The Stem Cell and the Incoherence of the notion of Soul
2 views
Skip to first unread message
chazwin
Feb 11, 2009, 3:25:50 PM2/11/09
to Epistemology
After the Final Christianization of Rome under Constantine a massive
debate waged for a further 1000+ years. Time that would have held
promise as under the scholars' gaze were variously the works of Plato
with the Neoplatonists and also the nascent scientific methodology of
Aristotle. Attempt to synchronize this diverse pair of thinkers with
the dogma of Christianity led to a unendurable cycle of synthesis,
heresy, conformation, denouncement, and condemnation. Under such
diverse isms such as Averroism, Thomism, Aquinism, Platonism ad
nauseum, the pendulum swung back and forth.
This unprogressive gazing of navels led to many unfortunate happenings
such as book burnings and people burnings.
At question were the most fundamental: those whose answers no Biblical
text was worthy of answering: the nature of material and spirit, the
immortality of the soul; the nature of transubstantiation; the
afterlife; the autonomy or commensurability of theology and
philosophy. These fruitless "debates" burned their way into the heart
of the Renaissance, incompatible with the myths of the Bible. The
great opportunity that was lost; to put knowledge on a sound footing,
would have to wait for inductive thinking and the great heretical
movement of science from Copernicus to Darwin.
At the heart of this confusion lay the attempt to make sense of the
incorporeal. This dissonant notion still pervades and distorts
progress in science. Where the church once held the heliocentric
hypothesis in condemnation, in an attempt to preserve the earth as
god's special creation; and fought vociferously and vigorously against
the antiquity of life and its evolution to preserve the myth of Adam
and Eve and the special creation; the forces of Christianity now
attempt to draw it veil over the area of science concerned with Stem
Cells in order to preserve the myth of the incorporeal soul. This it
does by banning research. The question is simple enough. If stem cells
can survive the death of the "person", then what status is that
person's soul. If the sum of the body's parts are that which makes a
person not unique or special, but a case where each part is no more
than a community of semi-independent cells, then where is the soul?
As these stem cells can potentially be used to rebuild that dead
person, then does the soul return, or has it a new one.
Dolly the Sheep has shown the way forward. There is no reason why a
human Dolly cannot be "created". Where then would this human Dolly
acquire her soul? Or if many clones were made would this soul be
infinitely divisible?
The meme of Christianity has managed to mutate after Copernicus,
mutate again after Darwin, but it is now utterly unrecognizable as the
Christianity of Paul, Constantine or any of the above. Will
Christianity survive the death of the Soul? Will its mutation be so
great as to sunder it further into more cults and sects?
debate waged for a further 1000+ years. Time that would have held
promise as under the scholars' gaze were variously the works of Plato
with the Neoplatonists and also the nascent scientific methodology of
Aristotle. Attempt to synchronize this diverse pair of thinkers with
the dogma of Christianity led to a unendurable cycle of synthesis,
heresy, conformation, denouncement, and condemnation. Under such
diverse isms such as Averroism, Thomism, Aquinism, Platonism ad
nauseum, the pendulum swung back and forth.
This unprogressive gazing of navels led to many unfortunate happenings
such as book burnings and people burnings.
At question were the most fundamental: those whose answers no Biblical
text was worthy of answering: the nature of material and spirit, the
immortality of the soul; the nature of transubstantiation; the
afterlife; the autonomy or commensurability of theology and
philosophy. These fruitless "debates" burned their way into the heart
of the Renaissance, incompatible with the myths of the Bible. The
great opportunity that was lost; to put knowledge on a sound footing,
would have to wait for inductive thinking and the great heretical
movement of science from Copernicus to Darwin.
At the heart of this confusion lay the attempt to make sense of the
incorporeal. This dissonant notion still pervades and distorts
progress in science. Where the church once held the heliocentric
hypothesis in condemnation, in an attempt to preserve the earth as
god's special creation; and fought vociferously and vigorously against
the antiquity of life and its evolution to preserve the myth of Adam
and Eve and the special creation; the forces of Christianity now
attempt to draw it veil over the area of science concerned with Stem
Cells in order to preserve the myth of the incorporeal soul. This it
does by banning research. The question is simple enough. If stem cells
can survive the death of the "person", then what status is that
person's soul. If the sum of the body's parts are that which makes a
person not unique or special, but a case where each part is no more
than a community of semi-independent cells, then where is the soul?
As these stem cells can potentially be used to rebuild that dead
person, then does the soul return, or has it a new one.
Dolly the Sheep has shown the way forward. There is no reason why a
human Dolly cannot be "created". Where then would this human Dolly
acquire her soul? Or if many clones were made would this soul be
infinitely divisible?
The meme of Christianity has managed to mutate after Copernicus,
mutate again after Darwin, but it is now utterly unrecognizable as the
Christianity of Paul, Constantine or any of the above. Will
Christianity survive the death of the Soul? Will its mutation be so
great as to sunder it further into more cults and sects?
nominal9
Feb 12, 2009, 6:54:58 PM2/12/09
to Epistemology
Hello Chazwin;
How are you?
I recognize that history is one of your "strong suits"... and it
happens to be only one of my own associated ones. Still, I think that
your characterization of the overall "medieval Christian Church
period".... say from the fall of the Eastern Roman empire till the
early renaissance, is a bit overly simplified... thing is, I don't
think that tou even credit the renaissance, itslef until maybe the
birth of Galileo, or so. But to the main point... "Christian medieval
scholasticism really was not as "barren" as you may think, at least
not in the early Renaissance period, at least, and philosophically
definitely not when it came to thinkers like , my buddy Billy-O
(William of Ockham). Culturally, of course the early renaissance was
teeming with admittedly Christian-influenced and yet "human" (as in
Humanism) art and literature.... St. Francis and some of his
predecessors are beyond being "religious" they are..... humane...But
then, there were the "retrograde" elemnets within the Christian Churh
experience, without a doubt, the persecutions and the Inquisitions....
but the whole was not of one and only one character... there were
different people and different elemenst, just as in all times.
As to the soul..... I think I've written about one of my favorite
poems by Walt Whitman on these message boards, I don't know if you
have seen it... the poem "Darest thou now, o soul"... I won't go into
it, now, my point being that even an atheist like Whitman could
conceive of a soul.... a certain human (intellectualized?) dignity, if
you will, in the face of the certainty of death... The Death of the
Soul, may or may not necessarily have anything to do with religion....
maybe the soul is a human experience sort of think that comes with
self-awareness. As to the Stem cell question, that's a science or a
medical question... it may account for some new cures, but what are
cures, after all, but a forestalling of the inevitable in any case....
let me know when science starts to assail the walls of human
mortality....
nominal9
How are you?
I recognize that history is one of your "strong suits"... and it
happens to be only one of my own associated ones. Still, I think that
your characterization of the overall "medieval Christian Church
period".... say from the fall of the Eastern Roman empire till the
early renaissance, is a bit overly simplified... thing is, I don't
think that tou even credit the renaissance, itslef until maybe the
birth of Galileo, or so. But to the main point... "Christian medieval
scholasticism really was not as "barren" as you may think, at least
not in the early Renaissance period, at least, and philosophically
definitely not when it came to thinkers like , my buddy Billy-O
(William of Ockham). Culturally, of course the early renaissance was
teeming with admittedly Christian-influenced and yet "human" (as in
Humanism) art and literature.... St. Francis and some of his
predecessors are beyond being "religious" they are..... humane...But
then, there were the "retrograde" elemnets within the Christian Churh
experience, without a doubt, the persecutions and the Inquisitions....
but the whole was not of one and only one character... there were
different people and different elemenst, just as in all times.
As to the soul..... I think I've written about one of my favorite
poems by Walt Whitman on these message boards, I don't know if you
have seen it... the poem "Darest thou now, o soul"... I won't go into
it, now, my point being that even an atheist like Whitman could
conceive of a soul.... a certain human (intellectualized?) dignity, if
you will, in the face of the certainty of death... The Death of the
Soul, may or may not necessarily have anything to do with religion....
maybe the soul is a human experience sort of think that comes with
self-awareness. As to the Stem cell question, that's a science or a
medical question... it may account for some new cures, but what are
cures, after all, but a forestalling of the inevitable in any case....
let me know when science starts to assail the walls of human
mortality....
nominal9
lkgreenwell
Feb 12, 2009, 5:15:10 PM2/12/09
to Epistemology
"the nature of transubstantiation" - a fitting topic for epistemology!
Plato was a rich "hobbyist"
Aristotle worked for a 'firm'! He controlled a team
And out there in the Indus are some men with one eye in the centre of
their heads, and others with the heads of dogs
Plato was a rich "hobbyist"
Aristotle worked for a 'firm'! He controlled a team
And out there in the Indus are some men with one eye in the centre of
their heads, and others with the heads of dogs
einseele
Feb 13, 2009, 10:32:55 AM2/13/09
to Epistemology
Hello Nom
Interesting point of you here. Or at least one of them
I do believe there is a sort of soul, even nothing to do with any
religious point of view whatsoever.
You see, is there a Darwin's soul/spirit/whatever? Yes I think there
is a soul which pertains to Darwin, and so many other guys.
Or even dubious figures like Christ, Buda, or Alexander the Great, etc
And also fictional characters like Achilles, or Tom Sawyer
All those "souls" live somewhere, and nowhere at the same time
Of course these are not the souls as intended by religion, although I
dont think this makes any difference
A nice question should be: Do I have a soul. I answer to my self:
Unfortunately I dont, may be in the future, I wish I could get
one :-)
cheers
Interesting point of you here. Or at least one of them
I do believe there is a sort of soul, even nothing to do with any
religious point of view whatsoever.
You see, is there a Darwin's soul/spirit/whatever? Yes I think there
is a soul which pertains to Darwin, and so many other guys.
Or even dubious figures like Christ, Buda, or Alexander the Great, etc
And also fictional characters like Achilles, or Tom Sawyer
All those "souls" live somewhere, and nowhere at the same time
Of course these are not the souls as intended by religion, although I
dont think this makes any difference
A nice question should be: Do I have a soul. I answer to my self:
Unfortunately I dont, may be in the future, I wish I could get
one :-)
cheers
nominal9
Feb 13, 2009, 12:07:47 PM2/13/09
to Epistemology
Hello, Einseele:
Eastern Roman empire ... I meant to say Western Roman empire... I do
that all the time....I live on the East Coast of the U.S. and I
associated Europe as more easterly due to nearness to me than
Constantinople/Turkey....One of those constant unconscious errors that
I always make and always will, until I think about it...
Now, I like Whitman's poem, below, quite a bit... but for those of you
who have seen me post it before and are getting tired of it... sorry,
this is for any who haven't.
"Darest Thou Now, O Soul
1
DAREST thou now, O Soul,
Walk out with me toward the Unknown Region,
Where neither ground is for the feet, nor any path to follow?
2
No map, there, nor guide,
Nor voice sounding, nor touch of human hand, 5
Nor face with blooming flesh, nor lips, nor eyes, are in that land.
3
I know it not, O Soul;
Nor dost thou—all is a blank before us;
All waits, undream’d of, in that region—that inaccessible land.
4
Till, when the ties loosen, 10
All but the ties eternal, Time and Space,
Nor darkness, gravitation, sense, nor any bounds, bound us.
5
Then we burst forth—we float,
In Time and Space, O Soul—prepared for them;
Equal, equipt at last—(O joy! O fruit of all!) them to fulfil, O
Soul."
As to the "souls' of past thinkers, philosophers, authors, or
otherwise remembered ones....that you spoke of einseele... I agree,
they have a certain recalled (by the living) outlook or experience of
life that those of us still here have come to know and, through
education or learning, and share to some extent or other. It has to be
their peculiar self-awareness of life (very generally speaking ) that
endures if nothing else as an example or a "way" for "us". Fictional
characters, of course, have the same effect for "us" through knowledge
or education.... but in those cases we are just "suspending disbelief"
and not choosing to call the fictional characters by their proper
names... the same as the authors' names.
And maybe there is also another level or sense to the soul
question.... When you asked yourself, Einseele
that? You definitely have self-awareness, and you seem to have
separated that self=awareness int at least two stages.... the everyday
person who does things or feels things in "constant" life
experience.... and apparently another einseele person who thinks and
ruminates over that "historical" "constant" einseele.... maybe that
other guy is your soul? And maybe he'll come out one day... if he
hasn't come out already... I don't want to get sentimental or
definitely not psychological or philosophical about this but that self-
awareness and the possiblity of self-criticism, I think, goes a far
distance in establishing at least some facets of what is commonly
lumped as forming part of a person's soul.
nominal9
> > > great as to sunder it further into more cults and sects?- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Eastern Roman empire ... I meant to say Western Roman empire... I do
that all the time....I live on the East Coast of the U.S. and I
associated Europe as more easterly due to nearness to me than
Constantinople/Turkey....One of those constant unconscious errors that
I always make and always will, until I think about it...
Now, I like Whitman's poem, below, quite a bit... but for those of you
who have seen me post it before and are getting tired of it... sorry,
this is for any who haven't.
"Darest Thou Now, O Soul
1
DAREST thou now, O Soul,
Walk out with me toward the Unknown Region,
Where neither ground is for the feet, nor any path to follow?
2
No map, there, nor guide,
Nor voice sounding, nor touch of human hand, 5
Nor face with blooming flesh, nor lips, nor eyes, are in that land.
3
I know it not, O Soul;
Nor dost thou—all is a blank before us;
All waits, undream’d of, in that region—that inaccessible land.
4
Till, when the ties loosen, 10
All but the ties eternal, Time and Space,
Nor darkness, gravitation, sense, nor any bounds, bound us.
5
Then we burst forth—we float,
In Time and Space, O Soul—prepared for them;
Equal, equipt at last—(O joy! O fruit of all!) them to fulfil, O
Soul."
As to the "souls' of past thinkers, philosophers, authors, or
otherwise remembered ones....that you spoke of einseele... I agree,
they have a certain recalled (by the living) outlook or experience of
life that those of us still here have come to know and, through
education or learning, and share to some extent or other. It has to be
their peculiar self-awareness of life (very generally speaking ) that
endures if nothing else as an example or a "way" for "us". Fictional
characters, of course, have the same effect for "us" through knowledge
or education.... but in those cases we are just "suspending disbelief"
and not choosing to call the fictional characters by their proper
names... the same as the authors' names.
And maybe there is also another level or sense to the soul
question.... When you asked yourself, Einseele
"A nice question should be: Do I have a soul. I answer to my self:
Unfortunately I dont, may be in the future, I wish I could get
one :-) " . I suppose my question to you would be.... how do you mean
Unfortunately I dont, may be in the future, I wish I could get
that? You definitely have self-awareness, and you seem to have
separated that self=awareness int at least two stages.... the everyday
person who does things or feels things in "constant" life
experience.... and apparently another einseele person who thinks and
ruminates over that "historical" "constant" einseele.... maybe that
other guy is your soul? And maybe he'll come out one day... if he
hasn't come out already... I don't want to get sentimental or
definitely not psychological or philosophical about this but that self-
awareness and the possiblity of self-criticism, I think, goes a far
distance in establishing at least some facets of what is commonly
lumped as forming part of a person's soul.
nominal9
>
> - Show quoted text -
archytas
Feb 15, 2009, 7:46:03 AM2/15/09
to Epistemology
The only decent way to acquire soul is in a decent jazz club and not
quite a beer too many. Preferably abroad somewhere, once Paris, but
now more likely in Eastern Europe post soviet paradise. I agree in
principle on the human Dolly. It could be though, that this is just
part of the master plan behind evolution - equipping us to build more
effective vessels for souls - why stop at the human given we are so
pathetically flawed? Damn it Chaz - it's so good to know you are 'up
and about' again I can't be arsed with such meaningless allusions to
the universal. I am off out for a beer to celebrate. This comes
closer to soul than such pontification!
quite a beer too many. Preferably abroad somewhere, once Paris, but
now more likely in Eastern Europe post soviet paradise. I agree in
principle on the human Dolly. It could be though, that this is just
part of the master plan behind evolution - equipping us to build more
effective vessels for souls - why stop at the human given we are so
pathetically flawed? Damn it Chaz - it's so good to know you are 'up
and about' again I can't be arsed with such meaningless allusions to
the universal. I am off out for a beer to celebrate. This comes
closer to soul than such pontification!
chazwin
Feb 15, 2009, 2:28:12 PM2/15/09
to Epistemology
On Feb 15, 12:46 pm, archytas <nwte...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> The only decent way to acquire soul is in a decent jazz club and not
> quite a beer too many. Preferably abroad somewhere, once Paris, but
> now more likely in Eastern Europe post soviet paradise. I agree in
> principle on the human Dolly. It could be though, that this is just
> part of the master plan behind evolution - equipping us to build more
> effective vessels for souls - why stop at the human given we are so
> pathetically flawed? Damn it Chaz - it's so good to know you are 'up
> and about' again I can't be arsed with such meaningless allusions to
> the universal. I am off out for a beer to celebrate. This comes
> closer to soul than such pontification!
you know it!!
Enjoy the drink maybe one day I'll be back on the red wine - a the
moment its just too damn complex for my baby taste buds.
I'm feeling much more chilled. Maybe I'll avoid getting a summary
banning, as I have with Mind's Eye.
I'm chillin' to the soul of my ipod adapter in the new car cruisin'
with the roof down (weather permitting).
>
> read more »
chazwin
Feb 15, 2009, 2:40:38 PM2/15/09
to Epistemology
On Feb 12, 11:54 pm, nominal9 <nomin...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Hello Chazwin;
> How are you?
> I recognize that history is one of your "strong suits"... and it
> happens to be only one of my own associated ones. Still, I think that
> your characterization of the overall "medieval Christian Church
> period".... say from the fall of the Eastern Roman empire till the
> early renaissance, is a bit overly simplified... thing is, I don't
> think that tou even credit the renaissance, itslef until maybe the
> birth of Galileo, or so. But to the main point... "Christian medieval
> scholasticism really was not as "barren" as you may think, at least
> not in the early Renaissance period, at least, and philosophically
> definitely not when it came to thinkers like , my buddy Billy-O
> (William of Ockham).
The Renaissance was the big turning point, I agree, and did not mean
to seem to exclude it: counting the thousand years from Constantine
onwards towards Martin Luther, Copernicus and the printing press. Any
history of the scholarship does seem to read like a pendulum going no
where.
Culturally, of course the early renaissance was
> teeming with admittedly Christian-influenced and yet "human" (as in
> Humanism) art and literature.... St. Francis and some of his
> predecessors are beyond being "religious" they are..... humane...But
> then, there were the "retrograde" elemnets within the Christian Churh
> experience, without a doubt, the persecutions and the Inquisitions....
> but the whole was not of one and only one character... there were
> different people and different elemenst, just as in all times.
> As to the soul..... I think I've written about one of my favorite
> poems by Walt Whitman on these message boards, I don't know if you
> have seen it... the poem "Darest thou now, o soul"... I won't go into
> it, now, my point being that even an atheist like Whitman could
> conceive of a soul.... a certain human (intellectualized?) dignity, if
> you will, in the face of the certainty of death... The Death of the
> Soul, may or may not necessarily have anything to do with religion....
> maybe the soul is a human experience sort of think that comes with
> self-awareness. As to the Stem cell question, that's a science or a
> medical question... it may account for some new cures, but what are
> cures, after all, but a forestalling of the inevitable in any case....
> let me know when science starts to assail the walls of human
> mortality....
> nominal9
ontological claims but provides not a jot of philosophy.
For Christian scholarship to attract any credibility it was forced to
adopt Greek philosophy. It failed even to cope with the differences on
opinion across a sinlge generation of Greek thought: that of Plato and
his pupil Aristotle, whilst ignoring the massive potential of his
observational natural philosophy. Then it seem we have to wait for
Luther to upset the apple cart to open up the door for any non fatal
criticism.
I am of the opinion that the soul is not verifiable as a separate
entity to living systems. It is a metaphysical notion and has has no
ontological status beyond a living active body. Death is final.
chazwin
Feb 15, 2009, 2:42:43 PM2/15/09
to Epistemology
On Feb 12, 10:15 pm, lkgreenwell <lkgreenw...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> "the nature of transubstantiation" - a fitting topic for epistemology!
Might have to fudge the issue with the idea of consubstatition once
you find you are not actually drinking blood.
>
> Plato was a rich "hobbyist"
>
> Aristotle worked for a 'firm'! He controlled a team
>
> And out there in the Indus are some men with one eye in the centre of
> their heads, and others with the heads of dogs
archytas
Feb 15, 2009, 6:41:14 PM2/15/09
to Epistemology
Drivel would probably be better than teleological balderdash mate,
though there is a little room for speculative stuff around what we are
doing on this speck of a planet etc. Descartes made god a perfect in
order to proceed, somewhat scuppering his radical doubt in the process
or revealing fears of instruments of torture indirectly (etc.). A
whole lot of barking goes on as a result of religious brainwashing. I
doubt any of us are free of it. I tend towards thinking its mostly an
experimental mistake, like a holiday in Fawlty Towers.
though there is a little room for speculative stuff around what we are
doing on this speck of a planet etc. Descartes made god a perfect in
order to proceed, somewhat scuppering his radical doubt in the process
or revealing fears of instruments of torture indirectly (etc.). A
whole lot of barking goes on as a result of religious brainwashing. I
doubt any of us are free of it. I tend towards thinking its mostly an
experimental mistake, like a holiday in Fawlty Towers.
chazwin
Feb 16, 2009, 7:39:01 AM2/16/09
to Epistemology
On Feb 15, 11:41 pm, archytas <nwte...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> Drivel would probably be better than teleological balderdash mate,
> though there is a little room for speculative stuff around what we are
> doing on this speck of a planet etc.
we here?", or "why something and not nothing?"
Have you ever considered that these questions are simply
inappropriate? That the only possible answer to these questions is
personal and has no objective or absolute value whatsoever. I would go
further to suggest that, due to the vast conflicting claims of
absolute truth emanating from faith based bods, rejection of absolute
claims is the only way forward. Whilst I am aware that such a position
lays me open to accusations of "radical doubt" (re other thread on
Descartes), I assert that, as a starting point, it is a vital
empowering and emancipating way forward to understand what you have
elsewhere called "structural reality". We start by saying not why are
we here but "what do I want to do next?". What is MY purpose, my goals
not mediated by any mystical authority or dogma. Not a rejection of
society, but how I can make myself a wilful agent within its limits.
altering by slow degrees the structure in which I find myself.
archytas
Feb 16, 2009, 12:03:23 PM2/16/09
to Epistemology
You have to remember that rejection of absolute truth suggests some
underlying absolute position that allows or insists on such
rejection. Lyotard said we needed to take an incredulous attitude
towards the grand narratives. This is OK up to a point but leaves one
needing understanding of when one is onto something better than
speculation or fiction. I'm pretty sure that when we are thinking
properly we are looking for corroboration and eventually a form of
reliableism checking out what we are regarding as theory against as
many areas of activity as we can. The speculations about why we are
here seem worthless to me - generally being packs of uninteresting
lies - but it is possible to think someone might come up with
something interesting in such an area. The current metaphors are so
boring it's untrue.
underlying absolute position that allows or insists on such
rejection. Lyotard said we needed to take an incredulous attitude
towards the grand narratives. This is OK up to a point but leaves one
needing understanding of when one is onto something better than
speculation or fiction. I'm pretty sure that when we are thinking
properly we are looking for corroboration and eventually a form of
reliableism checking out what we are regarding as theory against as
many areas of activity as we can. The speculations about why we are
here seem worthless to me - generally being packs of uninteresting
lies - but it is possible to think someone might come up with
something interesting in such an area. The current metaphors are so
boring it's untrue.
chazwin
Feb 16, 2009, 1:08:48 PM2/16/09
to Epistemology
On Feb 16, 5:03 pm, archytas <nwte...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> You have to remember that rejection of absolute truth suggests some
> underlying absolute position that allows or insists on such
> rejection.
position? I'm not sure I buy that. There is a area of realist
discourse which characterises the post-modernist project in engaging
in performative self-contradiction; in that there is no position of
ultimate subjectivity which does not undermines its own statements,
rendering a critique of realism invalid. But they (the realists) would
say that wouldn't they? I don't think it is at all problematic to
suggest that there can be no ultimate position from which to view any
absolute position. All positions are limited by certain parameters.
How those parameters co-incide, overlap, or avoid your own, can assist
in understanding another's position, without the implication of their
being a purely objectivist position. This is a route to explain
conflict and disagreement, and maybe the first step to
reconcilliation?
Sometimes I can feel idealistic (in both senses).
Lyotard said we needed to take an incredulous attitude
> towards the grand narratives.
This is OK up to a point but leaves one
> needing understanding of when one is onto something better than
> speculation or fiction. I'm pretty sure that when we are thinking
> properly we are looking for corroboration and eventually a form of
> reliableism checking out what we are regarding as theory against as
> many areas of activity as we can.
I asked my 13 year old son today how he made decisions, wanting hi to
begin to consider the free will/determinism question. He replied that
it all depends who I am with. Sadly he is under much pressure from a
dominant mother and grandmother who do not afford him the lattitude in
decisions and choices he enjoys with me.
The speculations about why we are
> here seem worthless to me - generally being packs of uninteresting
> lies - but it is possible to think someone might come up with
> something interesting in such an area.
evolutionists try to piss on my firework by making a teleological has
of it all.
The current metaphors are so
> boring it's untrue.
nominal9
Feb 17, 2009, 12:18:03 PM2/17/09
to Epistemology
Maybe I'll avoid getting a summary
banning, as I have with Mind's Eye. / Chazwin....
Say what? Chazwin....
banning?.... My Hackles are starting to rise....
nominal9
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
chazwin
Feb 17, 2009, 5:22:32 PM2/17/09
to Epistemology
On Feb 17, 5:18 pm, nominal9 <nomin...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Maybe I'll avoid getting a summary
> banning, as I have with Mind's Eye. / Chazwin....
>
> Say what? Chazwin....
> banning?.... My Hackles are starting to rise....
> nominal9
ideas "shit" again, thinking I was on alt.philosophy.
They did not do me the courtesy to tell me why.
>
> read more »
archytas
Feb 18, 2009, 2:05:18 AM2/18/09
to Epistemology
Goes without saying, I hope, that I'm against such bans. No point in
wasting pages on it mate. There's no exploration in Mind's Eye beyond
what should already have been dismissed.
I don't believe an atheist position justifies a theist one. It seems
to me that one essentially regards god positions as irrelevant because
of what one takes up from "science" as one goes along. Science here
would include good history and needs quite a wide conception. Part of
it is about recognising one works in indeterminancy. Peter Medawar
put forward much of what I think is the case. What I would say in
addition is that even raising creative viewpoints runs against what
most people can take. Many scientists regard politics (big and little
P) with massive disdain - almost to the extent that the world is
bollox and needs to be kept out of enquiry. It's here I part company
from anyone trying to extirpate ideology - it's like trying to run a
grounded tokomac. The phrase in Zizek is the 'return of desire'.
Habermas seems to think there is some kind of innate consensus, but
one can see this in social animals and disrupt it with mis-
information. The conditions for objectivity are usually illusory as
very few world views are based on critical reasoning and its very
difficult to rule out cheating. The integrity of researchers is
problematic and we report to funders who often have no integrity at
all.
All science has some kind of structural realism built in, and hardly
anyone recognises the extent to which approximation has taken place
even in deciding the quantitative elements of theory. There is a base
of uncertainty. We put faith in the reality hypothesis. This doesn't
mean such reasoning is as deeply flawed as believing god sent his son
to Earth.
> ...
>
> read more »
wasting pages on it mate. There's no exploration in Mind's Eye beyond
what should already have been dismissed.
I don't believe an atheist position justifies a theist one. It seems
to me that one essentially regards god positions as irrelevant because
of what one takes up from "science" as one goes along. Science here
would include good history and needs quite a wide conception. Part of
it is about recognising one works in indeterminancy. Peter Medawar
put forward much of what I think is the case. What I would say in
addition is that even raising creative viewpoints runs against what
most people can take. Many scientists regard politics (big and little
P) with massive disdain - almost to the extent that the world is
bollox and needs to be kept out of enquiry. It's here I part company
from anyone trying to extirpate ideology - it's like trying to run a
grounded tokomac. The phrase in Zizek is the 'return of desire'.
Habermas seems to think there is some kind of innate consensus, but
one can see this in social animals and disrupt it with mis-
information. The conditions for objectivity are usually illusory as
very few world views are based on critical reasoning and its very
difficult to rule out cheating. The integrity of researchers is
problematic and we report to funders who often have no integrity at
all.
All science has some kind of structural realism built in, and hardly
anyone recognises the extent to which approximation has taken place
even in deciding the quantitative elements of theory. There is a base
of uncertainty. We put faith in the reality hypothesis. This doesn't
mean such reasoning is as deeply flawed as believing god sent his son
to Earth.
>
> read more »
chazwin
Feb 19, 2009, 10:54:21 AM2/19/09
to Epistemology
On Feb 18, 7:05 am, archytas <nwte...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> Goes without saying, I hope, that I'm against such bans. No point in
> wasting pages on it mate. There's no exploration in Mind's Eye beyond
> what should already have been dismissed.
haystack, though there is a welcome lack of complete idiots that trawl
(and troll) this and other NGs. Whilst I welcome gentle moderation I
find it unnecessary to avoid everyday language.
> I don't believe an atheist position justifies a theist one. It seems
> to me that one essentially regards god positions as irrelevant because
> of what one takes up from "science" as one goes along.
were not for other people's belief in god. If it were not for my
contribution to NGs my atheism would rarely intrude on my
consciousness. But I do concern myself that humans in the 21st century
still cling to humanity's first poor effort at morality and
philosophy. The god of the gaps continues to cling to dear life in
spite of the growth of science rendering god unnecessary, but not
unthinkable (sadly). Thankfully we have been born into an age which
does not completely prohibit apostasy and heresy.
> Science here
> would include good history and needs quite a wide conception. Part of
> put forward much of what I think is the case. What I would say in
> addition is that even raising creative viewpoints runs against what
> most people can take. Many scientists regard politics (big and little
> P) with massive disdain - almost to the extent that the world is
> bollox and needs to be kept out of enquiry.
Science is good for those things where it is most applicable,
> addition is that even raising creative viewpoints runs against what
> most people can take. Many scientists regard politics (big and little
> P) with massive disdain - almost to the extent that the world is
> bollox and needs to be kept out of enquiry.
dangerous where it is not. A continuous critique should be advanced
towards the growth of scientific methodology into matters where such
reductionism fails to recognise the massive complexity of human social
and emotional structures: ideology; politics; spirituality (whatever
that might be). Science might tell us that hormones accompany an
emotional state, but cannot describe feelings of love or hate and has
little understanding of them. Science has little useful application to
the phenomenon of living.
It's here I part company
> from anyone trying to extirpate ideology - it's like trying to run a
> grounded tokomac.
real sense in which, if the word did not exist, we would still be
recipients of a set of aims and ideals or power/knowledge. Abandoning
or even extirpating ideology, either particular ideologies OR the
whole notion of ideology, would only succeed in changing the focus of
our ideals and aims. Keeping ideology is both the means to, find
common cause with those with which one shares ideals AND, to identify
and destroy those who do not.
The phrase in Zizek is the 'return of desire'.
> Habermas seems to think there is some kind of innate consensus, but
> one can see this in social animals and disrupt it with mis-
> information. The conditions for objectivity are usually illusory as
> very few world views are based on critical reasoning and its very
> difficult to rule out cheating.
to be trusted as it is often applied in replacement for a claim to
absolutism. Objectivity work well when the parameters of interest are
clearly delimited: "I think the lemon is sour"/ "the PH of the lemon
is confirmed to be 5". One can take it or leave it. I have found Zizek
a little impenetrable - perhaps I need to become more immersed in
academic discourse having been away from it for 10 years.
The integrity of researchers is
> problematic and we report to funders who often have no integrity at
> all.
claims against quanitative for qualitative analysis pretend a thicker
understanding, there is still an uncomfortable position from which one
is supposed to stand to look upon anything objectively that cannot
really exist. Where is this absolute eye of god? Having said that, all
the work needs to be done and the results juggled. An awareness of the
fact that research is subjecting the object to scrutiny can never
tell the whole story is sometimes forgotten or hidden under masses of
numbers, powerpoint presentations and piles of handouts.
> All science has some kind of structural realism built in, and hardly
> anyone recognises the extent to which approximation has taken place
> even in deciding the quantitative elements of theory. There is a base
> of uncertainty. We put faith in the reality hypothesis. This doesn't
> mean such reasoning is as deeply flawed as believing god sent his son
> to Earth.
>
> read more »
nominal9
Feb 19, 2009, 7:14:24 PM2/19/09
to Epistemology
I am of the opinion that the soul is not verifiable as a separate
entity to living systems. It is a metaphysical notion and has has no
ontological status beyond a living active body. Death is final. /
entity to living systems. It is a metaphysical notion and has has no
Chazwin
As a matter of fact known to anyone and everyone, to date, I can't say
that you are wrong about that, Chazwin.
But there's something in that Walt Whitman poem, that gives some sort
of "soulful" (play on words only) solace even to an atheist or an
agnostic... I would think. I've read quite a bit of poetry and I have
run across this same sort of poetic "treatment" before by other
"atheist" poets ... The "infinite", itself, as a welcoming haven in
death, without an afterlife or anything else to console. In this
poetic or literary... sentimental, if you like,... sense, even
atheists seem to be able to face death with, I won't say joy, but with
a sentiment of welcoming after life's journey...
For whatever that may be worth, right?
For Christian scholarship to attract any credibility it was forced to
adopt Greek philosophy. It failed even to cope with the differences
on
opinion across a sinlge generation of Greek thought: that of Plato
and
his pupil Aristotle, whilst ignoring the massive potential of his
observational natural philosophy. Then it seem we have to wait for
Luther to upset the apple cart to open up the door for any non fatal
I can't argue with you there... especially not when it comes to the
"history" side of things.... but there was quite a bit of that
"adopting Greek philosophy" going on in Christianity, and almost from
the very beginning...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_the_Apostle
I guess it's a matter of the glass half-empty or the glass half
full.... In the very early period Christianity did, itself, separate
from Judaism, in the quite evident fact of taking in "Gentiles"....
now this also led to all sorts of persecutions against the Jews and
from the Jews, too (as you probably know better than I do)...
But, my historical question to you, Chazwin is: Was there a
contemporary "baseline" going on somewhere for the progress of
Christian intellectual development to measure itself against? How
about the "pagan" Greek or Roman or Egyptian or even Oriental cultures
of those same years... were they making intellectual advances in their
own rights that the Christians were not?... Maybe the Orientals were,
doubtless.... but was that independent intellectual advancement, so
quantitatively or qualitatively great, by comparison?
nominal9
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
Chazworth
Feb 20, 2009, 5:21:15 AM2/20/09
to Epistemology
On Feb 20, 12:14 am, nominal9 <nomin...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> I am of the opinion that the soul is not verifiable as a separate
> entity to living systems. It is a metaphysical notion and has has no
> ontological status beyond a living active body. Death is final. /
> Chazwin
>
> As a matter of fact known to anyone and everyone, to date, I can't say
> that you are wrong about that, Chazwin.
>
> But there's something in that Walt Whitman poem, that gives some sort
> of "soulful" (play on words only) solace even to an atheist or an
> agnostic... I would think. I've read quite a bit of poetry and I have
> run across this same sort of poetic "treatment" before by other
> "atheist" poets ... The "infinite", itself, as a welcoming haven in
> death, without an afterlife or anything else to console. In this
> poetic or literary... sentimental, if you like,... sense, even
> atheists seem to be able to face death with, I won't say joy, but with
> a sentiment of welcoming after life's journey...
> For whatever that may be worth, right?
consoled by Hume's notion that he should no more fear the non
existence and blackness of death anymore than the eternity of
nothingness, that was the time before he was born. This is more easy
to say that to embrace, especially when I was fighting so hard just to
get more than 300 calories inside me every day for weeks. Life is hard
to relinquish and it is no wonder that artful humans have invented the
idea of immortality. What I can't except is the fact that those who
have criticized that idea through history have had to face
imprisonment, ostracism, and proscription of their works by "god
loving" maniacs.
first introduce himself to the Chinese who could write and spread the
word, rather than the Jews who could not. But then you also have to
ask why was it that he waited 100,000 years of human history to show
up on the scene in the first place?
archytas
Feb 20, 2009, 8:46:04 AM2/20/09
to Epistemology
God really doesn't concern me. I wonder a lot though as to whether
there is some point we miss in not discussing what science and history
mean. I take that the dinosaurs did not have conversations about the
looming meteor. We seem to have developed further abilities in
perception and we can plan. Looking out at the vastness one can
assume we are stuck here with this lot, or potentially able to enter
it in some way not yet apparent. This doesn't lead me to prayer
wheels, but perhaps to the speed of gravity. Much is hidden from us,
as the following notes on epigeneticis show.
Identical twins are not as identical as you might think. The
differences may help to illuminate a process called epigenesis, which
allows characteristics to be inherited in a way that is partly
independent of the composition of their DNA. Identical twins are born
from a single fertilised egg, or zygote. Genetically speaking,
therefore, they are indeed the same. The effects of gestation are
neatly set aside in such comparisons, since all co-twins share a
uterus. However dizygotic twins share no more DNA than ordinary
siblings. So if one monozygotic twin, for example, develops an ailment
that the other escapes, the culprit is probably environmental.
Conversely, when identical twins prove more likely to share a disease
than dizygotic twins, the difference is chalked up to their genes.
It is not, however, enough for organisms to share DNA in order to
share characteristics. Those genes must also behave in the same way.
One of the ways that the behaviour of genes is regulated is by the
application to their DNA of particular clusters of atoms, known as
methyl groups. Methylation shuts a gene down. To the extent that the
pattern of methylation is passed from parent to offspring, it forms a
second, “epigenetic”, inheritance mechanism parallel to the primary
DNA-based one.
A significant amount of variation between twins is found, possibly
enough to explain why apparently heritable diseases that require the
coincidence of several genetic risk-factors do not, in practice,
always appear in both twins. Schizophrenia, for example, has a family
component. But if one twin of a monozygotic pair develops it, there is
only a 50% chance that the other will too, rather than the 100% chance
that you would see if the sequence of genetic “letters” in the DNA
were the only cause. Results suggest that although monozygotic twins
do differ epigenetically, they differ less than dizygotic twins.
This is actually very confusing. The prevailing wisdom about
epigenesis is that most existing methylation is erased when the eggs
and the sperm are maturing. That should stop epigenetic patterns being
passed on, and allow new ones to be imposed to suit the needs of the
newly created organism. Indeed, there are several waves of epigenetic
reprogramming during an embryo’s development. That some methylation
escapes pre-fertilisation erasure has been suggested by experiments on
other animals, but this has been thought the exception, rather than
the rule. If that were so, though, the degree of difference between
identical and non-identical twins would be broadly the same. It is
not. Quite a lot of pre-existing methylation is making its way into
the new individual—and thus providing both a complication to those who
try to understand the intricacies of inheritance, and a promising new
line of inquiry. The point is about wondering whether a new story (as
opposed to religious bull) is emerging. I believe one is.
> ...
>
> read more »
there is some point we miss in not discussing what science and history
mean. I take that the dinosaurs did not have conversations about the
looming meteor. We seem to have developed further abilities in
perception and we can plan. Looking out at the vastness one can
assume we are stuck here with this lot, or potentially able to enter
it in some way not yet apparent. This doesn't lead me to prayer
wheels, but perhaps to the speed of gravity. Much is hidden from us,
as the following notes on epigeneticis show.
Identical twins are not as identical as you might think. The
differences may help to illuminate a process called epigenesis, which
allows characteristics to be inherited in a way that is partly
independent of the composition of their DNA. Identical twins are born
from a single fertilised egg, or zygote. Genetically speaking,
therefore, they are indeed the same. The effects of gestation are
neatly set aside in such comparisons, since all co-twins share a
uterus. However dizygotic twins share no more DNA than ordinary
siblings. So if one monozygotic twin, for example, develops an ailment
that the other escapes, the culprit is probably environmental.
Conversely, when identical twins prove more likely to share a disease
than dizygotic twins, the difference is chalked up to their genes.
It is not, however, enough for organisms to share DNA in order to
share characteristics. Those genes must also behave in the same way.
One of the ways that the behaviour of genes is regulated is by the
application to their DNA of particular clusters of atoms, known as
methyl groups. Methylation shuts a gene down. To the extent that the
pattern of methylation is passed from parent to offspring, it forms a
second, “epigenetic”, inheritance mechanism parallel to the primary
DNA-based one.
A significant amount of variation between twins is found, possibly
enough to explain why apparently heritable diseases that require the
coincidence of several genetic risk-factors do not, in practice,
always appear in both twins. Schizophrenia, for example, has a family
component. But if one twin of a monozygotic pair develops it, there is
only a 50% chance that the other will too, rather than the 100% chance
that you would see if the sequence of genetic “letters” in the DNA
were the only cause. Results suggest that although monozygotic twins
do differ epigenetically, they differ less than dizygotic twins.
This is actually very confusing. The prevailing wisdom about
epigenesis is that most existing methylation is erased when the eggs
and the sperm are maturing. That should stop epigenetic patterns being
passed on, and allow new ones to be imposed to suit the needs of the
newly created organism. Indeed, there are several waves of epigenetic
reprogramming during an embryo’s development. That some methylation
escapes pre-fertilisation erasure has been suggested by experiments on
other animals, but this has been thought the exception, rather than
the rule. If that were so, though, the degree of difference between
identical and non-identical twins would be broadly the same. It is
not. Quite a lot of pre-existing methylation is making its way into
the new individual—and thus providing both a complication to those who
try to understand the intricacies of inheritance, and a promising new
line of inquiry. The point is about wondering whether a new story (as
opposed to religious bull) is emerging. I believe one is.
>
> read more »
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages