wrong, Science should
> > > go as far as it can, answer all it can. Science progresses. Unlike
> > religion, it
> > > works! Demonstrably! But can it eventually answer all? Why should I
> > believe so,
> > > any more than I should believe in a god?
> >
> > Religious faith in a god is supposedly absolute, and not to be
questioned.
> >
> > Faith that science might explain all is merely a probability that you
can
> > assign a value to if you feel like it.
>
> Faith in the eventual omniscience of science is "merely a
probability...".
> Don't be so wishy-washy.
I'll be wishy washy if I damn well feel like it. I am not a theist that I
will state absolutes about things I don't know about.
> > Regardless, science never claims 100% truth. Science claims the best
> > explaination given the current data. If we never get data that shines
light
> > on the creation of the universe, then oh well, we might not have an
> > explaination for that.
>
> >
> >
> > Boo hoo.
>
> Not in our lifetimes, anyway, so boo hoo for us.
Perhaps.
Denis Loubet
<jam...@spambegone.ctel.net> wrote in message
news:3c029344...@news.ctel.net...
Thank you! :-)
Yes, that's where I got meat machines from.
Awesome!
Jim (Red)
John Searle uses a term called insitutional fact. An example is
matrimony. It is a fact that matrimony in our society is regarded as a
union between a man and woman, because people have feelings about the
subject. It is a fact that the partner of a person can have access to
them in the hospital if they are that person's spouse, but not if they
are that person's gay partner. What is true is heavily influenced by
feelings, at least for the meat machines making up our society.
>
>> This
>> occurs in two ways, at least, of which I will give examples:
>>
>> 1. The feeling of satisfaction in solving a problem by determining the
>> 'true' answer to a puzzle of some sort.
>
>How does this affect the truth value of the answer? Your feeling have
>nothing to do with it.
>
>> 2. Appreciating the beauty of an 'elegant' solution to a problem
>> (which may differ from the 'true' answer or may be the 'simplest' true
>> answer). I thing a major appeal of Occam's Razor, to scientists, is
>> aesthetic, in fact I think the aesthetic sense is highly developed in
>> certain directions,and is heavily relied on, in many scientists.
>
>This does not affect the truth of the answer either. I'm not sure what
>you're trying to say.
Many people define the 'true' answer to be that which meets certain
criteria, one of them being that the answer is the simplest. For
example, is the earth at the center of the universe? We say no,
because the math gets very complex if we put it there, and we have to
change some theories. But relativistically speaking, there is no
'true' answer to this question, if truth is what you seem to say it
is.
>
>> >> ....
>> >> >
>> >> >> I am not
>> >> >> implying a supernatural origin, but I am implying something yet
>unknown
>> >to
>> >> >man.
>> >> >
>> >> >There is no observation that points to that conclusion.
>> >>
>> >> Which is another way of saying that science doesn't see it. That much
>> >> seems to be agreed.
>> >
>> >Please provide an example of something that exists that science cannot
>see.
>>
>> It would be an argument ad ignorantium, if you went on to say "science
>> can see everything that exists, prove me wrong; oh you won't do it, so
>> I'm right".
>
>I will state that science can, in principle, detect anything that affects
>the universe. I will go further and state that anything that does not affect
>the universe is irrelevant, and can not be said to exist.
How do you know that science can, in principle, detect anything that
can affect the universe, unless buried in the term 'affect the
universe' is an assumption or a definition of 'affect' that makes this
tautological?
As to the second point, that is a matter of personal preference. At a
large enough scale, the universe itself might be irrelevant!
>
>> I am saying that science 'sees' a field of reality.
>> Whether that field of reality exhausts reality is for me, an open
>> question.
>
>Of course. No one says that science has examined everything.
>
>Or are you suggesting that there's something that science cannot examine?
I don't define reality as 'that which science can examine'. Reality is
for me, all that I might experience. If science isn't up to examining
it, that's not my problem.
>The only thing science cannot, in principle, examine, is something that does
>not affect the universe.
That has ben asserted above.
> If something does not affect the universe, then
>there can be no observation that suggests its existance. Lacking an
>observation, we are justified in assuming the something is just Made Up.
Certainly your preferences are justified, as you are an existential
being. The only thing to think about is the consequesnces of your
preferences. There is probably no significant difference between
choosing your preference (that unobservables are non-existent) and
mine (that the question is open).
>
>> But it does not make sense to resolve the question using the
>> tools of science, does it?
>
>The explaination for observations is what science is designed for. Do you
>know of something that is unobservable?
>
>> Isn't that a form of question-begging? I'm
>> wondering.
>
>Point me at something that is unobservable and you will have support for
>your position.
That is impossible.
>
>> >If you cannot, then the distinction is irrelevant.
That's your opinion, but because you believe that feelings and
aesthetics have no influence on what we call facts, it's
understandable.
Megafrim
Denis Loubet wrote:
> "Megafrim" <fri...@pioneeris.net> wrote in message
> news:3C02A5DD...@pioneeris.net...
> >
> >
> > Denis Loubet wrote:
> >
> > > "
> > > > You observe nothing in the human condition that transcends the
> meat
> > > and
> > > > motion?
> > >
> > > No.
> >
> > How about life itself?
>
> Well, I asked that question of you, but you were unable to answer it. I
> asked if a virus is alive. What you are talking about hinges on the answer
> to questions like that.
>
> The problem for you is that there exists a pretty smooth graduation from
> "lifeless matter" to living things. Any line you draw is going to be
> arbitrary. Why should I agree with your arbitrary line when it is so
> obviously Made Up?
>
> Define Life.
That's a sucker question. YOU define life, and I'LL have the field day
deflating whatever you say.
> > > > I would think that sentience itself would fit the bill,
> self-awareness,
> > > > the ability to generate an idea or to dream. Linked to the meat
> machine,
> > > surely,
> > > > but strictly a mechanical or electrochemical effect?
> > >
> > > Since changing the electrochemical balances of the brain with drugs, or
> > > electrical stimulus, or even physical alteration, can result in the
> > > generation of a completely different idea, or dream, or emotion, there
> > > doesn't seem to be a quality of the brain that is NOT directly dependant
> on
> > > a purly physical structure. Even self awareness.
> >
> > I've admitted these qualities of mind are certainly linked to the
> physical
> > body. But I can change the program on my TV by pushing buttons, that
> doesn't
> > prove the programs originate in the set.
>
> So now you are relegating the mind to be nothing more than a radio receiver?
> And you object when I call people meat machines?
I'm not saying the mind is a radio receiver. I merely suggest that the
evidence you cite could have a different interpretation.
>
>
> At least I can experience wonder over the bald facts. You apparently have to
> Make Stuff Up, like some mysterious unevidenced source of signals for our
> brains to pick up, to feel a sense of wonder.
Making up stuff? Like you making up MY argument for me? I posited a
television set, and applied your own logical processes to demonstrate how
fallible those processes could be. All of a sudden, I'm making up "some
mysterious unevidenced source of signals for our brains to pick up". I don't
suggest that, I don't believe that, I didn't say that.
>
>
> Frankly, I find the idea that meat can produce the experience of
> conciousness much more amazing.
Define consciousness.
>
>
> > > Given that, it's facinating the range of experience and emotion that
> meat
> > > can contain. I am in awe.
> > >
> > > > As science has never been
> > > > able to confer life on anything inanimate, we cannot draw the
> scientific
> > > > conclusion that life stems solely from the bodies that contain it.
> > >
> > > But since we have no observation that suggests life exists outside of
> bodies
> > > that possess the quality of life, to propose that life stems from
> something
> > > else is called "Making Something Up" based on nothing.
> >
> > Not at all. Put your fern in the closet for a week, then tell me life
> > doesn't stem from something other than the body that contains it.
>
> Huh? What are you claiming now, that light is alive?
>
> What was alive? The plant. What's dead? The plant. What's the constant in
> that little equation? The plant. The plant is either alive or dead, nothing
> else. When you said "we cannot draw the scientific conclusion that life
> stems solely from the bodies that contain it." you were not talking about
> nutrients and sunlight. You were clearly talking about vitalism.
If life stems SOLELY from the body that contains it, it shouldn't need
light. I suggest that life is a relationship between body and environment.
>
>
> > Machines don't
> > create energy, they convert it. Isn't life a form of energy?
>
> What do you mean "form of energy?" Life is just molecules doing what
> molecules do. They join or break according to understandable rules. They
> operate under the same physics as everything else. If any scientist saw
> molecules behaving differently in living matter as opposed to dead matter,
> you might have a leg to stand on, but they don't. The molecules in living
> matter follow the same rules as the molecules in dead matter.
You're making my argument for me. If the molecules in living matter follow
the same rules as the molecules in dead matter, what is the difference? The
difference is the observation you deny exists.
>
>
> > > Here's a question for you. Do animals have this trancendant something
> that
> > > you seem so intent on having? Do Dogs and cats have it? Do worms? Do
> > > bacteria? Do viruses? DNA? Where are you drawing the line?
> >
> > I have no idea. I'm in no position to make those observations.
>
> Can you even define "alive"? If you can't, then what have you been talking
> about?
You first. Defne "alive".
>
>
> > > Viruses are pretty darn machine-like, and I'm made of the same
> molecules.
> > > Why am I not machine-like?
> >
> > Everything made from the same molecules has all the same properties?
>
> The molecules all behave the same whether they're in a rock, a virus, or a
> person.
Saying that "the molecules all behave the same" is hardly the same thing as
saying that a human acts like a virus because it's made of the same molecules.
Which is what you said.
>
>
> > You're
> > losing me here. Anyway, I don't deny that the machine analogy is useful,
> it just
> > doesn't encompass the quality of life.
>
> You have still not provided a reason for me to agree with you.
>
> > > > I am not
> > > > implying a supernatural origin, but I am implying something yet
> unknown to
> > > man.
> > >
> > > There is no observation that points to that conclusion.
> >
> > I'm not sure what you're referring to here. I'm talking about the
> origin of
> > the spark of life; I thought it was pretty safe to conclude this was
> something
> > yet unknown to man.
>
> Pardon, I thought you were referring to some kind of vitalism as the spark
> of life itself.
What is this "vitalism" you keep bringing up? Whatever it is, it's something
YOU introduced, not me.
I like science too, I'm not the enemy of science. I love the toys. But point
z is too far for my faith to extend.
>
>
> > > > Because science has taken us from point a to point b, you conclude
> > > > that it can take us to point z. That's not a scientific conclusion,
> that's
> > > > faith.
> > >
> > > No, I conclude that there is a chance that it can take us to z, based on
> the
> > > evidence that it took us to b, and that there's no evidence that z is a
> > > qualitative difference.
> >
> > There's no evidence on z.
>
> Sorry, I thought z referred to things we don't know yet.
>
> If z refers to things unobservable, then z is just Made Up. Science probably
> won't get us there.
You know an awful lot about things we don't know yet, don't you?
You seem to have no concept of the application or limitations of an EEG.
Talk about "making stuff up"! Your system for quantifying response to artistic
stimuli through use of MRI and EEG is total bullshit. And I credit you with
enough intelligence that I insist you KNOW it's bullshit. Come on, where's the
studies on how EEG can reliably measure the subtle emotional nuances elicited by
a passage of music? EEGs measure raw electrical activity that could be caused
by any number of factors, and there's never been any study to show that a
person's artistic taste can be indexed through its use. Do you really expect me
to buy this crap?
>
>
> > > It's amazing and wonderful what meat can do.
> > >
> > > > Just as I find an incredible feebleness in theistic thought, which
> > > "answers"
> > > > mysteries by hiding them behind a god, I find an incredible arrogance
> in
> > > those
> > > > who think all mysteries are knowable by man.
> > >
> > > Except there's one thing you can say about the effectiveness of science
> that
> > > you can't about theistic thought, "So Far So Good."
> >
> > No argument except that "so far" isn't really very far.
>
> So you would prefer to be in that cave, wrapped in animal hides, with a life
> expectancy of 20?
>
> Science has gotten us to the fricking moon, how far is far to you?
Well, it's all a matter of scale, isn't it? On a cosmic scale, how far is
the moon? And hey, for the umpteenth time, I'm not an enemy of science! I'm not
a goddam theist!
>
>
> Can you name one single thing that has gotten us further than science?
None of these arguments is evidence that science can lead to omniscience.
While I deny God, you seem to think science can create him.
>
>
> > > Currently, we find no evidence that suggests that there is any
> observation
> > > that is not examinable by science.
> > >
> > > If you don't observe something, what is there to examine?
> > >
> > > > Don't get me wrong, Science should
> > > > go as far as it can, answer all it can. Science progresses. Unlike
> > > religion, it
> > > > works! Demonstrably! But can it eventually answer all? Why should I
> > > believe so,
> > > > any more than I should believe in a god?
> > >
> > > Religious faith in a god is supposedly absolute, and not to be
> questioned.
> > >
> > > Faith that science might explain all is merely a probability that you
> can
> > > assign a value to if you feel like it.
> >
> > Faith in the eventual omniscience of science is "merely a
> probability...".
> > Don't be so wishy-washy.
>
> I'll be wishy washy if I damn well feel like it. I am not a theist that I
> will state absolutes about things I don't know about.
And they say you Vulcans don't have a sense of humor!
>
>
> > > Regardless, science never claims 100% truth. Science claims the best
> > > explaination given the current data. If we never get data that shines
> light
> > > on the creation of the universe, then oh well, we might not have an
> > > explaination for that.
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > Boo hoo.
> >
> > Not in our lifetimes, anyway, so boo hoo for us.
>
> Perhaps.
Spoken like a true sci-fundy.
Eric Pepke
the answer.
us...@nospam.batnet.com (Jim (Red)) wrote in message news:<3bff38e...@news.inreach.com>...
> Hi,
>
> Among the posters here on aa, is there a tendency toward more emphasis
> and respect for science, and less for the arts? Is there a general
> view that the sciences are independent of, or even 'antidotes' to
> religion, in ways that the arts are not? Are the arts more easily put
> to the service of religion, than are the sciences? Is what science
> seems to value (e.g., the interplay of evidence and logic experienced
> in scientific works) held to be somehow, more respectable than what
> art seems to value (e.g., aesthetic expression and feeling,
> experienced in artistic works)?
I can think of three independent reasons why you may think we're a bunch of
Spocks.
1) This newsgroup is a war zone. It is constantly being heckled by
Christians and a few Muslims, the vast majority of whom are clueless
and only barely literate enough to play word games.
After a while, seeing them disrupt discussions over and over again, it
becomes irritating. Many people eventually react to this irritation in
one of two ways:
a) Leave the newsgroup altogher, concentrate on alt.atheism.moderated,
and only come here when they feel the desire for the catharsis of being
rude, obnoxious bastards. (This is my choice, obviously.)
b) Develop a style that included an anal-retentive and careful choice
of words to leave idiots fewer cracks to enter with their disruptive
behavior. (This is Mr. Spock.)
2) A lot of use were trained in science. This is not necessarily because
being an atheist causes one to be interested in science, but rather because
science usually causes one to question theism. I won't go through the
analysis here, because Richard Feynman did a much better job.
I don't think that the training that you get in art school leads to these
kinds of doubt.
3) Nobody comes in here and says, "Ha-ha! Jesus told me Impressionism
never existed; it's all a bunch of Baroque Satanist Lies!" So, there's
very little to argue about. However, they do come in here and deny
evolution, modern cosmology, etc. which happen to be scientific topics.
There's been a traditional problem between religion and science. There
has also been one between religion and art, but I think most Christians
have come around on that one long ago. I don't even think any of them
think that rock & roll is the music of the Devil anymore. Even Vatican II
made jazz acceptable in the liturgy, and that was almost 40 years ago.
Of course, we've seen a lot more idiot Muslims since 9/11, and perhaps
some of them may start telling us that music itself is the work of
Satanic Atheist Pigs who all deserve to die. When that happens, you'll
see a lot of us defending music, which is an art form.
Denis Loubet
Sigh. Of course there can be truths concerning feelings. The issue is
whether feelings have any effect on truth itself.
They do not. A fact is a fact. Facts do not change. If our feelings about
matrimony change, then that will constitute ANOTHER fact, it will not erase
the fact of our previous feelings.
> >> This
> >> occurs in two ways, at least, of which I will give examples:
> >>
> >> 1. The feeling of satisfaction in solving a problem by determining the
> >> 'true' answer to a puzzle of some sort.
> >
> >How does this affect the truth value of the answer? Your feeling have
> >nothing to do with it.
> >
> >> 2. Appreciating the beauty of an 'elegant' solution to a problem
> >> (which may differ from the 'true' answer or may be the 'simplest' true
> >> answer). I thing a major appeal of Occam's Razor, to scientists, is
> >> aesthetic, in fact I think the aesthetic sense is highly developed in
> >> certain directions,and is heavily relied on, in many scientists.
> >
> >This does not affect the truth of the answer either. I'm not sure what
> >you're trying to say.
>
> Many people define the 'true' answer to be that which meets certain
> criteria, one of them being that the answer is the simplest.
No. The true answer is the true answer. Occam's razor is not a criteria
necessary for truth, it is a method of minimising error. The truth can be as
elaborate and baroque as you like, it just has to be true.
> For
> example, is the earth at the center of the universe? We say no,
> because the math gets very complex if we put it there, and we have to
> change some theories.
To say the least. We would have to abandon the concept of gravity for one,
but there are too many independant observations that establish the existance
of gravity, besides planets orbiting suns, that a geocentric universe cannot
explain. Scientists have little problem with complex math, but they are
adamant that theory match observation. A geocentric universe does not match
observations.
> But relativistically speaking, there is no
> 'true' answer to this question, if truth is what you seem to say it
> is.
Note: The theory of relativity does not state that everything is relative.
> >> >> >> I am not
> >> >> >> implying a supernatural origin, but I am implying something yet
> >unknown
> >> >to
> >> >> >man.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >There is no observation that points to that conclusion.
> >> >>
> >> >> Which is another way of saying that science doesn't see it. That
much
> >> >> seems to be agreed.
> >> >
> >> >Please provide an example of something that exists that science cannot
> >see.
> >>
> >> It would be an argument ad ignorantium, if you went on to say "science
> >> can see everything that exists, prove me wrong; oh you won't do it, so
> >> I'm right".
> >
> >I will state that science can, in principle, detect anything that affects
> >the universe. I will go further and state that anything that does not
affect
> >the universe is irrelevant, and can not be said to exist.
>
> How do you know that science can, in principle, detect anything that
> can affect the universe, unless buried in the term 'affect the
> universe' is an assumption or a definition of 'affect' that makes this
> tautological?
It IS tautological. Science is a method designed to detect and describe
things that affect the universe.
If you can point to something that exists and doesn't affect the universe,
be my guest.
> As to the second point, that is a matter of personal preference. At a
> large enough scale, the universe itself might be irrelevant!
But since there's no reason to assume such a scale, that claim is not
justified.
> >> I am saying that science 'sees' a field of reality.
> >> Whether that field of reality exhausts reality is for me, an open
> >> question.
> >
> >Of course. No one says that science has examined everything.
> >
> >Or are you suggesting that there's something that science cannot examine?
>
> I don't define reality as 'that which science can examine'. Reality is
> for me, all that I might experience. If science isn't up to examining
> it, that's not my problem.
I'm certainly not suggesting that science cannot examine it.
> >The only thing science cannot, in principle, examine, is something that
does
> >not affect the universe.
>
> That has ben asserted above.
Point to a counterexample.
I fail to see your point.
> > If something does not affect the universe, then
> >there can be no observation that suggests its existance. Lacking an
> >observation, we are justified in assuming the something is just Made Up.
>
> Certainly your preferences are justified, as you are an existential
> being.
What are you then? Immaterial? What do preferences have to do with it?
> The only thing to think about is the consequesnces of your
> preferences. There is probably no significant difference between
> choosing your preference (that unobservables are non-existent) and
> mine (that the question is open).
I didn't say that unobservables are non-existant. I'm saying that without
observations, why make a claim about unobservables at all? Without
observations, any claim of an unobservable is made-up. It makes no
difference if the unobservable happens to exist, the claim that it does is
STILL made-up because the claimant has zero reason to postulate it.
> >> But it does not make sense to resolve the question using the
> >> tools of science, does it?
> >
> >The explaination for observations is what science is designed for. Do you
> >know of something that is unobservable?
> >
> >> Isn't that a form of question-begging? I'm
> >> wondering.
> >
> >Point me at something that is unobservable and you will have support for
> >your position.
>
> That is impossible.
Then what observation leads you to defend the idea of unobservables?
> >> >If you cannot, then the distinction is irrelevant.
>
> That's your opinion,
Opinion doesn't enter into it.
> but because you believe that feelings and
> aesthetics have no influence on what we call facts, it's
> understandable.
Engender the feeling that you are indestructable, then jump off the top of a
high building and get back to me. Then we'll talk about feelings affecting
the truth of gravity.
There can be truths about feelings and aesthetics. But no amount of feelings
and aesthetics can change the truth from one thing to another. A fact is a
fact.
Denis Loubet
>
>
> Denis Loubet wrote:
>
> > "Megafrim" <fri...@pioneeris.net> wrote in message
> > news:3C02A5DD...@pioneeris.net...
> > >
> > >
> > > Denis Loubet wrote:
> > >
> > > > "
> > > > > You observe nothing in the human condition that transcends the
> > meat
> > > > and
> > > > > motion?
> > > >
> > > > No.
> > >
> > > How about life itself?
> >
> > Well, I asked that question of you, but you were unable to answer it. I
> > asked if a virus is alive. What you are talking about hinges on the
answer
> > to questions like that.
> >
> > The problem for you is that there exists a pretty smooth graduation from
> > "lifeless matter" to living things. Any line you draw is going to be
> > arbitrary. Why should I agree with your arbitrary line when it is so
> > obviously Made Up?
> >
> > Define Life.
>
> That's a sucker question. YOU define life, and I'LL have the field day
> deflating whatever you say.
Well, seeing as you are admitting that you don't know what you are talking
about, what more is there to say?
(snip)
Megafrim
Denis Loubet wrote:
Hey, you snipped out all the GOOD parts! Like the parts where you say EEGs
can be used to index musical taste! And the part where you say man should behave
the same as a virus because they're made of the same molecules!
WHO doesn't know what he's talking about?
-megafrim
jam...@spambegone.ctel.net
wrote:
That became instantly one of my favorite stories the moment I first
read it. ;)
-- WhiskeyJack
Jim (Red)
>
>"Jim (Red)" <us...@nospam.batnet.com> wrote in message
....
>
>> For
>> example, is the earth at the center of the universe? We say no,
>> because the math gets very complex if we put it there, and we have to
>> change some theories.
>
>To say the least. We would have to abandon the concept of gravity for one,
>but there are too many independant observations that establish the existance
>of gravity, besides planets orbiting suns, that a geocentric universe cannot
>explain. Scientists have little problem with complex math, but they are
>adamant that theory match observation. A geocentric universe does not match
>observations.
I would say that it does not match the current scientific
interpretation of the observations.
>
...
>>
>> How do you know that science can, in principle, detect anything that
>> can affect the universe, unless buried in the term 'affect the
>> universe' is an assumption or a definition of 'affect' that makes this
>> tautological?
>
>It IS tautological. Science is a method designed to detect and describe
>things that affect the universe.
Tautologies do not state facts about the universe, only relationships
between words. IOW, the method designed to detect and describe things
that affect the universe is called "Science". But whether it does in
fact successfully detect and describe ALL things that affect the
universe is only true, and then only true by definition, if "Science"
is defined as the word that shall, by convention, be applied to all
methods that detect and describe all things that affect the universe.
But as a contingent fact, it is unknown whether this is the case. As
one example, science as you seem to portray it assumes
uniformitarianism - that the universe will continue to operate as it
has. This assumption is not testable, even by looking at 'past
futures' because they are just that -- in the past.
>
>If you can point to something that exists and doesn't affect the universe,
>be my guest.
I am confident that bound up in your definition of 'exists' is
'affects the universe' in some way.
>
>> As to the second point, that is a matter of personal preference. At a
>> large enough scale, the universe itself might be irrelevant!
>
>But since there's no reason to assume such a scale, that claim is not
>justified.
>
>> >> I am saying that science 'sees' a field of reality.
>> >> Whether that field of reality exhausts reality is for me, an open
>> >> question.
>> >
>> >Of course. No one says that science has examined everything.
>> >
>> >Or are you suggesting that there's something that science cannot examine?
>>
>> I don't define reality as 'that which science can examine'. Reality is
>> for me, all that I might experience. If science isn't up to examining
>> it, that's not my problem.
>
>I'm certainly not suggesting that science cannot examine it.
>
>> >The only thing science cannot, in principle, examine, is something that
>does
>> >not affect the universe.
>>
>> That has ben asserted above.
>
>Point to a counterexample.
>
>I fail to see your point.
I fail to see why pointing to a counterexample is relevant, if anyting
that can be 'pointed at' is taken to affect the universe. After all,
by successfully pointing to such an example, it would certainly affect
YOUR universe, which would disqualify it as an example!!!:-)
>
>> > If something does not affect the universe, then
>> >there can be no observation that suggests its existance. Lacking an
>> >observation, we are justified in assuming the something is just Made Up.
>>
>> Certainly your preferences are justified, as you are an existential
>> being.
>
>What are you then? Immaterial? What do preferences have to do with it?
More than you seem to think,
>
>> The only thing to think about is the consequesnces of your
>> preferences. There is probably no significant difference between
>> choosing your preference (that unobservables are non-existent) and
>> mine (that the question is open).
>
>I didn't say that unobservables are non-existant. I'm saying that without
>observations, why make a claim about unobservables at all? Without
>observations, any claim of an unobservable is made-up. It makes no
>difference if the unobservable happens to exist, the claim that it does is
>STILL made-up because the claimant has zero reason to postulate it.
It is not my position that unobservable exist. It is my position that
we cannot know that science offers a potentially complete view of the
universe, unless we define the universe as that which is observed by
science. I know this is a quick summary, but hope you get my point.
It's not that big a deal, really.
>
>> >> But it does not make sense to resolve the question using the
>> >> tools of science, does it?
>> >
>> >The explaination for observations is what science is designed for. Do you
>> >know of something that is unobservable?
>> >
>> >> Isn't that a form of question-begging? I'm
>> >> wondering.
>> >
>> >Point me at something that is unobservable and you will have support for
>> >your position.
>>
>> That is impossible.
>
>Then what observation leads you to defend the idea of unobservables?
As above, that's not what I am defending. Perhaps we are arguing with
the wrong things and are not so far apart?
>
>> >> >If you cannot, then the distinction is irrelevant.
>>
>> That's your opinion,
>
>Opinion doesn't enter into it.
>
>> but because you believe that feelings and
>> aesthetics have no influence on what we call facts, it's
>> understandable.
>
>Engender the feeling that you are indestructable, then jump off the top of a
>high building and get back to me. Then we'll talk about feelings affecting
>the truth of gravity.
>
>There can be truths about feelings and aesthetics. But no amount of feelings
>and aesthetics can change the truth from one thing to another. A fact is a
>fact.
...except where and when it isn't.
Jim (Red)
So, if I may summarize: Science is a more relevant defensive weapon
than art; it naturally leads one to question things that many theists
think should not be questioned; it is the arena theists choose
(because they see it as an offensive threat); and art is not currently
being targeted by most theists that come to aa (although it is
targeted at in some times and places.
That's a pretty good analysis that does not suggest any bias against
art among atheists on aa. Thanks.
Denis Loubet
You used the word "life" to support your position. When asked for a
definition of the term you refused, with clear implication that you didn't
even have a definition that YOU were using. If one uses words with no
definition, little verbal communication can take place, especially through
text. Since you were deliberately using words with no definition, I could
only conclude you were not interested in communicating.
Of course the EEG stuff was absurd. You requested a quantification of
subjectivity, but discarded the fact that polling is exactly that, so I
wondered how you'd respond to sheer fantasy. Properly skeptical, as it turns
out.
As for your deliberate misrepresentation of my position concerning
virus/human behavior, there is the relevant dialogue:
Denis: "Viruses are pretty darn machine-like, and I'm made of the same
molecules. Why am I not machine-like?"
Megafrim: "Everything made from the same molecules has all the same
properties?"
Denis: "The molecules all behave the same whether they're in a rock, a
virus, or a
person."
What I'm saying is that the molecules behave the same [machine-like] in
humans and viruses, implying that if one does not contain this mysterious
"life force" that you insist exists, why does the other? You deliberately
misrepresent this to mean "you say man should behave the same as a virus
because they're made of the same molecules!"
Of course not. The behavior of the human is different from the virus even
though the behavior of the molecules is the same. This is because the human
is more complex than the virus, allowing for a greater variety of behaviors
and interactions. But you KNEW that, and deliberately ignored it in order to
misinterpret my point.
You see, THIS kind of willful misrepresentation is why many of the atheists
in this group sound like Mr. Spock. We have to be as careful and exacting as
possible in all our descriptions and explanations or any poetic lapse or
implication will instantly be leapt upon and deliberately misinterpreted. We
are FORCED to sound pedantic. And when all that effort is ignored, THEN we
flame.
That said, there are bogus parallels we can draw concerning human and virus
behaviors. Viruses inject their genetic code into hosts that then produce
copies of the virus to continue the cycle. Humans inject their genetic code
into hosts that then produce copies of the human to continue the cycle.
Of course, here I am just guessing that you don't think viruses are "alive",
because you seem to be of the opinion that machine-like things are not
alive, and because you refused to answer whether viruses had this "life
force" thing that you're going on about, yet refuse to define.
If you care to continue this, I will need some concrete answers as to your
definition of life, and whether a virus fits the definition. Otherwise we're
just flapping our gums.
Denis Loubet
<jam...@spambegone.ctel.net> wrote in message
news:3c067964...@news.ctel.net...
Have you read any of his books? I may have to get one and see how it is.
--
Denis Loubet
> "Denis Loubet" <dlo...@io.com> proffered:
>
> >
> >"Jim (Red)" <us...@nospam.batnet.com> wrote in message
> ....
> >
> >> For
> >> example, is the earth at the center of the universe? We say no,
> >> because the math gets very complex if we put it there, and we have to
> >> change some theories.
> >
> >To say the least. We would have to abandon the concept of gravity for
one,
> >but there are too many independant observations that establish the
existance
> >of gravity, besides planets orbiting suns, that a geocentric universe
cannot
> >explain. Scientists have little problem with complex math, but they are
> >adamant that theory match observation. A geocentric universe does not
match
> >observations.
>
> I would say that it does not match the current scientific
> interpretation of the observations.
Yes, and...? If you have other interpretations, please spit them out.
Failing that, what are you trying to say? You seem intent on hinting at
other interpretations for everything, but never quite voice them. Why?
It's like you're saying that some idea may be flawed, but when asked to
elaborate, you refuse, and yet insist that it may be flawed.
Why should anyone listen to that?
> >> How do you know that science can, in principle, detect anything that
> >> can affect the universe, unless buried in the term 'affect the
> >> universe' is an assumption or a definition of 'affect' that makes this
> >> tautological?
> >
> >It IS tautological. Science is a method designed to detect and describe
> >things that affect the universe.
>
> Tautologies do not state facts about the universe, only relationships
> between words. IOW, the method designed to detect and describe things
> that affect the universe is called "Science". But whether it does in
> fact successfully detect and describe ALL things that affect the
> universe is only true, and then only true by definition, if "Science"
> is defined as the word that shall, by convention, be applied to all
> methods that detect and describe all things that affect the universe.
That is the case. That is what science is, in principle, defined to do.
> But as a contingent fact, it is unknown whether this is the case.
That's true. But seeing as there are no existing counterexamples, to assert
that there may be such things is unjustified.
I can claim that despite the total lack of any observations, there may be
yittivargs. Where does that get me? No one's ever seen a yittivarg, I can't
even describe what a yittivarg is. Why is talking about yittivargs
meaningful? If it's not meaningful, then why is talking about unobservables
meaningful?
> As
> one example, science as you seem to portray it assumes
> uniformitarianism - that the universe will continue to operate as it
> has. This assumption is not testable, even by looking at 'past
> futures' because they are just that -- in the past.
Thus there are no counterexamples to uniformitarianism. The weight of
evidence is all on the side of uniformitarianism. It is thus justified to
hold to that "ism" because nothing is better evidenced.
I'll make the claim that maybe we could all turn into kumquats tomorrow.
That it might be that science can't see that coming.
What have I said? I've said nothing. It's absurd and made-up, and it's
exactly as justified as your claim that there may be things unobservable to
science. It's as justified as ANY unevidenced claim, such as there may be an
invisible, immaterial dragon living in my garage.
It's useless to ponder such things other than for entertainment purposes.
> >If you can point to something that exists and doesn't affect the
universe,
> >be my guest.
>
> I am confident that bound up in your definition of 'exists' is
> 'affects the universe' in some way.
Very well, if "exists" bothers you, then point to something that doesn't
affect the universe in any way.
This does not help your argument.
A counterexample is relevant because it lends credence to your suggestion
that there may be things unobservable or that do not affect the universe.
Failing an example or observation of such a thing, what leads you to
postulate such a thing at all? Isn't the whole concept just made-up? Without
a reason to postulate the concept, it HAS to be made-up.
> >> > If something does not affect the universe, then
> >> >there can be no observation that suggests its existance. Lacking an
> >> >observation, we are justified in assuming the something is just Made
Up.
> >>
> >> Certainly your preferences are justified, as you are an existential
> >> being.
> >
> >What are you then? Immaterial? What do preferences have to do with it?
>
> More than you seem to think,
You have yet to demonstrate that.
> >> The only thing to think about is the consequesnces of your
> >> preferences. There is probably no significant difference between
> >> choosing your preference (that unobservables are non-existent) and
> >> mine (that the question is open).
> >
> >I didn't say that unobservables are non-existant. I'm saying that without
> >observations, why make a claim about unobservables at all? Without
> >observations, any claim of an unobservable is made-up. It makes no
> >difference if the unobservable happens to exist, the claim that it does
is
> >STILL made-up because the claimant has zero reason to postulate it.
>
> It is not my position that unobservable exist. It is my position that
> we cannot know that science offers a potentially complete view of the
> universe, unless we define the universe as that which is observed by
> science. I know this is a quick summary, but hope you get my point.
> It's not that big a deal, really.
Actually it is. It's fuzzy thinking like that that confuses people about
science.
What I see is you unnecessarily waving your hands around and making spooky
noises about some vague unknown that you have no reason to even consider.
> >> >> But it does not make sense to resolve the question using the
> >> >> tools of science, does it?
> >> >
> >> >The explaination for observations is what science is designed for. Do
you
> >> >know of something that is unobservable?
> >> >
> >> >> Isn't that a form of question-begging? I'm
> >> >> wondering.
> >> >
> >> >Point me at something that is unobservable and you will have support
for
> >> >your position.
> >>
> >> That is impossible.
> >
> >Then what observation leads you to defend the idea of unobservables?
>
> As above, that's not what I am defending. Perhaps we are arguing with
> the wrong things and are not so far apart?
No, I think we're pretty far apart.
> >> >> >If you cannot, then the distinction is irrelevant.
> >>
> >> That's your opinion,
> >
> >Opinion doesn't enter into it.
> >
> >> but because you believe that feelings and
> >> aesthetics have no influence on what we call facts, it's
> >> understandable.
> >
> >Engender the feeling that you are indestructable, then jump off the top
of a
> >high building and get back to me. Then we'll talk about feelings
affecting
> >the truth of gravity.
> >
> >There can be truths about feelings and aesthetics. But no amount of
feelings
> >and aesthetics can change the truth from one thing to another. A fact is
a
> >fact.
>
> ...except where and when it isn't.
Demonstrate your point please.
Jim (Red)
Don't you agree that in the past, other scientific interpretations
have been made of natural events? We had the phlogiston theory for a
while; we had the ether for a while; neither of them a product of
religious idiocy. Are you saying that our present-day interpretations
are always the final answer?
>
>It's like you're saying that some idea may be flawed, but when asked to
>elaborate, you refuse, and yet insist that it may be flawed.
I'm not saying our current ideas are flawed; they are the best
explanations we have for the observations, in that they are
explanations that work the best and do the least violence to our
amassed body of science. That is the way science is, IMO. But we have
drifted away from the point, which I hope you can remember because I
can't, at present. Maybe it's down below somewhere.
>
>Why should anyone listen to that?
>
>> >> How do you know that science can, in principle, detect anything that
>> >> can affect the universe, unless buried in the term 'affect the
>> >> universe' is an assumption or a definition of 'affect' that makes this
>> >> tautological?
>> >
>> >It IS tautological. Science is a method designed to detect and describe
>> >things that affect the universe.
>>
>> Tautologies do not state facts about the universe, only relationships
>> between words. IOW, the method designed to detect and describe things
>> that affect the universe is called "Science". But whether it does in
>> fact successfully detect and describe ALL things that affect the
>> universe is only true, and then only true by definition, if "Science"
>> is defined as the word that shall, by convention, be applied to all
>> methods that detect and describe all things that affect the universe.
>
>That is the case. That is what science is, in principle, defined to do.
>
>> But as a contingent fact, it is unknown whether this is the case.
>
>That's true. But seeing as there are no existing counterexamples, to assert
>that there may be such things is unjustified.
IMO there is a big difference between asserting that X is, and that X
is possible. But I am sometimes intrigued by the idea that only that
which is, is possible. I could go along with that as a way of thinking
about things, at least it's an interesting notion.
>
>I can claim that despite the total lack of any observations, there may be
>yittivargs. Where does that get me? No one's ever seen a yittivarg, I can't
>even describe what a yittivarg is. Why is talking about yittivargs
>meaningful? If it's not meaningful, then why is talking about unobservables
>meaningful?
You are talking about unobservables right there, to make a point.
>
>> As
>> one example, science as you seem to portray it assumes
>> uniformitarianism - that the universe will continue to operate as it
>> has. This assumption is not testable, even by looking at 'past
>> futures' because they are just that -- in the past.
>
>Thus there are no counterexamples to uniformitarianism. The weight of
>evidence is all on the side of uniformitarianism. It is thus justified to
>hold to that "ism" because nothing is better evidenced.
The degree to which the future resembles the past is open to debate.
Obviously it's not perfect. The question is, in what ways can we rely
on the future resembling the past. In some ways, the whole point of
science is to answer this question, and to find out where assuming it
is justified.
>
>I'll make the claim that maybe we could all turn into kumquats tomorrow.
>That it might be that science can't see that coming.
You will be different tomorrow than you are today, agreed? Some
differences, science can predict. Are you confident that science can,
even in principle, predict all of the differences? If so, I believe
you have confidence in science that is -- unscientific.
>
>What have I said? I've said nothing. It's absurd and made-up, and it's
>exactly as justified as your claim that there may be things unobservable to
>science. It's as justified as ANY unevidenced claim, such as there may be an
>invisible, immaterial dragon living in my garage.
A question I have is, is there any part of human experience for which
science is less than fully adequate, in theory. I think that question
cannot ever be answered yes or no.The mere fact that we have 'art'
suggest that at least for the present, the jury is out, and I prefer
to leave it that way. You don't. We differ on that, but not, I think,
on our respect for both science and art.
>
>It's useless to ponder such things other than for entertainment purposes.
>
>> >If you can point to something that exists and doesn't affect the
>universe,
>> >be my guest.
>>
>> I am confident that bound up in your definition of 'exists' is
>> 'affects the universe' in some way.
>
>Very well, if "exists" bothers you, then point to something that doesn't
>affect the universe in any way.
>
Can it have entertainment value?:-)
I agree.
>
>A counterexample is relevant because it lends credence to your suggestion
>that there may be things unobservable or that do not affect the universe.
>Failing an example or observation of such a thing, what leads you to
>postulate such a thing at all? Isn't the whole concept just made-up? Without
>a reason to postulate the concept, it HAS to be made-up.
Does my made-up concept have an effect on the universe? It seems to be
affecting you.
>
>> >> > If something does not affect the universe, then
>> >> >there can be no observation that suggests its existance. Lacking an
>> >> >observation, we are justified in assuming the something is just Made
>Up.
>> >>
>> >> Certainly your preferences are justified, as you are an existential
>> >> being.
>> >
>> >What are you then? Immaterial? What do preferences have to do with it?
>>
>> More than you seem to think,
>
>You have yet to demonstrate that.
I just think you don't see that your preferences (and mine) are very
much in play here.
>
>> >> The only thing to think about is the consequesnces of your
>> >> preferences. There is probably no significant difference between
>> >> choosing your preference (that unobservables are non-existent) and
>> >> mine (that the question is open).
>> >
>> >I didn't say that unobservables are non-existant. I'm saying that without
>> >observations, why make a claim about unobservables at all? Without
>> >observations, any claim of an unobservable is made-up. It makes no
>> >difference if the unobservable happens to exist, the claim that it does
>is
>> >STILL made-up because the claimant has zero reason to postulate it.
>>
>> It is not my position that unobservable exist. It is my position that
>> we cannot know that science offers a potentially complete view of the
>> universe, unless we define the universe as that which is observed by
>> science. I know this is a quick summary, but hope you get my point.
>> It's not that big a deal, really.
>
>Actually it is. It's fuzzy thinking like that that confuses people about
>science.
Too bad for them.
>
>What I see is you unnecessarily waving your hands around and making spooky
>noises about some vague unknown that you have no reason to even consider.
And what I see you doing is trying to keep things too simple.
>
>> >> >> But it does not make sense to resolve the question using the
>> >> >> tools of science, does it?
>> >> >
>> >> >The explaination for observations is what science is designed for. Do
>you
>> >> >know of something that is unobservable?
>> >> >
>> >> >> Isn't that a form of question-begging? I'm
>> >> >> wondering.
>> >> >
>> >> >Point me at something that is unobservable and you will have support
>for
>> >> >your position.
>> >>
>> >> That is impossible.
>> >
>> >Then what observation leads you to defend the idea of unobservables?
>>
>> As above, that's not what I am defending. Perhaps we are arguing with
>> the wrong things and are not so far apart?
>
>No, I think we're pretty far apart.
Well, then we are. Perceptions are important.
>
>> >> >> >If you cannot, then the distinction is irrelevant.
>> >>
>> >> That's your opinion,
>> >
>> >Opinion doesn't enter into it.
>> >
>> >> but because you believe that feelings and
>> >> aesthetics have no influence on what we call facts, it's
>> >> understandable.
>> >
>> >Engender the feeling that you are indestructable, then jump off the top
>of a
>> >high building and get back to me. Then we'll talk about feelings
>affecting
>> >the truth of gravity.
>> >
>> >There can be truths about feelings and aesthetics. But no amount of
>feelings
>> >and aesthetics can change the truth from one thing to another. A fact is
>a
>> >fact.
>>
>> ...except where and when it isn't.
>
>Demonstrate your point please.
>
Excepting the tautological espression of your statement, in which case
it says nothing about the world, facts are facts only relative to
theoretical frameworks. Or, if you believe in absolutes/platonic
ideal, and count facts as being among them, then facts are facts. But
outside these situations, which are *non-scientific as being not in
evidence* the facts of celestial mechanics have changed in the last
200 years and I suspect they will continue to change. Even today,
scientists are arguing over whether the speed of light is constant.
Jim
I'm Gone December 1 - 9.
Won't likely see your reply if sent before Dec. 8.
Denis Loubet
No, of course not. But if you're going to have a successful competing
theory, it has to explain the observations. Geocentrism does not explain
things like gravitational lensing.
Occam's razor is not an aesthetic tool, it is a logical one. Since every
part of a theory has a chance to be wrong, adding parts that do not help
explain observations only increase your chance to be wrong.
> >It's like you're saying that some idea may be flawed, but when asked to
> >elaborate, you refuse, and yet insist that it may be flawed.
>
> I'm not saying our current ideas are flawed; they are the best
> explanations we have for the observations, in that they are
> explanations that work the best and do the least violence to our
> amassed body of science. That is the way science is, IMO.
YES! Why do you abandon this with your bizarre qualifiers?
> But we have
> drifted away from the point, which I hope you can remember because I
> can't, at present. Maybe it's down below somewhere.
You seemed to claim above that geocentrism is equally valid as the current
scientific understanding of astrophysics, and that the only difference is in
the application of Occams razor. That is not the case. You used this as an
example of how we use occams razor to arrive at truth. It's simply a bad
example.
Note that I do not say that unobservables are impossible, though a strong
argument could be made to that effect. I'm saying that postulating ANYTHING
without evidence is called Making Something Up.
> >I can claim that despite the total lack of any observations, there may be
> >yittivargs. Where does that get me? No one's ever seen a yittivarg, I
can't
> >even describe what a yittivarg is. Why is talking about yittivargs
> >meaningful? If it's not meaningful, then why is talking about
unobservables
> >meaningful?
>
> You are talking about unobservables right there, to make a point.
The point being that the concept of unobservables is just as meaningless as
the concept of yittivargs.
> >> As
> >> one example, science as you seem to portray it assumes
> >> uniformitarianism - that the universe will continue to operate as it
> >> has. This assumption is not testable, even by looking at 'past
> >> futures' because they are just that -- in the past.
> >
> >Thus there are no counterexamples to uniformitarianism. The weight of
> >evidence is all on the side of uniformitarianism. It is thus justified to
> >hold to that "ism" because nothing is better evidenced.
>
> The degree to which the future resembles the past is open to debate.
It is? How so?
> Obviously it's not perfect. The question is, in what ways can we rely
> on the future resembling the past.
No matter how far into the past we directly observe, the universe appears to
be uniformly reliable. Personally, I find 12 billion years of reliable
service to be VERY convincing.
> In some ways, the whole point of
> science is to answer this question, and to find out where assuming it
> is justified.
The only way we can claim knowledge is through consistency. Without
consistency the word knowledge is meaningless. As far as we can tell, the
operation of the universe is utterly consistant.
> >I'll make the claim that maybe we could all turn into kumquats tomorrow.
> >That it might be that science can't see that coming.
>
> You will be different tomorrow than you are today, agreed? Some
> differences, science can predict. Are you confident that science can,
> even in principle, predict all of the differences? If so, I believe
> you have confidence in science that is -- unscientific.
The only reason I can be said to be different is if there is an OBSERVATION
that I'm different. If there is no observed difference, then one would NOT
be justified in saying that I was different.
ANY observation you care to make could be examinable by science.
> >What have I said? I've said nothing. It's absurd and made-up, and it's
> >exactly as justified as your claim that there may be things unobservable
to
> >science. It's as justified as ANY unevidenced claim, such as there may be
an
> >invisible, immaterial dragon living in my garage.
>
> A question I have is, is there any part of human experience for which
> science is less than fully adequate, in theory.
Nothing I can think of. Can you?
> I think that question
> cannot ever be answered yes or no.The mere fact that we have 'art'
> suggest that at least for the present, the jury is out, and I prefer
> to leave it that way.
What has art got to do with anything? Do you imagine that art is
unexplainable by science? Why?
> You don't. We differ on that, but not, I think,
> on our respect for both science and art.
Granted.
> >It's useless to ponder such things other than for entertainment purposes.
> >
> >> >If you can point to something that exists and doesn't affect the
> >universe,
> >> >be my guest.
> >>
> >> I am confident that bound up in your definition of 'exists' is
> >> 'affects the universe' in some way.
> >
> >Very well, if "exists" bothers you, then point to something that doesn't
> >affect the universe in any way.
> >
>
> Can it have entertainment value?:-)
Sure.
Yes, but your concept of unobservables is OBSERVABLE, and thus by necessity
has an effect on the universe.
Otherwise I would not be aware we were in an argument, and would not be
responding.
You seem to like to bait-and-switch like this. It does not help your
position.
> >> >> > If something does not affect the universe, then
> >> >> >there can be no observation that suggests its existance. Lacking an
> >> >> >observation, we are justified in assuming the something is just
Made
> >Up.
> >> >>
> >> >> Certainly your preferences are justified, as you are an existential
> >> >> being.
> >> >
> >> >What are you then? Immaterial? What do preferences have to do with it?
> >>
> >> More than you seem to think,
> >
> >You have yet to demonstrate that.
>
> I just think you don't see that your preferences (and mine) are very
> much in play here.
The fact of gravity is NOT a preference. My opinion does not affect gravity
in the least. Gravity does whatever it does regardless of my desires.
> >> >> The only thing to think about is the consequesnces of your
> >> >> preferences. There is probably no significant difference between
> >> >> choosing your preference (that unobservables are non-existent) and
> >> >> mine (that the question is open).
> >> >
> >> >I didn't say that unobservables are non-existant. I'm saying that
without
> >> >observations, why make a claim about unobservables at all? Without
> >> >observations, any claim of an unobservable is made-up. It makes no
> >> >difference if the unobservable happens to exist, the claim that it
does
> >is
> >> >STILL made-up because the claimant has zero reason to postulate it.
> >>
> >> It is not my position that unobservable exist. It is my position that
> >> we cannot know that science offers a potentially complete view of the
> >> universe, unless we define the universe as that which is observed by
> >> science. I know this is a quick summary, but hope you get my point.
> >> It's not that big a deal, really.
> >
> >Actually it is. It's fuzzy thinking like that that confuses people about
> >science.
>
> Too bad for them.
> >
> >What I see is you unnecessarily waving your hands around and making
spooky
> >noises about some vague unknown that you have no reason to even consider.
>
> And what I see you doing is trying to keep things too simple.
And you're introducing unnecessary confusion with all these unnecessary
qualifiers that suggest a whole realm of unevidenced unobservables in an
attempt, as far as I can tell, to appear more openminded than your opponent.
What? Don't get solipsistic on me now.
> Or, if you believe in absolutes/platonic
> ideal, and count facts as being among them, then facts are facts. But
> outside these situations, which are *non-scientific as being not in
> evidence* the facts of celestial mechanics have changed in the last
> 200 years and I suspect they will continue to change.
No. The facts do not change. Our interpretation of the facts change. The
facts themselves are beyond our control. The universe is as it is, and it's
our incomplete understanding of it that changes. Unfortunately, our
imperfect observations are all we have to go on, and all that we can draw
conclusions from.
> Even today,
> scientists are arguing over whether the speed of light is constant.
Additional data was made available, with that data we can get closer to the
facts.
> Jim
> I'm Gone December 1 - 9.
> Won't likely see your reply if sent before Dec. 8.
Yikes. I hope I see it. This thread might fall off the end of my filter by
then.
Jim (Red)
I'm posting this on Saturday AM but will be gone until the 9th. I am
thinking we have shared our views to their limits and the converstaion
can end; but if you see more to it, I suggest you start a new post on
about the 9th with something like "aa - More on Science and Art" as
the title.
The geocentric model is 'equally valid' for the 10th century or so,
but will not get us to Mars as efficiently as the heliocentric theory,
and will not, as you say, be consistent with 20th century
observations. That is agreed. But the choice of theory and the choice
of operating principles, for example, Occam's razor, is more than
logical, it is economic in the real, money sense, and it is aesthetic,
IMO. And it is political. To say that one of these parameters is
somehow more valid than the others is to deny our humanity. Nobody in
the 10th century would have thought relativity was logical,
aesthetically pleasing, economical, or politically acceptable.
My bottom line on this particular thread is that 'art' (I'll call it
the commitment to and expression of aesthetic values) has an influence
on science and informs our views of what is true, and tempers the
principles by which we select what is studues and what is thought
about the natural world.
I'm OK with that as long as Making Something Up If One Admits It Is
Made Up, is a Permitted Behavior in Science, as a way of stimulating
new thought and directions of study. I feel confident you'll agree.
>
>> >I can claim that despite the total lack of any observations, there may be
>> >yittivargs. Where does that get me? No one's ever seen a yittivarg, I
>can't
>> >even describe what a yittivarg is. Why is talking about yittivargs
>> >meaningful? If it's not meaningful, then why is talking about
>unobservables
>> >meaningful?
>>
>> You are talking about unobservables right there, to make a point.
>
>The point being that the concept of unobservables is just as meaningless as
>the concept of yittivargs.
I find meaning in the concept of unobservables that I do not find in
those yitt thinkies. I wonder what you think of the square root of
minus one.
>
>> >> As
>> >> one example, science as you seem to portray it assumes
>> >> uniformitarianism - that the universe will continue to operate as it
>> >> has. This assumption is not testable, even by looking at 'past
>> >> futures' because they are just that -- in the past.
>> >
>> >Thus there are no counterexamples to uniformitarianism. The weight of
>> >evidence is all on the side of uniformitarianism. It is thus justified to
>> >hold to that "ism" because nothing is better evidenced.
>>
>> The degree to which the future resembles the past is open to debate.
>
>It is? How so?
What is constant, from past to future, and what is not, and justifies
our decisions on these matters. Those items are debatable, IMO.
>
>> Obviously it's not perfect. The question is, in what ways can we rely
>> on the future resembling the past.
>
>No matter how far into the past we directly observe, the universe appears to
>be uniformly reliable. Personally, I find 12 billion years of reliable
>service to be VERY convincing.
We learn which parts to rely on more, (e.g., setting our alarm clock)
and which parts not (e.g., building beach houses on the Florida
Coast). No argument.
>
>> In some ways, the whole point of
>> science is to answer this question, and to find out where assuming it
>> is justified.
>
>The only way we can claim knowledge is through consistency. Without
>consistency the word knowledge is meaningless. As far as we can tell, the
>operation of the universe is utterly consistant.
I don't see how you can say that based on the evidence. Do you think
then that the universe is in principle, utterly predictable? Modern
physics does not agree with you if that is the case. But modern
physics might be wrong, what theroy do you want to advance on the
utter consistency of the universe and where is YOUR evidence?
>
>> >I'll make the claim that maybe we could all turn into kumquats tomorrow.
>> >That it might be that science can't see that coming.
>>
>> You will be different tomorrow than you are today, agreed? Some
>> differences, science can predict. Are you confident that science can,
>> even in principle, predict all of the differences? If so, I believe
>> you have confidence in science that is -- unscientific.
>
>The only reason I can be said to be different is if there is an OBSERVATION
>that I'm different. If there is no observed difference, then one would NOT
>be justified in saying that I was different.
>
>ANY observation you care to make could be examinable by science.
That is either definitional, therefore tautalogical,or a metaphysical
commitment, IMO.
>
>> >What have I said? I've said nothing. It's absurd and made-up, and it's
>> >exactly as justified as your claim that there may be things unobservable
>to
>> >science. It's as justified as ANY unevidenced claim, such as there may be
>an
>> >invisible, immaterial dragon living in my garage.
>>
>> A question I have is, is there any part of human experience for which
>> science is less than fully adequate, in theory.
>
>Nothing I can think of. Can you?
Nope, but I won't make an argument to my own ignorance.
>
>> I think that question
>> cannot ever be answered yes or no.The mere fact that we have 'art'
>> suggest that at least for the present, the jury is out, and I prefer
>> to leave it that way.
>
>What has art got to do with anything? Do you imagine that art is
>unexplainable by science? Why?
I will believe it when I see it.
>
>> You don't. We differ on that, but not, I think,
>> on our respect for both science and art.
>
>Granted.
>
>> >It's useless to ponder such things other than for entertainment purposes.
>> >
>> >> >If you can point to something that exists and doesn't affect the
>> >universe,
>> >> >be my guest.
>> >>
>> >> I am confident that bound up in your definition of 'exists' is
>> >> 'affects the universe' in some way.
>> >
>> >Very well, if "exists" bothers you, then point to something that doesn't
>> >affect the universe in any way.
>> >
>>
>> Can it have entertainment value?:-)
>
>Sure.
The act of pointing at something (even using words on a screen)
disturbs the universe so attempting to meet this challenge is
self-defeating. The question IMO is not whether such things exist, it
is whether science, by admittedly (and by definition) limiting its
scope to observables, has anything to say about the existence of
non-observables. I say it is silent on the subject, by virtue of its
definition. You say that if something is not observable by science,
this means it is nonexistent. I say it does not mean this.
Nonetheless, there *might* be no unobservables.
I simply misconstrued your meaning.
>
>> >> >> > If something does not affect the universe, then
>> >> >> >there can be no observation that suggests its existance. Lacking an
>> >> >> >observation, we are justified in assuming the something is just
>Made
>> >Up.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Certainly your preferences are justified, as you are an existential
>> >> >> being.
>> >> >
>> >> >What are you then? Immaterial? What do preferences have to do with it?
>> >>
>> >> More than you seem to think,
>> >
>> >You have yet to demonstrate that.
>>
>> I just think you don't see that your preferences (and mine) are very
>> much in play here.
>
>The fact of gravity is NOT a preference. My opinion does not affect gravity
>in the least. Gravity does whatever it does regardless of my desires.
Falling is not a preference, once one has stepped off the building,
but that's not science. Whether to intepret falling as due to a
'force' or merely describe it as a mathematical equation that defines
position versus time is a choice that has aesthetic overtones that
reflect the mood of the times. "Forces" are in fact unobservables.
While I'll admit that you have not bought up the notion of 'force',
the fact is that science has MADE UP scuh concepts and uses them quite
happily.
Well, I am going to irk you even more then by saying i don't see you
as an opponent. Why is so much of this ng about winning and losing.
Just express yourself. I'm happy to have heard what you have to say.
Don't get Platonic on me.
>
>> Or, if you believe in absolutes/platonic
>> ideal, and count facts as being among them, then facts are facts. But
>> outside these situations, which are *non-scientific as being not in
>> evidence* the facts of celestial mechanics have changed in the last
>> 200 years and I suspect they will continue to change.
>
>No. The facts do not change. Our interpretation of the facts change. The
>facts themselves are beyond our control. The universe is as it is, and it's
>our incomplete understanding of it that changes. Unfortunately, our
>imperfect observations are all we have to go on, and all that we can draw
>conclusions from.
You have set facts up as a Platonic Ideal.
>
>> Even today,
>> scientists are arguing over whether the speed of light is constant.
>
>Additional data was made available, with that data we can get closer to the
>facts.
The facts (as you define them) that we keep getting closer to are
unobservables!
>
>> Jim
>> I'm Gone December 1 - 9.
>> Won't likely see your reply if sent before Dec. 8.
>
>Yikes. I hope I see it. This thread might fall off the end of my filter by
>then.
Mine too. See above, perhaps you can re-start it on or after the 9th.
Best wishes.
Megafrim
Denis Loubet wrote:
Hi, Denis. Virusus are alive, and I can't proffer a definition of life
that's not subject to derision on some level. Neither can you.
This has been a stimulating conversation, but it's devolved to a point of
acrimony and humorlessness that makes it no longer fun. I get enough aggravation
in my working life that I don't need to seek out aggravation in my pastimes. We
actually agree on more than you might imagine, and the nature of a dialog such
as this has a tendency to back participants into corners they'd really rather
not defend. I can well imagine assuming many of your own arguments as my own.
BTW, I checked out your website, and I am most impressed. You do some
beautiful work.
My best wishes to you. See you in the threads!
-megafrim
Denis Loubet
Perhaps, but that does not stop me from offering the definition I use. Here
is mine:
Life is the label we apply to the behavior of certain arrangements of
molecules that display a metabolism by extracting energy from the intake and
processing of nutrients.
That should cover everything from a virus to a human.
> This has been a stimulating conversation, but it's devolved to a point
of
> acrimony and humorlessness that makes it no longer fun. I get enough
aggravation
> in my working life that I don't need to seek out aggravation in my
pastimes. We
> actually agree on more than you might imagine, and the nature of a dialog
such
> as this has a tendency to back participants into corners they'd really
rather
> not defend. I can well imagine assuming many of your own arguments as my
own.
> BTW, I checked out your website, and I am most impressed. You do some
> beautiful work.
> My best wishes to you. See you in the threads!
Thank you for the kind words, and I hope we can have further discussions in
the future!
Megafrim
Denis Loubet wrote:
> "Megafrim" <fri...@pioneeris.net> wrote
> >
> > Hi, Denis. Virusus are alive, and I can't proffer a definition of life
> > that's not subject to derision on some level. Neither can you.
>
> Perhaps, but that does not stop me from offering the definition I use. Here
> is mine:
>
> Life is the label we apply to the behavior of certain arrangements of
> molecules that display a metabolism by extracting energy from the intake and
> processing of nutrients.
>
> That should cover everything from a virus to a human.
"Metabolism" simply means the chemical processes within a living body, and
"nutrients" is another term exclusive to life processes. Your definition is
like saying "Life is that which has the processes of life going on within it".
Undeniable, but useless as a definition unless you could explain metabolism or
nutrients without completing a vicious circle that refers back to "life".
"Vicious circle": a fallacy in reasoning in which the premise is used to
prove the conclusion, and the conclusion is used to prove the premise.
-megafrim
Denis Loubet
>
>
> Denis Loubet wrote:
>
> > "Megafrim" <fri...@pioneeris.net> wrote
> > >
> > > Hi, Denis. Virusus are alive, and I can't proffer a definition of
life
> > > that's not subject to derision on some level. Neither can you.
> >
> > Perhaps, but that does not stop me from offering the definition I use.
Here
> > is mine:
> >
> > Life is the label we apply to the behavior of certain arrangements of
> > molecules that display a metabolism by extracting energy from the intake
and
> > processing of nutrients.
> >
> > That should cover everything from a virus to a human.
>
> "Metabolism" simply means the chemical processes within a living body,
and
> "nutrients" is another term exclusive to life processes.
Yes. So? We're discussing life.
> Your definition is
> like saying "Life is that which has the processes of life going on within
it".
Not if you are agreeing that life is just a chemical process as you just
described metabolism to be.
That's what I've been saying all along, but you keep suggesting that life is
different from a chemical process.
> Undeniable, but useless as a definition unless you could explain
metabolism or
> nutrients without completing a vicious circle that refers back to "life".
No. Ultimately metabolism can be described by the behavior of molecules
alone. This molecule interacts with this molecule which allows this molecule
to produce this molecule, etc. The behavior of these molecules interacting
is called life.
> "Vicious circle": a fallacy in reasoning in which the premise is used
to
> prove the conclusion, and the conclusion is used to prove the premise.
> -megafrim
Granted.
Mark Whickman
Denis Loubet <dlo...@io.com> wrote in message
news:fgRO7.14$kV4....@typhoon.austin.rr.com...
> > Undeniable, but useless as a definition unless you could explain
> metabolism or
> > nutrients without completing a vicious circle that refers back to
"life".
>
> No. Ultimately metabolism can be described by the behavior of molecules
> alone. This molecule interacts with this molecule which allows this
molecule
> to produce this molecule, etc. The behavior of these molecules interacting
> is called life.
>
I should know, just done the electron transport chain and the
electrochemical membrane gradient of Mitochondria (two hours of lectures in
broken english!)
Denis Loubet
"Mark Whickman" <mark.w...@ic.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:9ugtse$1bp$1...@jura.cc.ic.ac.uk...
I bow in abject respect to the people who REALLY understand what I only
pretend to.
Thank you for your support. :-)
Mark Whickman
down the tubes.