Dawkins- Racial IQ.
alan truelove
Dawkins latest book in which he claims race differences in IQ have no
social application)
Richard Dawkins appears to be getting soft in his old age.
The hereditary basis of the massive ave. IQ deficit of blacks and
hispanics has now been solidly established for over 35 years, and
researchers have moved on to more detailed (genomic) studies (effect
of the age of mother for example). See Plomin "Behavioral Genetics .."
and all kinds of material on the Internet.
This does indeed have some social implications. Example: US State
Universities have- if they choose, and some do- been permitted to
continue some measure of illegal and unfair discrimination against
whites; solely because of the scientific ignorance of a Judge
(O'Connor and a few colleagues) who seems to believe that the black IQ
deficit will somehow disappear over the next "25 years". Fortunately
she and the other incompetent and disaffected judges are now set to be
permanently out-voted (and replaced) due to America's evident turn to
more rational and moral ethics.
The above world-wide researchers are certainly investigating other
"Behavioral Genetic" factors - see Plomin. Criminality, etc. (Although
not much specifically racial so far ..) We shall have to wait a
couple of years and see. So the writings of Rushton, Lynn, Chis Brand
.. are indeed entertaining to any open-minded professional.
bigboard
> On Mon, 15 Nov 2004 05:17:02 -0500, alan truelove
> <alan_t...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>(Reply to a thread on a quasi-professional scientific group about
>>Dawkins latest book in which he claims race differences in IQ have no
>>social application)
>>Richard Dawkins appears to be getting soft in his old age.
>
> How can you take the author of The Selfish Gene seriously?
>
> As for The Blind Watchmaker, it read like something from the 19th
> century. "Oooh, I'm an atheist! Aren't I wicked?"
>
Whereas you've yet to leave the 15th century.
--
"Love is a snowmobile racing across the tundra and then suddenly it
flips over, pinning you underneath. At night, the ice weasels come."
-- Matt Groening
alan truelove
>How can you take the author of The Selfish Gene seriously?
Well, no problem with his atheism which is refreshing ...
and his Evolutionary writings are mildly interesting ...
but this PC attitude to race differences needs to be nipped in the bud
...
alan truelove
>wishy-washy mish-mash of myths and you don't end up being murdered in the
>street for making a film.
Are you guys mean!
I believe we should cooperate with the liberal church memberships,
because 'we' agree on most things and they provide a very useful
social function...
Also the C of E provides (-ed) employment for many of my Cambridge
peers, particularly those that were perhaps light in the loafers.
librar...@*nospam*btinternet.com
wrote:
>>(Reply to a thread on a quasi-professional scientific group about
>>Dawkins latest book in which he claims race differences in IQ have no
>>social application)
>>Richard Dawkins appears to be getting soft in his old age.
>
>How can you take the author of The Selfish Gene seriously?
What's your problem with it?
--
cheers
www.libraryofalex.com
Wherever book may be burned, men also, in the end, are burned
Francis Turton
> On Mon, 15 Nov 2004 11:16:29 +0000, Phillip Weston <m...@privacy.net>
> wrote:
>
>
>>>(Reply to a thread on a quasi-professional scientific group about
>>>Dawkins latest book in which he claims race differences in IQ have no
>>>social application)
>>>Richard Dawkins appears to be getting soft in his old age.
>>
>>How can you take the author of The Selfish Gene seriously?
>
>
> What's your problem with it?
>
I haven't read this book, but I remember hearing Dawkins on 'Desert
Island Discs'. Sue Lawley asked him why, if we are all fundamentally
selfish, we should make any effort to co-operate with one another. He
replied (IIRC) that to do so is precisely the challenge we are faced
with as free entities - i.e. effectively to 'rebel' against our
fundamentally selfish natures. But, I thought, if we are fundamentally
selfish, why should we care about doing this?
Note that Dawkins didn't argue (as he might have done) that our survival
as a species *depends* on co-operation: i.e. co-operation arises from
enlightened self-interest, and the urge to co-operate is as much a part
of our evolutionary heritage as is the urge to compete with one another.
He didn't argue that there is a perpetual tension between these two
drives (which I believe is the case); he clearly stated that he thought
co-operation 'unnatural', but something that we must strive towards anyway.
This (as I see it) fallacious reasoning is one reason I'm not impressed
by Dawkins; the other is his hysterical hatred of people with any kinds
of spiritual beliefs. The man is as much of an intolerant bigot as those
he is constantly railing against in such vitriolic terms.
--- www.dogsticks.org ---
Gropius Riftwynde
<francis...@spamsomeoneelse.dogsticks.org> wrote:
>libraryofalex@*nospam*btinternet.com wrote:
>I haven't read this book, but I remember hearing Dawkins on 'Desert
>Island Discs'. Sue Lawley asked him why, if we are all fundamentally
>selfish, we should make any effort to co-operate with one another. He
>replied (IIRC) that to do so is precisely the challenge we are faced
>with as free entities - i.e. effectively to 'rebel' against our
>fundamentally selfish natures. But, I thought, if we are fundamentally
>selfish, why should we care about doing this?
>
>Note that Dawkins didn't argue (as he might have done) that our survival
>as a species *depends* on co-operation: i.e. co-operation arises from
>enlightened self-interest, and the urge to co-operate is as much a part
>of our evolutionary heritage as is the urge to compete with one another.
>He didn't argue that there is a perpetual tension between these two
>drives (which I believe is the case); he clearly stated that he thought
>co-operation 'unnatural', but something that we must strive towards anyway.
>
>This (as I see it) fallacious reasoning is one reason I'm not impressed
>by Dawkins; the other is his hysterical hatred of people with any kinds
>of spiritual beliefs. The man is as much of an intolerant bigot as those
>he is constantly railing against in such vitriolic terms.
>--- www.dogsticks.org ---
Yes, he is a biological throwback with a political agenda and a strong
interest in profitable publishing commissions, who has a poor
reputation amongst his peers. You can understand why he finds
cooperation unnatural. Maybe it's in his selfish genes? I only had one
personal encounter with him (by phone) and his urbane vanity was
breathtaking. Mark one splashdown.
GR
Mark Carroll
Francis Turton <francis...@spamsomeoneelse.dogsticks.org> wrote:
(snip)
>I haven't read this book, but I remember hearing Dawkins on 'Desert
I read it years ago, but it didn't seem too patently absurd to me at
the time.
>Note that Dawkins didn't argue (as he might have done) that our survival
>as a species *depends* on co-operation: i.e. co-operation arises from
>enlightened self-interest, and the urge to co-operate is as much a part
>of our evolutionary heritage as is the urge to compete with one another.
Oh, certainly.
>He didn't argue that there is a perpetual tension between these two
>drives (which I believe is the case); he clearly stated that he thought
>co-operation 'unnatural', but something that we must strive towards anyway.
Mmmm. That seems an odd statement to me, too. I'd like to think that
I'd remember if he'd said anything like that in the book, but I may
have just forgotten.
>This (as I see it) fallacious reasoning is one reason I'm not impressed
>by Dawkins; the other is his hysterical hatred of people with any kinds
>of spiritual beliefs. The man is as much of an intolerant bigot as those
>he is constantly railing against in such vitriolic terms.
He certainly seems a bit fanatical sometimes. Isn't there something in
Coleridge about "his flashing eyes"[1]? I wonder if Dawkins' eyes can
flash like that. One of my enduring memories is of watching a debate
on TV between Richard Dawkins and Russell Grant, moderated by Jeremy
Paxman who seemed to have difficulty concealing his disdain for them
both.
[1] um. and some hair of some sort.
-- Mark
Tim Green
> (Reply to a thread on a quasi-professional scientific group about
> Dawkins latest book in which he claims race differences in IQ have no
> social application)
Never mind differences between ethnic groups, how much difference
between anybody does IQ make?
http://www.mensa.org/info.php even boasts that high school dropouts
and truck drivers can join the high IQ club. Does a high IQ mean
anything (apart from the ability to score well on IQ tests)?
Tim.
--
To email me, please remove the lime from the tin first.
Value of 2p or 2cent comments may go up as well as down.
Jon Anderson
> Never mind differences between ethnic groups, how much difference
> between anybody does IQ make?
The idea is this: certain racist scientists (some proudly display this
badge) claim that there are IQ differences between different races. They
claim that this is down to a few genes.
They claim that as IQ is an important predictor of career success we
ought to just accept that some people are born stupid and put resources
into the clever ones.
Now, there are more holes in this argument than swiss cheese.
The whole idea of IQ describing intelligence is itself disputed, let
alone the idea that your genes play this overwhelming role.
At the end of it all Alan Truelove is still a racist, which is the
unpleasant truth.
Jon
--
Durge: j...@durge.org http://users.durge.org/~jon/
OnStream: acco...@rowing.org.uk http://www.rowing.org.uk/
[ All views expressed are personal unless otherwise stated ]
librar...@*nospam*btinternet.com
wrote:
>>>>(Reply to a thread on a quasi-professional scientific group about
>>>>Dawkins latest book in which he claims race differences in IQ have no
>>>>social application)
>>>>Richard Dawkins appears to be getting soft in his old age.
>>>
>>>How can you take the author of The Selfish Gene seriously?
>>
>>What's your problem with it?
>
>I don't like the word "memes".
Seems a small gripe to have
Charlie
<alan_t...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>(Reply to a thread on a quasi-professional scientific group about
>Dawkins latest book in which he claims race differences in IQ have no
>social application)
Still got a tiny willy, then Alan?
C
Gropius Riftwynde
<tin...@spodlife.org> wrote:
>alan truelove <alan_t...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> (Reply to a thread on a quasi-professional scientific group about
>> Dawkins latest book in which he claims race differences in IQ have no
>> social application)
>
>Never mind differences between ethnic groups, how much difference
>between anybody does IQ make?
>
>http://www.mensa.org/info.php even boasts that high school dropouts
>and truck drivers can join the high IQ club. Does a high IQ mean
>anything (apart from the ability to score well on IQ tests)?
>
>Tim.
Well, precisely. It can be very well agued that the human race as a
whole obviously has a very low IQ compared to the potential implied by
the IQ concept, and that minor cultural variations between them are
neither here nor there. How do I know that? Because a) it is possible
to imagine an intelligence higher than the curretly human defined one,
and b) because a reasonable number of humans do have a demonstably
high intelligence, irrespective of age, race, colour, etc.
Unfortunately not enough, but give it time.
Mr. Truelove's postings demonstrate a lively mind with a flair for
self-interested research, but very little relative solid
iintelligence. Ah! I hear you say. Intelligence compared to what? and
how do you accurately measure it anyway?
GR
Gropius Riftwynde
libraryofalex@*nospam*btinternet.com wrote:
>On Mon, 15 Nov 2004 13:55:24 +0000, Phillip Weston <m...@privacy.net>
>wrote:
>
>>>>>(Reply to a thread on a quasi-professional scientific group about
>>>>>Dawkins latest book in which he claims race differences in IQ have no
>>>>>social application)
>>>>>Richard Dawkins appears to be getting soft in his old age.
>>>>
>>>>How can you take the author of The Selfish Gene seriously?
>>>
>>>What's your problem with it?
>>
>>I don't like the word "memes".
>
>Seems a small gripe to have
I suppose it's a small convenient word to have for a concept that's
been around for a few thousand years. It only gives you the gripes if
the author is claimng something new and significant, which he isn't.
GR
Prime Element
news:i70hp056mh8ermu9r...@4ax.com...
> (Reply to a thread on a quasi-professional scientific group about
> Dawkins latest book in which he claims race differences in IQ have no
> social application)
> Richard Dawkins appears to be getting soft in his old age.
> The hereditary basis of the massive ave. IQ deficit of blacks and
> hispanics
No matter about average IQ and how much and in what ways genes and
environment affect it please be advised that "hispanic" is NOT a race.
John Morrison
> Tim Green wrote:
>> Never mind differences between ethnic groups, how much difference
>> between anybody does IQ make?
>
> The idea is this: certain racist scientists (some proudly display this
> badge) claim that there are IQ differences between different races.
> They claim that this is down to a few genes.
> They claim that as IQ is an important predictor of career success we
> ought to just accept that some people are born stupid and put
> resources into the clever ones.
> Now, there are more holes in this argument than swiss cheese.
> The whole idea of IQ describing intelligence is itself disputed, let
> alone the idea that your genes play this overwhelming role.
>
> At the end of it all Alan Truelove is still a racist, which is the
> unpleasant truth.
>
How many people recall that Binet, the French originator of IQ tests
(and testing) was interested in identifying schoolchildren in need of
remedial teaching? Such worthy enterprises have a nasty habit of becoming
politically tainted, though. And there's never much that the defenders of
the original purpose can do except to point back to that purpose, and in
particular, its worthiness compared with the subsequent perversions to which
it has been subjected.
There are racists everywhere. Some of the worst make a great display of
seeming not to be.
While on the subject of racial IQ variations, I wonder how many
news:cam.misc contributors have read (the late and much lamented) Steve
Gould book, "The Mismeasure of Man"? I noted on the blurb of that it
<gloss>reads like a critique of "The Bell Curve", but written years before
it</gloss>. I've read it - and it does! I would recommend it. (It also puts
paid to the idea that Gould and mathematics didn't mix: some of its
summaries of statistical results in non-technical form would put experts to
shame.)
By the way, in 1968, when I was a teenager forced to take an IQ test at
school, I went away with a spare copy of the paper I had sat and found that
the ways in which the questions were marked must have been devised by a
brain-dead ant. I pointed this out to the master who had been my invigilator
when I sat it - and months later I was told that my points had been made to
the setters, and that all the school's IQ results for the past N years were
invalid, because papers for the wrong age-group had been used all that time!
(Actually, that was the first thing I noted - but was told _before the exam
started_ that it did not matter!)
Best wishes,
John
johnDOTmorrisonATtescoDOTnet
--
"Success is a lousy teacher. It seduces smart people into thinking they
can't lose." - Bill Gates
Francis Turton
Actually, I forgot to mention memes - they're the third thing I don't
like about Dawkins :)
I understand Dawkins claims a literal correspondence between the
behaviour of genes and that of memes (a buzzword for 'paradigms' from
what I can gather).
This confusion between analogy and fact often seems to mark out
second-rate thinkers (Daniel Dennett and David Deutsch to name a couple
more). I guess that probably sounds a bit pompous :\
--- www.dogsticks.org ---
George Cox
>
> No matter about average IQ and how much and in what ways genes and
> environment affect it please be advised that "hispanic" is NOT a race.
The notion of race is so vague that it can have no serious use.
Mark Goodge
keyboard and typed:
>alan truelove <alan_t...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> (Reply to a thread on a quasi-professional scientific group about
>> Dawkins latest book in which he claims race differences in IQ have no
>> social application)
>
>Never mind differences between ethnic groups, how much difference
>between anybody does IQ make?
>
>http://www.mensa.org/info.php even boasts that high school dropouts
>and truck drivers can join the high IQ club. Does a high IQ mean
>anything (apart from the ability to score well on IQ tests)?
It correlates well with certain key skill requirements for some jobs,
notably things like programming, accountancy and engineering (as well
as being strongly linked to numeracy, literary and language skills in
general). But that doesn't necessarily mean that a high IQ is an
indicator of who will be good at those jobs - it's more the case that
an IQ test measures some of the necessary skills. And it also says
nothing about whether someone is suited to a job in terms of
personality and other social factors.
Mark
--
--> http://photos.markshouse.net - see my world! <--
"Life is both a major and a minor key"
librar...@*nospam*btinternet.com
<francis...@spamsomeoneelse.dogsticks.org> wrote:
>> I suppose it's a small convenient word to have for a concept that's
>> been around for a few thousand years. It only gives you the gripes if
>> the author is claimng something new and significant, which he isn't.
>>
>
>Actually, I forgot to mention memes - they're the third thing I don't
>like about Dawkins :)
>
>I understand Dawkins claims a literal correspondence between the
>behaviour of genes and that of memes (a buzzword for 'paradigms' from
>what I can gather).
Meme is nothing more than 'idea'
>This confusion between analogy and fact often seems to mark out
>second-rate thinkers (Daniel Dennett and David Deutsch to name a couple
>more). I guess that probably sounds a bit pompous :\
There's noting wrong with memes as a concept
Francis Turton
>
> Meme is nothing more than 'idea'
>
>
>>This confusion between analogy and fact often seems to mark out
>>second-rate thinkers (Daniel Dennett and David Deutsch to name a couple
>>more). I guess that probably sounds a bit pompous :\
>
>
> There's noting wrong with memes as a concept
>
I.e. "There's nothing wrong with ideas as an idea". Cool! :)
I don't see why Dawkins didn't say 'idea' if that's what he meant.
Actually, I do: if he used the word 'idea', people would realise he had
nothing new to say.
--- www.dogsticks.org ---
Stefan Patejak
definitions I've run across talk about language, surnames, etc. This
is hardly satisfactory from a biological point of view. One doesn't
become more or less intelligent because your name changes from Zapata
to Schumacher, or vice versa.
Prime Element
news:4198FEF6...@spambtinternet.com.invalid...
Rudolf is a red-nosed reindeer.
Here's some use for you.
http://www.wku.edu/~darlene.applegate/forensic/lab7.html
Let's not leave genetics out of the picture.
http://ancestrybydna.com/
Also providing DNA "race tests" to law enforcement.
Prime Element
news:419932dc$0$532$ed26...@ptn-nntp-reader03.plus.net...
Catching criminals and identifying victims of crimes is useful, no? It's
even quite serious.
abelard
<alan_t...@hotmail.com>
typed:
>(Reply to a thread on a quasi-professional scientific group about
>Dawkins latest book in which he claims race differences in IQ have no
>social application)
well dumbo....perhaps you'd like to suggest precisely what social
application it has
>Richard Dawkins appears to be getting soft in his old age.
didn't take you that long...are you over 14...no, can't be....
far too shallow and immature...or is it sommat about your near
invisible imaginary 'iq'
rest binned due to terminal boredom...
--
web site at www.abelard.org - news and comment service, logic,
energy, education, politics, etc >958,884 document calls in a year
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
all that is necessary for [] walk quietly and carry
the triumph of evil is that [] a big stick.
good people do nothing [] trust actions not words
only when it's funny -- roger rabbit
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
abelard
<alan_t...@hotmail.com>
typed:
>>I suppose that we can be glad that chirstianity has grown up into a
>>wishy-washy mish-mash of myths and you don't end up being murdered in the
>>street for making a film.
>Are you guys mean!
>I believe we should cooperate with the liberal church memberships,
>because 'we' agree on most things and they provide a very useful
>social function...
>Also the C of E provides (-ed) employment for many of my Cambridge
>peers,
which street gang was that?
>particularly those that were perhaps light in the loafers.
indeed your peers
abelard
typed:
>On Mon, 15 Nov 2004 12:28:20 +0000 (UTC),
>libraryofalex@*nospam*btinternet.com wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 15 Nov 2004 11:16:29 +0000, Phillip Weston <m...@privacy.net>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>>(Reply to a thread on a quasi-professional scientific group about
>>>>Dawkins latest book in which he claims race differences in IQ have no
>>>>social application)
>>>>Richard Dawkins appears to be getting soft in his old age.
>>>
>>>How can you take the author of The Selfish Gene seriously?
>>
>>What's your problem with it?
>
>I don't like the word "memes".
whoop-de-doo....
abelard
<alan_t...@hotmail.com>
typed:
>
>>How can you take the author of The Selfish Gene seriously?
>
>Well, no problem with his atheism which is refreshing ...
naturaly...you're a moron...
>and his Evolutionary writings are mildly interesting ...
if only you understood them...
>but this PC attitude to race differences needs to be nipped in the bud
while your preposterous ignorance can evoke only hollow laughter and
widespread embarrassment that you dare to open your mouth or type
into a computer.....
abelard
<francis...@spamsomeoneelse.dogsticks.org>
typed:
>Actually, I forgot to mention memes - they're the third thing I don't
>like about Dawkins :)
why?...that is, why do you have a problem with 'memes'?
>I understand Dawkins claims a literal correspondence between the
>behaviour of genes
perhaps you can manage a cite for that claim....
>and that of memes (a buzzword for 'paradigms' from
>what I can gather).
not a reasonable analogy....
'paradigm' would be expected to be a superset of 'meme'....
and meme maybe a superset of 'bit'...
it's crude and would require refinement in any conversation....
just like many words much of the time....
>This confusion between analogy and fact often seems to mark out
>second-rate thinkers (Daniel Dennett and David Deutsch to name a couple
>more). I guess that probably sounds a bit pompous :\
no...
Jon Anderson
> How many people recall that Binet, the French originator of IQ tests
> (and testing) was interested in identifying schoolchildren in need of
> remedial teaching?
I knew that. ;)
Not that it has much bearing on subsequent events...
> Such worthy enterprises have a nasty habit of becoming
> politically tainted, though. And there's never much that the defenders of
> the original purpose can do except to point back to that purpose, and in
> particular, its worthiness compared with the subsequent perversions to which
> it has been subjected.
Worthiness...well that's the thing. If you're trying to see who is
lagging behind in school then maybe a test of that sort helps. If you're
trying to measure intelligence and personal "worth" then it's not much use.
> By the way, in 1968, when I was a teenager forced to take an IQ test at
> school, I went away with a spare copy of the paper I had sat and found that
> the ways in which the questions were marked must have been devised by a
> brain-dead ant. I pointed this out to the master who had been my invigilator
> when I sat it - and months later I was told that my points had been made to
> the setters, and that all the school's IQ results for the past N years were
> invalid, because papers for the wrong age-group had been used all that time!
> (Actually, that was the first thing I noted - but was told _before the exam
> started_ that it did not matter!)
Possible explanation...those who rattle on about the heritability of IQ
claim to be measuring something fundamental, something crystalline that
is broadly set within us from birth.
Other than the pesky complex interaction between genotype and
environment and the increases in IQ across generations (let's pretend
these don't exist and reality has been inverted somehow), the
interesting thing about intelligence is that it's incredibly useful for
survival.
Which is why the variance of IQ is puzzling. If a trait is supposed to
be important, why does it vary so much?
Having two eyes to give us depth of vision is important and we're almost
all born with two eyes.
My personal theory is that IQ is all bollocks. And that IQ is often
hijacked by sad unfortunates who have a loathesome agenda to push, as
well as psychologists who love to bicker with each other.
George Cox
>
> .... Isn't there something in
> Coleridge about "his flashing eyes"[1]? ...
>
> [1] um. and some hair of some sort.
Floating:
And all who heard should see them there,
And all should cry, Beware! Beware!
His flashing eyes, his floating hair!
Weave a circle round him thrice,
And close your eyes with holy dread,
For he on honey-dew hath fed,
And drunk the milk of Paradise
'Kubla Khan'
George Cox
>
> ...
>
> This confusion between analogy and fact often seems to mark out
> second-rate thinkers (Daniel Dennett and David Deutsch to name a couple
> more). I guess that probably sounds a bit pompous :\
Any one who calls Daniel Dennett a second-rate thinker may have his
(seeming) pomposity excused.
JimC
Stefan Patejak
> For purposes of your argument, how do you define "Hispanic?"
That which is left after you subtract native Portuguese, English,
French, French Creole, Dutch, Quechua and Guarani speakers from Latin
America. The word comes from the way a Mexican says, "He's a
panic." Hispanic.
> Most
> definitions I've run across talk about language, surnames, etc. This
> is hardly satisfactory from a biological point of view.
You got your biological Hispanics, and your wanna be
Hispanics like Jews who emigrate to Argentina. They're not
biological.
> One doesn't
> become more or less intelligent because your name changes from Zapata
> to Schumacher, or vice versa.
I'll say. For one thing, Schumacher is a common name around
Strasbourg, a French city, while Zapata is a common name
in Texas, a state in Bumfuckia.
librar...@*nospam*btinternet.com
<francis...@spamsomeoneelse.dogsticks.org> wrote:
>> Meme is nothing more than 'idea'
>>
>>
>>>This confusion between analogy and fact often seems to mark out
>>>second-rate thinkers (Daniel Dennett and David Deutsch to name a couple
>>>more). I guess that probably sounds a bit pompous :\
>>
>>
>> There's noting wrong with memes as a concept
>>
>
>I.e. "There's nothing wrong with ideas as an idea". Cool! :)
LOL
>I don't see why Dawkins didn't say 'idea' if that's what he meant.
>Actually, I do: if he used the word 'idea', people would realise he had
>nothing new to say.
Sort of. I think memes is a helpful addition to the language; I guess
it means 'selectable unit of ideas'
Michael Kilpatrick
> This (as I see it) fallacious reasoning is one reason I'm not impressed
> by Dawkins; the other is his hysterical hatred of people with any kinds
> of spiritual beliefs. The man is as much of an intolerant bigot as those
> he is constantly railing against in such vitriolic terms.
Throughout recorded history religious authorities have acted to murder,
torture those who don't conform to their beliefs, and has in many
instances stifled scientific and cultural progress. Quite rightly,
spiritual belief is something to be scorned. There is certainly nothing
"hysterical" about Dawkins' anti-spiritual viewpoint. We are all
entitled to stand up and voice our feelings towards any belief system
that we think is positively bad for society. These days we can speak our
minds without being burnt at the stake, thankfully.
Michael
Mark Carroll
George Cox <george_...@spambtinternet.com.invalid> wrote:
(snip)
>Any one who calls Daniel Dennett a second-rate thinker may have his
>(seeming) pomposity excused.
(-: I've not actually read any Dennett, although I have something by
him languishing in the cellar awaiting perusal, along with a couple of
things by Pinker. I did like The Selfish Gene at the time I read it,
was in two minds about The Blind Watchmaker, and was distinctly
underwhelmed by The Emperor's New Mind. Yesterday's library haul
included Hawkins' "On Intelligence".
About (handwave) this sort of stuff, who do you think is worth
reading?
(I took the liberty of excising uk.politics.misc from followups as I'm
guessing that this is a bit off-topic for those folks.)
-- Mark
Meldrew of Meldreth
Kilpatrick <mic...@mtkilpatrick.SPAMWITHEGGSfsnet.co.uk> writes
>These days we can speak our minds without being burnt at the stake,
>thankfully.
Unless your name is Sheikh Abu Hamza.
--
"now, the thing you type on and the window you stare out of are the same thing"
Diversity Isn't A Codeword
> Phillip Weston wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 15 Nov 2004 05:17:02 -0500, alan truelove
> >
> >>(Reply to a thread on a quasi-professional scientific group about
> >>Dawkins latest book in which he claims race differences in IQ have no
> >>social application)
> >>Richard Dawkins appears to be getting soft in his old age.
> >
> >
> > century. "Oooh, I'm an atheist! Aren't I wicked?"
I agree with whomever wrote the above, Richard DAWKins (good name for
a dickhead) is a total knob, a typical atheist cretin, he still
preaches that evolution is fact, even though he knows what a load of
shit it is.
Gropius Riftwynde
<mic...@mtkilpatrick.SPAMWITHEGGSfsnet.co.uk> wrote:
>Throughout recorded history religious authorities have acted to murder,
>torture those who don't conform to their beliefs, and has in many
>instances stifled scientific and cultural progress. Quite rightly,
>spiritual belief is something to be scorned. There is certainly nothing
>"hysterical" about Dawkins' anti-spiritual viewpoint. We are all
>entitled to stand up and voice our feelings towards any belief system
>that we think is positively bad for society. These days we can speak our
>minds without being burnt at the stake, thankfully.
>
>Michael
A comparable case was at Churchill, where Crick objected to the
college having a chapel when it was built, for reasons similar to
Dawkins'. In the event, the chapel was built at the far end of the
playing field. The key issue here, it seems to me, is that fortunately
the University, for all its tradition (in fact because of its
tradition), at least supports diversity of opinion and belief. It is
one thing to adhere to the fundamental tenets of science, and quite
another to be intolerant of diverse philosophies and beliefs. Academia
should be a place where these things can be discussed, not where they
are intolerated.
GR
bigboard
And yet he could no doubt learn to snip correctly and avoid attributing
posts to persons other than their real authors.
--
Linus: I guess it's wrong always to be worrying about tomorrow.
Maybe we should think only about today.
Charlie Brown:
No, that's giving up. I'm still hoping that yesterday
will get better.
abelard
<ma...@chiark.greenend.org.uk>
typed:
>In article <41995F75...@spambtinternet.com.invalid>,
>George Cox <george_...@spambtinternet.com.invalid> wrote:
>(snip)
>>Any one who calls Daniel Dennett a second-rate thinker may have his
>>(seeming) pomposity excused.
>
>(-: I've not actually read any Dennett, although I have something by
>him languishing in the cellar awaiting perusal, along with a couple of
>things by Pinker. I did like The Selfish Gene at the time I read it,
>was in two minds about The Blind Watchmaker, and was distinctly
>underwhelmed by The Emperor's New Mind. Yesterday's library haul
>included Hawkins' "On Intelligence".
>
>About (handwave) this sort of stuff, who do you think is worth
>reading?
imv you would better orient yourself by focussing more strongly on the
real world
http://www.abelard.org/reading/rec-hi.htm
matt ridley is more up to date than dawkins and more subtle.....but
2 of dawkins offerings can be useful (as listed)
as suggested by others....dawkins 'atheism' is risible in its
crudity....
i've even watched a theologian tear him to ribbons while dawkins
appeared blithely unaware he was being disassembled.....he should
stick to what he knows...and know what he does not know....
for penrose i have very little time...he's a substantial mathematician
but out of his depth in behaviour (i have found his sections on
godel of use, but more as an awful example)
i have a long deconstruction of godel starting here:-
http://www.abelard.org/metalogic/metalogicA1.htm
hawkins i also regards as pretty much another handwaver but he's
more a *theoretical* physicist....sommat he probably has in common
with penrose.....i am no physicist so am unable to 'appreciate' these
two in depth in that area....
dennet i have scanned and come to the conclusion my time is
better invested elsewhere....
i repeat the first sentence...
imv you would better orient yourself by focussing more strongly on the
real world....
>(I took the liberty of excising uk.politics.misc from followups as I'm
>guessing that this is a bit off-topic for those folks.)
i have replaced it....your action is not normally good practice....
librar...@*nospam*btinternet.com
wrote:
>>About (handwave) this sort of stuff, who do you think is worth
>>reading?
>
>imv you would better orient yourself by focussing more strongly on the
> real world
>http://www.abelard.org/reading/rec-hi.htm
>matt ridley is more up to date than dawkins and more subtle.....but
> 2 of dawkins offerings can be useful (as listed)
> as suggested by others....dawkins 'atheism' is risible in its
> crudity....
> i've even watched a theologian tear him to ribbons while dawkins
> appeared blithely unaware he was being disassembled.....he should
> stick to what he knows...and know what he does not know....
He's good at poking fun at fundies, but he's not well versed enough to
deal with the more sophisticated
>for penrose i have very little time...he's a substantial mathematician
> but out of his depth in behaviour (i have found his sections on
> godel of use, but more as an awful example)
>i have a long deconstruction of godel starting here:-
>http://www.abelard.org/metalogic/metalogicA1.htm
>hawkins i also regards as pretty much another handwaver but he's
> more a *theoretical* physicist....sommat he probably has in common
> with penrose.....i am no physicist so am unable to 'appreciate' these
> two in depth in that area....
They have access to ideas we don't. Their analogies are very useful to
open the mind
>dennet i have scanned and come to the conclusion my time is
> better invested elsewhere....
>
>i repeat the first sentence...
>imv you would better orient yourself by focussing more strongly on the
> real world....
For this stuff, any Buddhist text is better than most. Alan Watts'
"This is it" isn't a bad start... but there's no substitute for
meditation
librar...@*nospam*btinternet.com
>>Any one who calls Daniel Dennett a second-rate thinker may have his
>>(seeming) pomposity excused.
>
>(-: I've not actually read any Dennett, although I have something by
>him languishing in the cellar awaiting perusal, along with a couple of
>things by Pinker. I did like The Selfish Gene at the time I read it,
>was in two minds about The Blind Watchmaker, and was distinctly
>underwhelmed by The Emperor's New Mind. Yesterday's library haul
>included Hawkins' "On Intelligence".
>
>About (handwave) this sort of stuff, who do you think is worth
>reading?
Given the range of 'this stuff'; Godel Escher and Bach is great fun,
the Extended Phenotype (basically one idea blown out into a book) is a
clever idea, and Russell's Analysis of Mind is a different look at
this problem.
As for evolution or human societies and intelligence generally, Guns
germs and steel and (especially) The wealth and poverty of nations
contain more wisdom than many (even if guns germs and steel suffers
from an overlay of PC nonsense
>(I took the liberty of excising uk.politics.misc from followups as I'm
>guessing that this is a bit off-topic for those folks.)
Please don't! Uk.p.m is a cross-posting haven for all and sundry, and
topics here include everything. If anyone flames you for being off
topic, just refer them to me (rolls up arms...)
Francis Turton
> Francis Turton wrote:
>
>> This (as I see it) fallacious reasoning is one reason I'm not
>> impressed by Dawkins; the other is his hysterical hatred of people
>> with any kinds of spiritual beliefs. The man is as much of an
>> intolerant bigot as those he is constantly railing against in such
>> vitriolic terms.
>
>
>
> Throughout recorded history religious authorities have acted to murder,
> torture those who don't conform to their beliefs,
Oh, we're here again.
Stalin. Hitler. Saddam.
Why do people keep insisting that you need to be religious to be a bastard?
Admittedly, the problem with religion is that it tends to deal with deep
issues that 80% of the population, to put it brutally, don't have the
intelligence to grasp and are liable to distort according to their crude
interpretations.
I'm not disagreeing that much evil comes from religion - the Catholic
Church's opposition to abortion and contraception, for example. I just
think it is facile to make such an all-or-nothing correspondence between
religion and evil. Buddhism, for example, is a singularly tolerant
religion that very few have yet managed to distort into dogmas of
violence and retribution.
> and has in many
> instances stifled scientific and cultural progress.
> Quite rightly,
> spiritual belief is something to be scorned. There is certainly nothing
> "hysterical" about Dawkins' anti-spiritual viewpoint. We are all
> entitled to stand up and voice our feelings towards any belief system
> that we think is positively bad for society. These days we can speak our
> minds without being burnt at the stake, thankfully.
>
I was not denying Dawkins' right to voice his beliefs. However, I am
equally entitled to voice mine, namely that I consider him an intolerant
bigot who, I strongly suspect, would deny the right of religious people
to voice *their* beliefs if he could.
As for your view that spiritual belief is something to be scorned (a
view your right to express which I fully acknowledge): I'm afraid that
suggests to me that you don't know the meaning of the word 'spiritual'.
One does not need to believe in the literal existence of souls or God to
have a spiritual outlook; it is something one feels. Apart from which,
having thought long and hard about these matters, experienced certain
things, and made certain observations about the world, I am rather
inclined to suppose that there may indeed be a deeper reality, of which
the world revealed to us by our senses is merely, as it were, a shadow.
I can't prove any of it, and I'm not making any attempt to convince you
of this possibility; I'm merely indicating broadly where I stand in this
debate.
Apart from all of which: anyone who thinks science has solved all the
mysteries of existence doesn't know as much about science as they think
they do.
I'm not saying that science can't, theoretically, explain everything:
after all, 'science' simply means 'what is known'. Whatever can be shown
to *seem* to be true is science, and I believe many things currently
regarded by most scientists as nonsense - not so much because of lack of
evidence, as because they are deemed a priori *impossible* - will be
revealed in time to be as valid and demonstrable as relativity or
quantum theory.
So there.
--- www.dogsticks.org ---
Michael Kilpatrick
>
> A comparable case was at Churchill, where Crick objected to the
> college having a chapel when it was built, for reasons similar to
> Dawkins'. In the event, the chapel was built at the far end of the
> playing field. The key issue here, it seems to me, is that fortunately
> the University, for all its tradition (in fact because of its
> tradition), at least supports diversity of opinion and belief.
In what way does the entrenchment of Christianity within the University
establishment, to the extent of building a chapel but building neither a
mosque nor a synagogue at the same time, represent "support for
diversity of opinion and belief"?
Michael
abelard
libraryofalex@*nospam*btinternet.com
typed:
>On Tue, 16 Nov 2004 15:00:43 +0100, abelard <abel...@abelard.org>
>wrote:
>
>>>About (handwave) this sort of stuff, who do you think is worth
>>>reading?
>>
>>imv you would better orient yourself by focussing more strongly on the
>> real world
>>http://www.abelard.org/reading/rec-hi.htm
>>matt ridley is more up to date than dawkins and more subtle.....but
>> 2 of dawkins offerings can be useful (as listed)
>> as suggested by others....dawkins 'atheism' is risible in its
>> crudity....
>> i've even watched a theologian tear him to ribbons while dawkins
>> appeared blithely unaware he was being disassembled.....he should
>> stick to what he knows...and know what he does not know....
>
>He's good at poking fun at fundies, but he's not well versed enough to
>deal with the more sophisticated
reasonable comment...
>>for penrose i have very little time...he's a substantial mathematician
>> but out of his depth in behaviour (i have found his sections on
>> godel of use, but more as an awful example)
>>i have a long deconstruction of godel starting here:-
>>http://www.abelard.org/metalogic/metalogicA1.htm
>>hawkins i also regards as pretty much another handwaver but he's
>> more a *theoretical* physicist....sommat he probably has in common
>> with penrose.....i am no physicist so am unable to 'appreciate' these
>> two in depth in that area....
>
>They have access to ideas we don't. Their analogies are very useful to
>open the mind
in behaviour i am unconvinced....
minsky has a better, if still inadequate, model.....
http://www.abelard.org/iqedfran/iqedfran.htm#stages is imv a better
approach without the hubris....
we have no (useful?) idea what consciousness means...and probably won't
have for long to come....
first job is to describe it...not try to 'explain' it....
studies in computing will steadily add to understanding...but as you will
well realise i regard godel as empirically unsound...you ain't going
to describe well something as difficult as consciousness, using
empirically unsound language, and a bit of hand waving.....
that is all i see in penrose...minsky is in computers and his feet are
far more firmly on the ground it you want to reach for mechanical
crutches....
>>dennet i have scanned and come to the conclusion my time is
>> better invested elsewhere....
>>
>>i repeat the first sentence...
>>imv you would better orient yourself by focussing more strongly on the
>> real world....
>
>For this stuff, any Buddhist text is better than most.
almost certainly though i have not read the book you cite...
btw...i should possibly have added to my last reply that by 'real
world' i meant ethology (animal behavior) rather that airy fairy
'theorising'
> Alan Watts'
>"This is it" isn't a bad start... but there's no substitute for
>meditation
regards...
Michael Kilpatrick
> Michael Kilpatrick wrote:
>
>>
>> Throughout recorded history religious authorities have acted to
>> murder, torture those who don't conform to their beliefs,
>
>
> Oh, we're here again.
>
> Stalin. Hitler. Saddam.
>
> Why do people keep insisting that you need to be religious to be a bastard?
I never insisted so, but it does often help! Hmmm, perhaps we can draw
up a list of the top twenty bastards of the last 3000 years and see how
many of them drew their strength from their faith? I've no idea what the
result would be.
>
> I was not denying Dawkins' right to voice his beliefs. However, I am
> equally entitled to voice mine, namely that I consider him an intolerant
> bigot who, I strongly suspect, would deny the right of religious people
> to voice *their* beliefs if he could.
Is it not conceivable that he believes publicy-stated religious views
are as dangerous to society as, say, racist views? As you mentioned
Hitler earlier, we could obvserve that people are as susceptible to
indoctrination by racist politics as they are by religious propaganda.
It seems quite right to ensure that religious is as de-established as
possible from realms of life such as politics, academia, etc.
Are you saying that Dawkins wishes to make religious worship in the home
illegal? If he's not but wishes to divorce it entirely from academia and
politics, let's discuss the details so I can see what the problem is
beyond the objections to his scornful, confrontational attitude. It's a
good year since I heard Dawkins' speaking at length on this subject.
> I am rather
> inclined to suppose that there may indeed be a deeper reality, of which
> the world revealed to us by our senses is merely, as it were, a shadow.
> I can't prove any of it, and I'm not making any attempt to convince you
> of this possibility; I'm merely indicating broadly where I stand in this
> debate.
>
I'd be more than happy to discuss the needs of the human soul, the
propensity of that soul to attribute incomprehensible things to spirits,
or any other subject, tangible or otherwise, that may be encompassed by
the wide blanket that is "spirituality". However, I'm sorry, but what
you say above means nothing to me. The universe has no "purpose" or
"deeper" anything. It just *is*.
> Apart from all of which: anyone who thinks science has solved all the
> mysteries of existence doesn't know as much about science as they think
> they do.
On that point, the worst scientist is the one who gets so far in
unravelling the deepest mysteries of the universe in a way which may
quite frankly be beyond the comprehension of a lot of people, yet who
still feels the need to mention God when he hits the buffers rather than
simply acknowledging the lack of explanation (at the moment) for that
"next level". I am quite happy to acknowledge that I shall never (I
reckon) understand the universe fully and may also be incapable of
understanding some of the theories that scientists have evolved or may
evolve in the future. Having acknowledged that I still feel that
spiritual faith has no relevance to this matter.
Michael
Stefan Patejak
> You got your biological Hispanics, and your wanna be
> Hispanics like Jews who emigrate to Argentina. They're not
> biological.
I assume by "biological" Hispanics you mean people descended form the
Iberians, Celts, Carthaginians, Romans, Goths, Vandals, and Moors;
people like Cervantes and Picasso.
Zapata is a common name in Texas, a state in Bumfuckia.
Don't blame me! I didn't vote for him. (Anyway he's going to make
bumfucking illegal.)
Gropius Riftwynde
As it happens, that chapel was/is multi-denomenational, and that
included moslems and jews - who in fact use it. It is fairly neutral
regarding furniture specific to any religion.
GR
Pepe le Pew
<libraryofalex@*nospam*btinternet.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 15 Nov 2004 22:21:34 +0000, Francis Turton
> <francis...@spamsomeoneelse.dogsticks.org> wrote:
>
>>> Meme is nothing more than 'idea'
>>>
>>>
>>>> This confusion between analogy and fact often seems to mark out
>>>> second-rate thinkers (Daniel Dennett and David Deutsch to name a
>>>> couple
>>>> more). I guess that probably sounds a bit pompous :\
>>>
>>>
>>> There's noting wrong with memes as a concept
>>>
>>
>> I.e. "There's nothing wrong with ideas as an idea". Cool! :)
>
> LOL
>
>> I don't see why Dawkins didn't say 'idea' if that's what he meant.
>> Actually, I do: if he used the word 'idea', people would realise he had
>> nothing new to say.
>
> Sort of. I think memes is a helpful addition to the language; I guess
> it means 'selectable unit of ideas'
>
Why don't you just look up the word in the bloody dictionary?
http://dictionary.reference.com?search=memes
Later,
Pepe le Pew aka Pat Sullivan
--
PT Barnum was right !
Anubis
wrote:
>we have no (useful?) idea what consciousness means...and probably won't
> have for long to come....
Try Roger Penrose's "correct quantum gravity".
He believes the brain is a quantum mechanical device (and FWIW so do
I) and that we will understand conscious awareness when we understand
what he calls "correct quantum gravity".
Although he spends a lot of energy defending that claim, at the heart
of it is the fact that gravity remains the last mystery to solve and
when it is solved a grand unification will presumably be possible and
one anticipated consequence of that grand unification will be an
understanding of consciousness.
We know something is not right with our primitive classical notions of
space and time, so presumably when we discover correct quantum gravity
we will break thru the illusions surrounding space and time - and that
will lead us to an understanding of how the brain operates.
--
Map Of The Vast Right Wing Conspiracy:
http://home.houston.rr.com/rkba/vrwc.html
"If you build a man a fire and he will be warm for a day. If you
set a man on fire, he will be warm for the rest of his life."
Francis Turton
>>> I don't see why Dawkins didn't say 'idea' if that's what he meant.
>>> Actually, I do: if he used the word 'idea', people would realise he had
>>> nothing new to say.
>>
>>
>> Sort of. I think memes is a helpful addition to the language; I guess
>> it means 'selectable unit of ideas'
>>
> Why don't you just look up the word in the bloody dictionary?
>
> http://dictionary.reference.com?search=memes
>
Just read that. Sure sounds like bollocks to me :)
--- www.dogsticks.org ---
Francis Turton
> On Tue, 16 Nov 2004 17:16:00 +0100, abelard <abel...@abelard.org>
> wrote:
>
>
>>we have no (useful?) idea what consciousness means...and probably won't
>> have for long to come....
>
>
> Try Roger Penrose's "correct quantum gravity".
>
> He believes the brain is a quantum mechanical device (and FWIW so do
> I) and that we will understand conscious awareness when we understand
> what he calls "correct quantum gravity".
>
> Although he spends a lot of energy defending that claim, at the heart
> of it is the fact that gravity remains the last mystery to solve and
> when it is solved a grand unification will presumably be possible and
> one anticipated consequence of that grand unification will be an
> understanding of consciousness.
>
The idea that consciousness is a quantum process seems to have a lot of
favour among scientists at the moment. Nick Herbert broaches this
subject in his excellent book 'Quantum Reality' - though IIRC he doesn't
delve into the notion of quantum gravity.
(I've read Penrose's hypothesis about quantum gravity and consiousness
and found it very difficult to understand; something about the wave
function of a mental process collapsing when it reaches the level of 1
graviton or something; but I didn't understand fundamentally why
consciousness has to have anything to do with gravity. On the one hand I
realise these are difficult concepts to explaing to the lay reader, but
on the other hand, I found Penrose generally rather poor at getting his
point across.)
> We know something is not right with our primitive classical notions of
> space and time, so presumably when we discover correct quantum gravity
> we will break thru the illusions surrounding space and time - and that
> will lead us to an understanding of how the brain operates.
>
This is the point I was making elsewhere - that our notions of the
things that seem to us the very fabric of the universe (space, time,
consciousness) are in fact still very poorly understood and that
whatever *does* finally explain these things will likely revolutionise
our understanding of the universe.
If we don't destroy ourselves before we've got there of course :( (On a
whimsical note here, Douglas Adams and Gabriel Garcia Marquez both
suggest that as soon as a species understands the universe, it may be
inevitable that it instantly anihilates itself :) .)
--- www.dogsticks.org ---
Michael Kilpatrick
The word "chapel" usually denotes a place of Christian worship, doesn't
it? Shouldn't this building then be called something else? If it has not
furniture specific to any religion then surely it is just "an amenity" -
a rehearsal/study/meeting room?
Does the college have a chaplin? And if so, does it have a rabbi and an
iman as well? And exactly how would *not* building this chapel actually
have constituted prejudice against religious worship provided that each
private room within the college had enough floorspace for at least one
person to kneel down on and go about his private worship in his own fashion?
Michael
librar...@*nospam*btinternet.com
>>we have no (useful?) idea what consciousness means...and probably won't
>> have for long to come....
>
>Try Roger Penrose's "correct quantum gravity".
>
>He believes the brain is a quantum mechanical device (and FWIW so do
>I) and that we will understand conscious awareness when we understand
>what he calls "correct quantum gravity".
>
>Although he spends a lot of energy defending that claim, at the heart
>of it is the fact that gravity remains the last mystery to solve and
>when it is solved a grand unification will presumably be possible and
>one anticipated consequence of that grand unification will be an
>understanding of consciousness.
>
>We know something is not right with our primitive classical notions of
>space and time, so presumably when we discover correct quantum gravity
>we will break thru the illusions surrounding space and time - and that
>will lead us to an understanding of how the brain operates.
IIUC, this is based on the fairly tenuous idea that we don't
understand chemistry because it sits between the very micro (quantum
mechanics) and the macro (gravity)
I think other gaps in our knowledge will require filling before we get
to a complete understanding of consciousness
Franck Arnaud
> I don't see why Dawkins didn't say 'idea' if that's what he meant.
Isn't a meme an idea that moves around, and the way it moves is
more interesting than the idea itself? A bit like a rumour, but
more general.
Gropius Riftwynde
<mic...@mtkilpatrick.SPAMWITHEGGSfsnet.co.uk> wrote:
>Gropius Riftwynde wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 16 Nov 2004 16:09:19 +0000, Michael Kilpatrick
>> <mic...@mtkilpatrick.SPAMWITHEGGSfsnet.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Gropius Riftwynde wrote:
>> As it happens, that chapel was/is multi-denomenational, and that
>> included moslems and jews - who in fact use it. It is fairly neutral
>> regarding furniture specific to any religion.
>
>The word "chapel" usually denotes a place of Christian worship, doesn't
>it? Shouldn't this building then be called something else? If it has not
>furniture specific to any religion then surely it is just "an amenity" -
>a rehearsal/study/meeting room?
Indeed it was also used for such things last time I knew anything
about it.
>
>Does the college have a chaplin? And if so, does it have a rabbi and an
>iman as well? And exactly how would *not* building this chapel actually
>have constituted prejudice against religious worship provided that each
>private room within the college had enough floorspace for at least one
>person to kneel down on and go about his private worship in his own fashion?
The only chaplain I remember was not a Christian in any religious
sense, and he told me so. In fact he eventually went away to join
Rajneesh. But while he was there he was very good at pastoral work (he
was also a qualified analyst as I recall). I'm not an authority on
religious things, being basically a pagan, but presumably religious
people seek out their own preferred places of worship. However, the
chapel attracted a large crowd to ecumenical services. I believe this
is why Churchill wanted one - as an informal focus for people with a
religious turn of mind.
Scientists can also do some science on their knees in the privacy of
their own rooms if they wish, but it is generally considered
beneficial to have a bunch of them together in a laboratory, where
they can rubbish each others' hypotheses over coffee.
GR
Gropius Riftwynde
<mic...@mtkilpatrick.SPAMWITHEGGSfsnet.co.uk> wrote:
[snip]
>The universe has no "purpose" or
>"deeper" anything. It just *is*.
>
Well I'm glad we've got that little matter stampted and posted. Can we
go to the pub now
GR
Michael Kilpatrick
>
> Scientists can also do some science on their knees in the privacy of
> their own rooms if they wish, but it is generally considered
> beneficial to have a bunch of them together in a laboratory, where
> they can rubbish each others' hypotheses over coffee.
>
Hmmm, whereas a group of Christians/muslims/you-name-its huddled
together over coffee will be more prone to wash over their minor
internal differences in the interests of a united front rubbishing
another major religion....
Michael
Prime Element
news:7cdip05699bavur3k...@4ax.com...> typed:
>
>>(Reply to a thread on a quasi-professional scientific group about
>>Dawkins latest book in which he claims race differences in IQ have no
>>social application)
>
> application it has
Well the only "social application" as such that I can think of is in
preventing the racial discrimination known as positive discrimination,
university ethnicity quotas etc. by providing a counterargument to the idea
that underrepresentation of a race is necessarily due to factors other than
ability.
There seems scarcely any situation at all where discriminating against
different races on the basis of their *average* IQ is useful. The only
possible application would have to be some situation where it would be
impossible to give the individual in question an actual IQ test and
therefore not have to estimate IQ just using the data that they are of a
particular race.
>
>>Richard Dawkins appears to be getting soft in his old age.
>
> didn't take you that long...are you over 14...no, can't be....
> far too shallow and immature...or is it sommat about your near
> invisible imaginary 'iq'
>
> rest binned due to terminal boredom...
Gropius Riftwynde
Surely ideas move around, too, when people share them. As I understand
it this is basiclly what he was saying, except that he called them
memes, because it sounded more original and had more marketing
potential.
GR
Anubis
<francis...@spamsomeoneelse.dogsticks.org> wrote:
>(I've read Penrose's hypothesis about quantum gravity and consiousness
>and found it very difficult to understand; something about the wave
>function of a mental process collapsing when it reaches the level of 1
>graviton or something; but I didn't understand fundamentally why
>consciousness has to have anything to do with gravity. On the one hand I
>realise these are difficult concepts to explaing to the lay reader, but
>on the other hand, I found Penrose generally rather poor at getting his
>point across.)
Be sure to read his latest:
The Large, the Small and the Human Mind
by Roger Penrose
Hardcover - 202 pages (April 1997)
Cambridge Univ Press
I find him rather obscure too.
>If we don't destroy ourselves before we've got there of course :( (On a
>whimsical note here, Douglas Adams and Gabriel Garcia Marquez both
>suggest that as soon as a species understands the universe, it may be
>inevitable that it instantly anihilates itself :) .)
Marquez is fascinated with magical reality. Sometimes I think he may
be right, except the hard-core realist in me comes to the rescue.
When you think about it, landing a man on the Moon is magical reality.
Anubis
libraryofalex@*nospam*btinternet.com wrote:
>I think other gaps in our knowledge will require filling before we get
>to a complete understanding of consciousness
According to Turing, Goedel and Chaitin, to name just a few, there are
vast regions of knowledge that we will never understand because they
are unknowable.
For example it is not possible to know whether any Turing Machine will
halt. We can know in some instances but not in general. If there was a
way to know, it would have to be computable - otherwise how would we
know it. But the Halting Problem tells us that such knowledge is
uncomputable.
If we could compute whether any Turing Machine would halt, then we
could add that calculation to the Turing machine in front and use the
result to do the exact opposite. Now what's the calculation going to
reveal?
If this calculation says that the TM will halt, then the steering
logic will put the TM into an infinite loop. If it says that the TM
will never halt, then the steering logic will execute the halt
instruction.
Such contradictions are unacceptable in an objective realist
Worldview. Such contradictions tell us immediately that such a
scenario is unreal - it cannot exist. Therefore there is no such
calculation and that means the question of whether any Turing Machine
will halt or not is unknowable.
There are other things in reality that are intrinsically unknowable.
For example the time that any radioactive nucleus will decay is
intrinsically unknowable. That can be shown both theoretically in
second order perturbation theory and experimentally with the Mossbauer
effect.
I ought to know - I spent my scientific career studying random
processes in quantum mechanics, both theoretically and experimentally.
What happens to science one we have confronted the boundary of the
unknowable? We learn to live in a stochastic world where the only way
we can know anything is to conduct experiments.
For example, you can always run the particular Turing Machine in
question and if it does halt, that is no longer unknowable for that
particular instance. But in general you can't know because it would
require an infinite amount of runtime to decide experimentally.
What's it like to live in a stochastic world? To some extent we do
because human behavior is not completely predictable - and for the
same basic reasons a Turing Machine is not predictable.
Peter Ellis
Sort of. "Idea" is a bit too nebulous, though.
The point is that you can use at least some of the tools of genetics to
examine how ideas spread within a population, and how different ideas
compete for mind share.
He coined the term "meme" (actually a diminutive of "mimeme") to mean
the idea-analogue of a gene. That is, an idea which is sufficiently
simple and robust to be transmitted very nearly unchanged from one mind
to another.
"Christianity" isn't a meme (though it is an idea) - it's too complex,
nobody's understanding of it is the same as any other.
"Auld Lang Syne" is a meme - one person can teach it to another person
with minimal alteration. In fact, it's a perfect example of Darwinian
competition among memes. There are different versions out there:
witness the people that sing the original "... for Auld Lang Syne", and
the newer variant "... for the sake of Auld Lang Syne". The latter is
a more successful meme - if you take a random sampling of people, more
of them sing the latter than the former. He hypothesised that the
mutant meme transmits more efficiently because it's simpler to sing
(one syllable per note, no slurring), and the sibilants make it more
easily heard in choral singing. Don't know if the hypothesis has been
tested, but there you go.
It's more than a simple catch phrase for "idea" - in fact the
suggestion that you can use genetic analogies for how ideas propagate
is now so widespread that it's taken as truism, which is why people
fail to see the point of the coinage.
Peter
ekur...@whoknowswhere.com
> On Tue, 16 Nov 2004 20:12:44 +0000 (UTC),
> libraryofalex@*nospam*btinternet.com wrote:
>
>
>>I think other gaps in our knowledge will require filling before we get
>>to a complete understanding of consciousness
>
>
> According to Turing, Goedel and Chaitin, to name just a few, there are
> vast regions of knowledge that we will never understand because they
> are unknowable.
>
> For example it is not possible to know whether any Turing Machine will
> halt. We can know in some instances but not in general. If there was a
> way to know, it would have to be computable - otherwise how would we
> know it. But the Halting Problem tells us that such knowledge is
> uncomputable.
But how do we know that they are "vast". There may be a vast (or
infinite) number of TM's of the above kind, or a vast (or infinite)
number of theorems within an axiom system that we cannot prove, but how
do you get from there to "vast regions of knowledge"?
For most people, "vast regions of knowledge" refers to the long-standing
questions about life, the universe and everything, not whether this or
that TM halts, or when a nucleus will emit the next gamma particle.
> If we could compute whether any Turing Machine would halt, then we
> could add that calculation to the Turing machine in front and use the
> result to do the exact opposite. Now what's the calculation going to
> reveal?
>
> If this calculation says that the TM will halt, then the steering
> logic will put the TM into an infinite loop. If it says that the TM
> will never halt, then the steering logic will execute the halt
> instruction.
>
> Such contradictions are unacceptable in an objective realist
> Worldview. Such contradictions tell us immediately that such a
> scenario is unreal - it cannot exist. Therefore there is no such
> calculation and that means the question of whether any Turing Machine
> will halt or not is unknowable.
>
> There are other things in reality that are intrinsically unknowable.
> For example the time that any radioactive nucleus will decay is
> intrinsically unknowable. That can be shown both theoretically in
> second order perturbation theory and experimentally with the Mossbauer
> effect.
>
> I ought to know - I spent my scientific career studying random
> processes in quantum mechanics, both theoretically and experimentally.
>
> What happens to science one we have confronted the boundary of the
> unknowable? We learn to live in a stochastic world where the only way
> we can know anything is to conduct experiments.
It really depends on what is on this side of the knowable. Do we really
care about knowing everything, or just certain things relevant to the
nature of our existence?
librar...@*nospam*btinternet.com
>>I think other gaps in our knowledge will require filling before we get
>>to a complete understanding of consciousness
>
>According to Turing, Goedel and Chaitin, to name just a few, there are
>vast regions of knowledge that we will never understand because they
>are unknowable.
Maybe. Goedel doesn't claim this though, IIUC. Only that there are
unknowable things in axiomatic systems. That we 'know' they are wrong
implies that the human brain is not axiomatic. But I accept that there
are multiple other readings of his work
>For example it is not possible to know whether any Turing Machine will
>halt. We can know in some instances but not in general. If there was a
>way to know, it would have to be computable - otherwise how would we
>know it. But the Halting Problem tells us that such knowledge is
>uncomputable.
Agreed
>If we could compute whether any Turing Machine would halt, then we
>could add that calculation to the Turing machine in front and use the
>result to do the exact opposite. Now what's the calculation going to
>reveal?
>
>If this calculation says that the TM will halt, then the steering
>logic will put the TM into an infinite loop. If it says that the TM
>will never halt, then the steering logic will execute the halt
>instruction.
>
>Such contradictions are unacceptable in an objective realist
>Worldview. Such contradictions tell us immediately that such a
>scenario is unreal - it cannot exist. Therefore there is no such
>calculation and that means the question of whether any Turing Machine
>will halt or not is unknowable.
>
>There are other things in reality that are intrinsically unknowable.
>For example the time that any radioactive nucleus will decay is
>intrinsically unknowable. That can be shown both theoretically in
>second order perturbation theory and experimentally with the Mossbauer
>effect.
>
>I ought to know - I spent my scientific career studying random
>processes in quantum mechanics, both theoretically and experimentally.
>
>What happens to science one we have confronted the boundary of the
>unknowable? We learn to live in a stochastic world where the only way
>we can know anything is to conduct experiments.
Agreed
>For example, you can always run the particular Turing Machine in
>question and if it does halt, that is no longer unknowable for that
>particular instance. But in general you can't know because it would
>require an infinite amount of runtime to decide experimentally.
>
>What's it like to live in a stochastic world? To some extent we do
>because human behavior is not completely predictable - and for the
>same basic reasons a Turing Machine is not predictable.
Agreed
John Morrison
> Francis Turton wrote:
>
>> This (as I see it) fallacious reasoning is one reason I'm not
>> impressed by Dawkins; the other is his hysterical hatred of people
>> intolerant bigot as those he is constantly railing against in such
>> vitriolic terms.
>
>
> many instances stifled scientific and cultural progress. Quite
> rightly, spiritual belief is something to be scorned. There is
> certainly nothing "hysterical" about Dawkins' anti-spiritual
> viewpoint. We are all entitled to stand up and voice our feelings
> towards any belief system that we think is positively bad for
> society. These days we can speak our minds without being burnt at the
> stake, thankfully.
>
Michael,
I hope that you, and a few others, might make an exception for at least
one religion: Buddhism. It is non-theistic, and its founder (Gautama
Siddhartha) made a point of telling his disciples that the universe works by
rules (laws?) which are discoverable, and that there are no "miracles".
By that I do _not_ mean that everyone should be a Buddhist - I'm a sort
of failed one - just that it has things about it which are so unlikely to
get in the way of science (*in the large*) as to be negligible. It is, to
me, notable that it is only _theistic_ religions which have elements which
get in the way of scientific thought.
Dawkins calls himself an atheist. I suspect that he is more like an
anti-theist ...
Two other possible exceptions: Zoroastrianism and Hinduism. The former
(as far as I know) was *never* invoked to cause wars - and Buddhism was
founded by a man who was criticizing the latter. In each case (Buddhism,
Zoroastrianism and Hinduism) it seems to me the beliefs (apply inverted
commas around that word if you wish) are notable for the fact that the
_practices_ are all-important, and the actual _beliefs_ fade into
insignificance, when compared with the practices.
I hope that this helps, even if it is just a tad off-topic.
Best wishes,
John
johnDOTmorrisonATtescoDOTnet
--
"God doesn't believe in atheists." - [Trad.]
Francis Turton
>>
>> Why do people keep insisting that you need to be religious to be a
>> bastard?
>
>
> I never insisted so, but it does often help! Hmmm, perhaps we can draw
> up a list of the top twenty bastards of the last 3000 years and see how
> many of them drew their strength from their faith? I've no idea what the
> result would be.
>
I don't know that such a list would prove much - after all, until a
couple of hundred years ago, no one had much of a choice but to be
religious, since not to be so would largely be to be ostracised by
society; and a couple of hundred years before *that*, there wasn't even
any good *reason* not to be religious, as there were generally no
alternative explanations for phenomena.
>>
>> I was not denying Dawkins' right to voice his beliefs. However, I am
>> equally entitled to voice mine, namely that I consider him an
>> intolerant bigot who, I strongly suspect, would deny the right of
>> religious people to voice *their* beliefs if he could.
>
>
> Is it not conceivable that he believes publicy-stated religious views
> are as dangerous to society as, say, racist views?
He may believe that, but surely the point at which religious statements
become as pernicious as racist statements is the point at which they
cease to be acceptable in the eyes of the law.
If Dawkins thinks the statement "There is a God who judges us all when
we die" is as unacceptable as "Black people are innately inferior", then
I think he has got a problem with perspective.
> As you mentioned
> Hitler earlier, we could obvserve that people are as susceptible to
> indoctrination by racist politics as they are by religious propaganda.
> It seems quite right to ensure that religious is as de-established as
> possible from realms of life such as politics, academia, etc.
>
> Are you saying that Dawkins wishes to make religious worship in the home
> illegal?
No, I was merely implying that I wouldn't be surprised if that were the
case. Possibly my statement was libellous :)
> If he's not but wishes to divorce it entirely from academia and
> politics, let's discuss the details so I can see what the problem is
> beyond the objections to his scornful, confrontational attitude. It's a
> good year since I heard Dawkins' speaking at length on this subject.
>
I must stress that it is Dawkins' scornful, confrontational attitude
that I find offensive - not his atheism or his rejection of the
existence of certain 'mystical'-type phenomena that personally (from
both reading and observation) I think may have *some* validity, if not
as much as is sometimes claimed.
>
>> I am rather inclined to suppose that there may indeed be a deeper
>> reality, of which the world revealed to us by our senses is merely, as
>> it were, a shadow. I can't prove any of it, and I'm not making any
>> attempt to convince you of this possibility; I'm merely indicating
>> broadly where I stand in this debate.
>>
>
> I'd be more than happy to discuss the needs of the human soul, the
> propensity of that soul to attribute incomprehensible things to spirits,
> or any other subject, tangible or otherwise, that may be encompassed by
> the wide blanket that is "spirituality". However, I'm sorry, but what
> you say above means nothing to me. The universe has no "purpose" or
> "deeper" anything. It just *is*.
I wasn't talking about a *universal* teleological purpose as such. As
for a deeper reality, another way of putting it is that I think there
may be influences abroad that shape the universe in non-mechanistic
ways. I do not think these influences (if they exist) can be divorced
from matter, indeed on one level they must be embodied in matter
(whatever matter is - lest we forget, science is very uncertain about
that very question).
The way I see it, animal consciousness may be a local manifestation of,
and/or a development of, a kind of 'proto-consciousness' that is
inherent in the very nature of matter and energy.
Numerous respected scientists have suggested things to this effect -
Roger Penrose, Paul Davies, Gerald Edelmann, Nick Herbert to name a
handful whose books I've read.
To home in on one of those authors: Penrose, in 'The Emperor's New
Mind', refers to the phenomenon of quasicrystals - structures whose
physical geometry is not 'allowed' if non-local rules of assembly are
assumed. In other words, as the crystal forms, it is as though it has to
'think in advance' about how it will fit itself together - there is a
kind of concord between what forms at one point of it and what forms at
another. (At least, that is my understanding.)
This kind of apparent 'teamwork' between particles suggests to Penrose
some kind of as yet unexplained ordering principle that manifests as a
'groping' towards purpose that would not be achieved through merely
random interactions of particles. The remarkable evolution of the eye is
an oft-cited instance of matter almost seeming to 'know' what it wanted
in advance. (AIUI the eye has actually evolved pretty much from scratch
*four times*, which even given the immense age of the earth is
*enormously* improbable if one assumes evolution to be a *completely*
random process.)
These are all just ideas of course, but pretty interesting ones. I'm not
suggesting that science is going to end up by proving that there is a
big man with a beard behind things after all, but rather that there is
some evidence that 'proto-consciousness' might not be just a function of
the arrangement of matter, but might have a hand in arranging matter in
the first place.
There's also the apparent paradox of subatomic particles seeming to
change their state instantly (i.e. faster than light) in response to a
measurement performed on a 'twin' particle, regardless of how far away
the 'twin' particle is.
All interesting stuff.
>> Apart from all of which: anyone who thinks science has solved all the
>> mysteries of existence doesn't know as much about science as they
>> think they do.
>
>
> On that point, the worst scientist is the one who gets so far in
> unravelling the deepest mysteries of the universe in a way which may
> quite frankly be beyond the comprehension of a lot of people, yet who
> still feels the need to mention God when he hits the buffers rather than
> simply acknowledging the lack of explanation (at the moment) for that
> "next level".
I agree, but few of the scientists whose writings I've found convincing
(insofar as I've understood them, which isn't always the case :) )
invoke God in the crude way you suggest. (Paul Davies is an exception,
and I'm not sure whether I'd be as uncritical of his books now as I was
when I read them 15 years ago.)
> I am quite happy to acknowledge that I shall never (I
> reckon) understand the universe fully and may also be incapable of
> understanding some of the theories that scientists have evolved or may
> evolve in the future. Having acknowledged that I still feel that
> spiritual faith has no relevance to this matter.
>
I suppose it all depends on one's understanding of the term 'spiritual
faith'.
My own view of whether there is 'nothing out there' or whether there are
unexplained 'patterning' influences abroad has changed several times.
I've been through phases of total Sartre-esque scepticism - i.e. behind
the world of tangible phenomena there is nothing - and what you might
call quasi-mysticism. Recently, as you'll have gathered, I've swung
somewhat back towards the latter pole. That may change, though: my main
motivator is an interest in these issues, not particularly a desire to
believe one thing or the other.
(Anyone still reading? :| )
--- www.dogsticks.org ---
Roy Jose Lorr
abelard wrote:
>
> --
> web site at www.abelard.org - news and comment service, logic,
> energy, education, politics, etc >958,884 document calls in a year
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> all that is necessary for [] walk quietly and carry
> the triumph of evil is that [] a big stick.
> good people do nothing [] trust actions not words
> only when it's funny -- roger rabbit
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Just back from visiting to your web site for the first time:
--
The last stage of
utopian sentimentalism
is homicidal mania.
Francis Turton
> Two other possible exceptions: Zoroastrianism and Hinduism. The former
> (as far as I know) was *never* invoked to cause wars - and Buddhism was
> founded by a man who was criticizing the latter. In each case (Buddhism,
> Zoroastrianism and Hinduism) it seems to me the beliefs (apply inverted
> commas around that word if you wish) are notable for the fact that the
> _practices_ are all-important, and the actual _beliefs_ fade into
> insignificance, when compared with the practices.
>
Though AIUI it is not the practices that are important as ends in
themselves, but rather in terms of the effect they have on one's
consciousness.
(I did a Buddhist meditation course last year, and was pretty impressed
with what I learned, but unfortunately I'm too lazy to meditate
properly. :( )
--- www.dogsticks.org ---
John Morrison
My recollection was that Dawkins started to use the word "meme" (or
"mimeme") as a technical term in a specific context: he pointed out that it
was extraordinarily unlikely that at a single gene of Socrates' still
existed anywhere in human race "as it is", whereas Socrates' ideas still
exist in everyday conversation, and in academic thought (although he
singularly failed to point out that we have a combination of Plato and the
recorded (written) word to thank for this fact). I have no wish to sound too
much like Dawkins, but, in his terms, it is worth noting that, as long as
suitable care be taken by the particular pseudo-propagators of aperiodic
items called genes which we all know better as human beings, writings
(aperiodic elements called "words", which constitute, in Dawkins' terms,
memes) will be _far_ less labile than genes. (I don't like writing things
"like that", but I can't do better at this time of the morning.)
Between "idea" and "meme" - is the difference one of specificity?
How about selfish "memes"? Was it not Ernst Mach who pointed out that
scientific ideas finally die out when their last supporter dies? (Methinks
Mach had his tongue planted very firmly in his cheek ...)
John
johnDOTmorrisonATtescoDOTnet
--
"Perfection [in design] is achieved not when there is nothing left to add,
but rather when there is nothing left to take away." - Antoine de
Saint-Exupéry
John Morrison
> Prime Element wrote:
>>
>> No matter about average IQ and how much and in what ways genes and
>> environment affect it please be advised that "hispanic" is NOT a
>> race.
>
> The notion of race is so vague that it can have no serious use.
However, please note that "Hispanic" (and, FWIW, "Semitic") are
perfectly acceptable, provided that they are used to refer to (reasonably
closely related) groups of languages.
John
johnDOTmorrisonATtescoDOTnet
--
"During a wedding ceremony, members of the audience cried. Scientists
examined the tears. They determined the liquid was eye dew." - Peter L.
Montgomery
BigCheese
<libraryofalex@*nospam*btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:e21lp0d3aof80akar...@4ax.com...
However you dress it up, you still talk bollocks.
Magwitch
As a footnote - my theory is: the universe is stuff... So there!
alan truelove
>Well the only "social application" as such that I can think of is in
>preventing the racial discrimination known as positive discrimination,
>university ethnicity quotas etc. by providing a counterargument to the idea
>that underrepresentation of a race is necessarily due to factors other than
>ability.
>
>There seems scarcely any situation at all where discriminating against
>different races on the basis of their *average* IQ is useful. The only
>possible application would have to be some situation where it would be
>impossible to give the individual in question an actual IQ test and
>therefore not have to estimate IQ just using the data that they are of a
>particular race.
Yes you have expressed this very well.
And this is precisely the way it has worked out over the last 30 years
in the US, and most of the sophisticated States (Calif, Texas etc)
Other social applications would be speculative, and must await a
genomic basis (if at all)- eg if it is found that one race tends to be
criminal, then .. (etc etc)
This is where Rushton et al come in.
I'm amazed this thread went on so long - it was merely to point out
that Dawkins is being a twit in his comment. At least he is not
trying to lie and say there are no genetically caused racial
differences.
Peter Ellis
>
> How about selfish "memes"? Was it not Ernst Mach who pointed out that
>scientific ideas finally die out when their last supporter dies? (Methinks
>Mach had his tongue planted very firmly in his cheek ...)
Interesting idea. "Selfish" in the genetic context indicates a genetic
element whose transmission is favoured despite the element itself
having a neutral or detrimental effect on the reproductive fitness of
the individual bearing the element.
The analogous situation for a meme would be an idea which spreads
despite being hazardous to the mental capacity of the thinker.
Hmmm... "I know a song that'll get on your nerves, get on your nerves,
get on your nerves....."
On a more technical level, I keep encountering people (even biology
undergraduates!) who think the X chromosome is X-shaped and the Y
chromosome is Y-shaped. Reasonably intuitive and compelling idea: flat
out wrong and an active hindrance to understanding how things actually
work.
Peter
Naich
> There seems scarcely any situation at all where discriminating against
> different races on the basis of their *average* IQ is useful. The only
> possible application would have to be some situation where it would be
> impossible to give the individual in question an actual IQ test and
> therefore not have to estimate IQ just using the data that they are of a
> particular race.
But it's pointless applying average IQs to individuals as the difference
in average IQs is tiny compared to the range of IQs of individuals.
Naich.
--
http://www.fuzzyblobs.com .......... My blurry pics.
http://www.maggenhoof.co.uk/thoday . Improving our new dump.
http://www.veggiefoodguide.co.uk ... Time for some nice food.
http://www.sodwork.com ............. Right. I've had enough.
Motto: Me a skeptic? I hope you have proof.
Michael Kilpatrick
> Michael Kilpatrick wrote:
>
[Dawkins]
>>
>> Is it not conceivable that he believes publicy-stated religious views
>> are as dangerous to society as, say, racist views?
>
>
> He may believe that, but surely the point at which religious statements
> become as pernicious as racist statements is the point at which they
> cease to be acceptable in the eyes of the law.
>
> If Dawkins thinks the statement "There is a God who judges us all when
> we die" is as unacceptable as "Black people are innately inferior", then
> I think he has got a problem with perspective.
I don't believe that is necessarily the case, I'm afraid. If the
*indirect* threat of religious preaching and all that follows from it
can be thought to be dangerous, then yes, Dawkins has a point. There
would be no immediate incitement to enslave/murder blacks if I were to
propose the existence of a God - unlike the other statement - however,
the long-term effects on attitudes and society as a whole can be very
profound. I happen to think society would be more progressive and
tolerant if people were discouraged from taking a religious faith. I
believe it's dangerous but I can't measure it or describe it in the same
simple terms as an immediate incitement to racial enslavement. Dawkins
might well argue that his perspective is broad and forward-thinking,
rather than narrow and immediate. I don't see that as a *problem* with
perspective. Quite the opposite.
[snip]
> Numerous respected scientists have suggested things to this effect -
> Roger Penrose, Paul Davies, Gerald Edelmann, Nick Herbert to name a
> handful whose books I've read.
>
> To home in on one of those authors: Penrose, in 'The Emperor's New
> Mind', refers to the phenomenon of quasicrystals - structures whose
> physical geometry is not 'allowed' if non-local rules of assembly are
> assumed. In other words, as the crystal forms, it is as though it has to
> 'think in advance' about how it will fit itself together - there is a
> kind of concord between what forms at one point of it and what forms at
> another. (At least, that is my understanding.)
I've read both The Emperor's.... and Shadows of the Mind, albeit
skipping a few sections when he waded too deeply into quantum theory. I
was trying to reread TENM recently but couldn't find the patience. I
can't write a long enough reply even though I appreciate a lot of what
you have written. I'll mention the eye thing, though...
>
> This kind of apparent 'teamwork' between particles suggests to Penrose
> some kind of as yet unexplained ordering principle that manifests as a
> 'groping' towards purpose that would not be achieved through merely
> random interactions of particles. The remarkable evolution of the eye is
> an oft-cited instance of matter almost seeming to 'know' what it wanted
> in advance. (AIUI the eye has actually evolved pretty much from scratch
> *four times*, which even given the immense age of the earth is
> *enormously* improbable if one assumes evolution to be a *completely*
> random process.)
Again, you are demonstrating the propensity to assume that because
something is beautiful/marvellous it's an improbable evolutionary step
when in fact multiple evolution of many similar eyes tells us just
exactly how simple the eye really is. You can examine the presumed
evolutionary stages between a simple flat eye and a complex spherical
eye such as ours, as was done (by Dawkins, was it?) in a RS Christmas
Lecture a few years ago, it's not remarkable, marvellous, beautiful,
unimaginable thing at all. It's just an eye. You take a flat
light-sensitive surface, bend it until it closes up into a sphere with a
pinhole, evolve the pinhole into a flexible lens, and hey presto. Each
evolutionary step can be shown to be beneficial and relatively simple or
small. No big deal. It's just an eye.
[snip]
>> On that point, the worst scientist is the one who......
>> ......still feels the need to mention God when he hits the buffers
> I agree, but few of the scientists whose writings I've found convincing
> (insofar as I've understood them, which isn't always the case :) )
> invoke God in the crude way you suggest.
True. However, I find it equally annoying when they merely mention (not
invoke) or simply pay lip-service to the idea of God for little reason.
Stephen Hawkin does it in A Brief History of Time. In fact, the very
last word of the concluding chapter is God, if I recall correctly. I'll
have to have a look.
Michael
John Hall
wrote in message
news:419a3089$0$755$cc9e...@news-text.dial.pipex.com...
> I never insisted so, but it does often help! Hmmm, perhaps we can draw
> up a list of the top twenty bastards of the last 3000 years and see
> how many of them drew their strength from their faith? I've no idea
> what the result would be.
Or how many just used religion as a means to accomplish their own ends?
My history is not great, but were the crusades _really_ about spreading
Christianity or was Christianity just a pretext for enlarging an empire?
john
Mike Clark
I understand it as an idea, or thought, that replicates itself
successfully. It might undergo mutation as it replicates, but so long as
it is successful in that replication it will persist. The concept of a
god is an example. Whether god exists or does not is largely independent
of the fact that the idea of a god seems to replicate quite successfully
in the human population.
Mike <URL:http://www.path.cam.ac.uk/~mrc7/>
--
o/ \\ // |\ ,_ o Mike Clark
<\__,\\ // __o | \ / /\, "A mountain climbing, cycling, skiing,
"> || _`\<,_ |__\ \> | immunology lecturer, antibody engineer and
` || (_)/ (_) | \corn computer user"
Mike Clark
It was more to do with the analogy with genes which replicate, mutate
and compete, such that over time successful genes dominate over
unsuccessful in the population. Ideas certainly move around, but if you
think of ideas as made up of component memes that can replicate and
mutate you approach the analogy that I think Dawkins intended to make
with genes.
Mike Clark
<URL:mailto:francis...@spamsomeoneelse.dogsticks.org> wrote:
> Michael Kilpatrick wrote:
>
> >>
> >> Why do people keep insisting that you need to be religious to be a
> >> bastard?
> >
> >
> > I never insisted so, but it does often help! Hmmm, perhaps we can
> > draw up a list of the top twenty bastards of the last 3000 years
> > and see how many of them drew their strength from their faith? I've
> > no idea what the result would be.
> >
>
> I don't know that such a list would prove much - after all, until a
> couple of hundred years ago, no one had much of a choice but to be
> religious, since not to be so would largely be to be ostracised by
> society; and a couple of hundred years before *that*, there wasn't even
> any good *reason* not to be religious, as there were generally no
> alternative explanations for phenomena.
Let's get this into perspective. If in referring to being ostracised you
are using a euphemism for being persecuted, and probably penalised,
tortured, and killed, then I think you provide support for Michael's
viewpoint.
>
> > >
> > > I was not denying Dawkins' right to voice his beliefs. However, I
> > > am equally entitled to voice mine, namely that I consider him an
> > > intolerant bigot who, I strongly suspect, would deny the right of
> > > religious people to voice *their* beliefs if he could.
> >
> >
> > Is it not conceivable that he believes publicy-stated religious views
> > are as dangerous to society as, say, racist views?
>
> He may believe that, but surely the point at which religious statements
> become as pernicious as racist statements is the point at which they
> cease to be acceptable in the eyes of the law.
But as that Born Again Christian, G.W. Bush and his Christian henchman
A. Blair have shown there are ways of dealing with the law when you want
to kill and victimise other people.
>
> If Dawkins thinks the statement "There is a God who judges us all when
> we die" is as unacceptable as "Black people are innately inferior",
> then I think he has got a problem with perspective.
>
How about "when we go into battle remember that god is on our side"?
Gropius Riftwynde
<mic...@mtkilpatrick.SPAMWITHEGGSfsnet.co.uk> wrote:
>I don't believe that is necessarily the case, I'm afraid. If the
>*indirect* threat of religious preaching and all that follows from it
>can be thought to be dangerous, then yes, Dawkins has a point. There
>would be no immediate incitement to enslave/murder blacks if I were to
>propose the existence of a God - unlike the other statement - however,
>the long-term effects on attitudes and society as a whole can be very
>profound. I happen to think society would be more progressive and
>tolerant if people were discouraged from taking a religious faith. I
>believe it's dangerous but I can't measure it or describe it in the same
>simple terms as an immediate incitement to racial enslavement. Dawkins
>might well argue that his perspective is broad and forward-thinking,
>rather than narrow and immediate. I don't see that as a *problem* with
>perspective. Quite the opposite.
[snip]
I think you are into some muddled thinking here (notwithstanding your
later statements about aspects of evolution)
The aspects of religion you are discussing here are basically
political - and indeed the political aspects of religion have been a
problem for millennia, and still are.
As for what people basically believe (and this takes in aspects of
ethics as much as spiritual or temporal belief), then I suggest that
tolerance works all ways, and so it should. You cannot approach the
average scientist and expect them necessarly to have an intrinsic
belief in anything but science: "I've invented nuclear fishun - issnot
myfault guv if some geezer wanna blow people up wiv it." Fortunately a
lot of scientists do have some notion of the human implications of
what they do, and some notion of the fact that they too are human, and
therefore subject to human concerns and ethical responsibilities. In
fact, many of them are even religious! If science does not have any
relevant human implications, then it is pointless; obviously it can
*only* have relevance in relation to to humanity, otherwise it would
be as pointless as trainspotting. So a diversity of belief and moral
opinion is very important. No individual is forced to believe anything
about anything, but the great debate is a great humanising influence.
It doesn't stop some scientists exhibiting monomaniacal stupidity with
wide social implications, though.
GR
Chris Brown
Francis Turton <francis...@spamsomeoneelse.dogsticks.org> wrote:
>and a couple of hundred years before *that*, there wasn't even
>any good *reason* not to be religious, as there were generally no
>alternative explanations for phenomena.
This sentence, I think, shows one of the fundemental differences between the
theistic and atheistic viewpoint. From the atheistic viewpoint, the idea
that religion should provide some sort of default explanation for natural
phenomena is bemusing. The obvious real default is "we don't know", rather
than "a god did it", which is counter productive anyway, as it leaves you
with a whole load of new stuff to try and explain that you weren't bothered
about before.
"We don't know" is also far more intellectually honest, but it does seem to
be instinctively a unsatisfactory for the kind of curious animals we are. So
unsatisfactory, in fact, that our natural behaviour seems to be to make up
an explanation instead. To that extent, one could regard religion as a
default, but I'm guesisng that's not quite what you had in mind when you
wrote the above.
Mike Clark
<URL:mailto:rift...@hotmail.com> wrote:
[snip]
> If science does not have any relevant human implications, then it is
> pointless; obviously it can *only* have relevance in relation to to
> humanity, otherwise it would be as pointless as trainspotting.
This is where the arguments over the difference between Science and
Technology occur. At its ultimate level there really need not be any
relevance to humanity, or any practical application of scientific facts.
In its purest sense scientific research can be very much like
trainspotting. It can be all about simply observing and recording.
Indeed the personality traits that can make for a good scientist might
also make for a dedicated trainspotter (Its probably no coincidence that
Cambridge is full of individuals who exhibit various degrees of autistic
behaviour at a higher frequency than other UK cities). Of course when it
comes to justifying the allocation of public funds to scientific
research, the usual justification is that spin off technological
advances can be based on those purest scientific ideas.
Roy Jose Lorr
Francis Turton wrote:
> Anubis wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 16 Nov 2004 17:16:00 +0100, abelard <abel...@abelard.org>
> > wrote:
> >
> >
> >>we have no (useful?) idea what consciousness means...and probably won't
> >> have for long to come....
> >
> >
> > Try Roger Penrose's "correct quantum gravity".
> >
> > He believes the brain is a quantum mechanical device (and FWIW so do
> > I) and that we will understand conscious awareness when we understand
> > what he calls "correct quantum gravity".
> >
> > Although he spends a lot of energy defending that claim, at the heart
> > of it is the fact that gravity remains the last mystery to solve and
> > when it is solved a grand unification will presumably be possible and
> > one anticipated consequence of that grand unification will be an
> > understanding of consciousness.
> >
>
> The idea that consciousness is a quantum process seems to have a lot of
> favour among scientists at the moment. Nick Herbert broaches this
> subject in his excellent book 'Quantum Reality' - though IIRC he doesn't
> delve into the notion of quantum gravity.
>
> (I've read Penrose's hypothesis about quantum gravity and consiousness
> and found it very difficult to understand; something about the wave
> function of a mental process collapsing when it reaches the level of 1
> graviton or something; but I didn't understand fundamentally why
> consciousness has to have anything to do with gravity. On the one hand I
> realise these are difficult concepts to explaing to the lay reader, but
> on the other hand, I found Penrose generally rather poor at getting his
> point across.)
>
> > We know something is not right with our primitive classical notions of
> > space and time, so presumably when we discover correct quantum gravity
> > we will break thru the illusions surrounding space and time - and that
> > will lead us to an understanding of how the brain operates.
> >
>
> This is the point I was making elsewhere - that our notions of the
> things that seem to us the very fabric of the universe (space, time,
> consciousness) are in fact still very poorly understood and that
> whatever *does* finally explain these things will likely revolutionise
> our understanding of the universe.
>
> If we don't destroy ourselves before we've got there of course :( (On a
> whimsical note here, Douglas Adams and Gabriel Garcia Marquez both
> suggest that as soon as a species understands the universe, it may be
> inevitable that it instantly anihilates itself :) .)
Coming face to face with God (when presumably man reveals the
last secret in the universe) is instant anihilation.
Richard Meredith
francis...@spamsomeoneelse.dogsticks.org (Francis Turton) wrotd:
> Buddhism, for example, is a singularly tolerant
> religion that very few have yet managed to distort into dogmas of
> violence and retribution.
One of the odd things about Buddhism seems to be that it is possibly the
only major religion which is entirely compatible with atheism. Indeed
recently I heard a Buddhist describing atheism as a fundamental part of
Buddhism.
--
Take my advice. I'm not using it.
Paul Grimes
His main reason for arguing that quantum gravity (actually he argues that
the quantum measurement process is an important part in solving both the
problems of quantum gravity and consciousness) has something to do with
consciousness is that consciousness is required by his earlier arguments to
be non-computable, and all current theories of physics are believed to be
computable in principle. Therefore the only remaining area where something
non-computational could happen is during the quantum measurement process,
for which we have no consistent theories at the moment.
It took me a couple of reads of both the Emperor's New Mind and Shadows of
the Mind to get all of his argument, and I've done the Part III Physics
Quantum Information course.
Paul
Richard Meredith
john-...@cambridgetechgroup.com (John Hall) wrotd:
> My history is not great, but were the crusades _really_ about spreading
> Christianity or was Christianity just a pretext for enlarging an empire?
Jerusalem was Christian from the conversion of Constantine in the early
fourth century until 638, when it was captured by the Moslem Caliph Omar.
He was a religiously tolerant man, readmitting the Jews, and Christianity
remained tolerated until 1010 when Caliph al-Hakim ordered the destruction
of churches and synagogues. Pope Urban ordered the First Crusade to
recapture Jerusalem in 1096.
So at one level not so much enlarging as recapturing lost territory.
Although the local version of Christianity at the time wasn't Catholic but
Orthodox, so the idea of converting an Orthodox area to Catholicism was
probably not /too/ far from Urban's mind..
Gropius Riftwynde
>In article <1100694858.4n41wvWWB60sdvhcOLJMXA@teranews>, Gropius Riftwynde
><URL:mailto:rift...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>[snip]
>> If science does not have any relevant human implications, then it is
>> pointless; obviously it can *only* have relevance in relation to to
>> humanity, otherwise it would be as pointless as trainspotting.
>
>This is where the arguments over the difference between Science and
>Technology occur. At its ultimate level there really need not be any
>relevance to humanity, or any practical application of scientific facts.
>In its purest sense scientific research can be very much like
>trainspotting. It can be all about simply observing and recording.
>Indeed the personality traits that can make for a good scientist might
>also make for a dedicated trainspotter (Its probably no coincidence that
>Cambridge is full of individuals who exhibit various degrees of autistic
>behaviour at a higher frequency than other UK cities). Of course when it
>comes to justifying the allocation of public funds to scientific
>research, the usual justification is that spin off technological
>advances can be based on those purest scientific ideas.
This sounds a lot like Truetroll claiming that he is not a racist but
a 'race realist', In other words, don't admit to a human bias but
admit instead to a disinterested interest in hypotheses about
statistical 'facts'.
GR
Gropius Riftwynde
That is a very Buddhist statement that he made. Buddhists also have a
very well developed sense of subtle humour.
GR
Anubis
>But how do we know that they are "vast". There may be a vast (or
>infinite) number of TM's of the above kind, or a vast (or infinite)
>number of theorems within an axiom system that we cannot prove, but how
>do you get from there to "vast regions of knowledge"?
>For most people, "vast regions of knowledge" refers to the long-standing
>questions about life, the universe and everything, not whether this or
>that TM halts, or when a nucleus will emit the next gamma particle.
Both Physics and Metaphysics inform us that indeed such considerations
extend to questions about "life, the universe and everything". But you
would have to be skilled in those subjects to understand it.
--
Map Of The Vast Right Wing Conspiracy:
http://home.houston.rr.com/rkba/vrwc.html
"If you build a man a fire and he will be warm for a day. If you
set a man on fire, he will be warm for the rest of his life."
Anubis
libraryofalex@*nospam*btinternet.com wrote:
>That we 'know' they are wrong
>implies that the human brain is not axiomatic.
Indeed, the brain is quantum mechanical. But the point is that however
you arrive at what you claim is the correct answer in a Godel system,
you cannot prove it.
Turing's uncomputable numbers and Godel's Theorem derive from the same
source, namely Cantor Diagonal. Russell should be consulted for the
repercussions of that.
A barber shaves everyone who does not shave themselves.
Who shaves the barber?
Anubis
>However you dress it up, you still talk bollocks.
That's because you are too dull to understand it.
ekur...@whoknowswhere.com
> On Tue, 16 Nov 2004 17:37:57 -0500, ekur...@WhoKnowsWhere.com wrote:
>
>
>>But how do we know that they are "vast". There may be a vast (or
>>infinite) number of TM's of the above kind, or a vast (or infinite)
>>number of theorems within an axiom system that we cannot prove, but how
>>do you get from there to "vast regions of knowledge"?
>
>
>>For most people, "vast regions of knowledge" refers to the long-standing
>>questions about life, the universe and everything, not whether this or
>>that TM halts, or when a nucleus will emit the next gamma particle.
>
>
> Both Physics and Metaphysics inform us that indeed such considerations
> extend to questions about "life, the universe and everything". But you
> would have to be skilled in those subjects to understand it.
>
anyone is fooled by your evasion?
Mike Clark
Of course scientists do bring their personalities, bias, and their
personal moralities into their own study of the subject. However what
that often does is to cloud the scientific issues. Ideally in scientific
study you are making factual observations, and testing hypothesies in a
rigorous manner. That many scientists allow their judgement to be
clouded does not change reality, it simply changes our current view of
reality until those clouds can be blown away.
As for the difference between someone who claims that they are not a
'racist' but are instead a 'race realist' what you need to do is
question what consequential actions they adopt based on their ideas. It
is the technological actions that are often morally questionable, not
the scientific observations.
Some of the biggest genetic differences in terms of frequencies of
particular gene alleles that I know of in the human population, when you
sample people from different geographical regions, relate to genes
probably involved in immunological phenomena. So for example people from
the far East tend to have an allele, at a much higher frequency, of an
IgG Fc receptor, called FcgRIIa-H131, that binds human IgG2, than
populations in Europe. At the same time complement C6 deficiency is much
more common in China and Japan than it is in Europe. Another example is
that the particular allele of IgG1 found most commonly in populations
from the far East called G1m(1,17) (over 90% of the population) binds
the pathogen Fc receptor from human Herpes Simplex Virus type I with
higher affinity than does the IgG1 allele G1m(3) found more commonly in
European populations (again over 90% of the population).
see a paper by one of my graduate students
Atherton, A., Armour, K.L., Bell, S., Minson, A.C., and Clark, M.R.
(2000), Eur J. Immunol. 30: 2540-547 The Herpes Simplex Virus Type 1 Fc
Receptor Discriminates between IgG1 Allotypes.
http://www.path.cam.ac.uk/~mrc7/publications/reprints/RP2000EJI30_2540.pdf
These differences in gene allele frequencies between people from
different geographical regions of the world are very real and easily
demonstrated. But all I'm doing at the moment is "trainspotting" the
differences.
BigCheese
"Anubis" <s...@sob.com> wrote in message
news:419b78d2...@news-server.houston.rr.com...
> On Wed, 17 Nov 2004 01:00:20 -0000, "BigCheese" <n...@here.com> wrote:
>
> >However you dress it up, you still talk bollocks.
>
> That's because you are too dull to understand it.
That must be it. Or perhaps I'm bright enough to see it for what it is.
Who can say?