|
On July 16 2010 01:23 Win.win wrote:Show nested quote +On July 16 2010 01:11 Gnosis wrote:On July 16 2010 00:54 Win.win wrote:On July 16 2010 00:50 Epsilon8 wrote:On July 15 2010 17:51 rockslave wrote:
Dennet is a known name because Dawkins keeps endorsing him, but sometimes he takes truths from nothing. In the language of mathematics, he doesn't prove the isomorphisms between his models and the modelled stuff before he uses them. If Daniel Dennet is well liked by Dawkins I am very skeptical. Dawkins is a bad thinker if I ever saw one. if you wouldn't mind, i'd love to hear some examples of Dawkins thinking poorly The God Delusion was Dawkins far from his best. The Greatest Show on Earth was also some what vitriolic, but otherwise I very much enjoy Dawkins. hmm you enjoy dawkins. not to be offensive but, judging by your questions in this thread, i take it you haven't read the selfish gene? dawkins is rather straightforward in the god delusion, but is that really an example of "bad thinking"? is there a particular argument he makes that you find unreasonable, or is it just his tone that you disapprove of?
I've read The Selfish Gene, yes. Actually, I read that and The Blind Watchmaker consecutively. No offense taken in your asking. Dawkins is an extremely gifted writer, and I would agree with more than a few people in believing that The Selfish Gene (especially his account of bats) is probably his best work. The reason I asked my previous questions (aside from being dull and stupid) is because I find great interest in the question "why did life evolve at all?" And, actually, "why did life evolve the way it did?" It's not at all apparent to me that life should have to function as it does, aside from it being carbon based, to use our planet as an example. Why RNA, DNA, reproduction, age, survival, advancement, adaptation... Consciousness, appreciation of beauty, discovery of logics, etc. Why life at all? Dawkins has some very good speculation in The Selfish Gene, especially where altruism is concerned, but I don't feel he gives satisfactory answers to these more basic questions, which are perhaps unanswerable--"why this way?" Life seems wonderful, and I have a hard time accepting it as millions of happenstances (just as I have a hard time accepting "God did it").
I'm digressing, so onto The God Delusion. Dawkins was very straightforward, and that's not something I wold consider an example of "bad thinking". The reasoning in the book, in general, is what I believe constitutes bad thinking. His arguments just didn't seem well thought out, he messes up an argument against the trinity, misrepresents Aquinas, flippantly casts aside the ontological argument... It was an interesting book, just not well thought out.
|
On July 16 2010 01:26 Gnosis wrote:
I believe Buddhism would teach that the teaching of emptiness is empty (that is, it requires minds to think it up, exchange it, etc.), but as it describes reality accurately (according to Buddhism), then the description itself cannot be empty, and therefore, emptiness cannot be empty. On this view I see emptiness as a facet of reality being discovered, rather than invented (as not the product of minds, and therefore inherently existing). If that is very confusing, I apologize. Essentially, "emptiness" as a teaching is "empty" by virtue that it must be discovered, but emptiness as a description of reality is not, by virtue that it describes reality.
This is not something that is "dependent" on reality--it is reality.]
'
Yes, I see where you are going now. I agree with you now. Except on one minor point. And is probably because I haven't been explaining myself very well. Emptiness does not constitute itself as reality. What does constitute itself as reality is the underlying cause of why emptiness exists. This cause can be deduced by examining the implications of emptiness.
Much of this we both have already discussed :
Emptiness means that perceived phenomena when examined cannot be established as having any inherent existence. This is because phenomena are defined by a relative point to everything else. From this point we understand that when we perceive phenomena they are like illusions because what we perceive is not actually in any definite way what we perceive it to be. From this point we reason that if we cannot define any kind of phenomena without a reference point then said phenomena and reference point do not exist outside of each other and therefore must not be separate. We then reason that everything we perceive or that can possibly exist cannot be separate from everything else because that would mean that we would not be able to define it. At this point we realize that it is wholeness that is the cause of emptiness. If everything were not whole and of one thing then necessarily emptiness could not exist.
This concept of wholeness has parallels in many other persuading arguments as well such as modern science.
On July 16 2010 01:26 Gnosis wrote:
I think one of the few honest things I could say at this point, is that I simply reject the "step of faith" that I must take to come to this belief. I do not agree that if something has a Platonic form (an essential nature), that therefore it is unable to interact or effect anything else. To poorly argue from a conclusion to a premise: I believe I have an essential nature, I can affect and interact with things, therefore, things with essential natures can interact and effect things. I believe this would constitute a sort of lame argument from experience. As far as I see it now, it all comes down to that bit of "faith".
I do not think I can make any further argument on the 'step of faith' aspect of this. However, I would like to say that, and you may already know this, in Buddhism we do have an essential nature and that nature is what I described in the above paragraph. Of one being and existence upon which phenomena in which emptiness can be seen arise.
I would like to hear your reasoning for things of Platonic nature to interact and effect each other. I am well versed in Buddhism where they discredit this idea and so have not really thought about the opposite.
In my mind the general idea of emptiness and what it implies is so incontrovertible that I no longer believe that it is a step of faith. However, I do realize that this does not mean that I am right.
I am very interested in how you perceive of things to exist.
On July 16 2010 01:26 Gnosis wrote:
I'm very much enjoying the dialogue, so please don't take my replies as "pushy" or however else I may be misconstrued (I have a very bad habit of "going after" people). But anyway, my solution would be to reject the system, because it does not account for my experiences.
No you are not being pushy at all. The dialogue has also been very enjoyable for me. I very rarely get to talk to anyone about philosophy and TL was the last place I expected it from. But you know - TL can solve anything.
|
On July 16 2010 01:48 Gnosis wrote:Show nested quote +On July 16 2010 01:23 Win.win wrote:On July 16 2010 01:11 Gnosis wrote:On July 16 2010 00:54 Win.win wrote:On July 16 2010 00:50 Epsilon8 wrote:On July 15 2010 17:51 rockslave wrote:
Dennet is a known name because Dawkins keeps endorsing him, but sometimes he takes truths from nothing. In the language of mathematics, he doesn't prove the isomorphisms between his models and the modelled stuff before he uses them. If Daniel Dennet is well liked by Dawkins I am very skeptical. Dawkins is a bad thinker if I ever saw one. if you wouldn't mind, i'd love to hear some examples of Dawkins thinking poorly The God Delusion was Dawkins far from his best. The Greatest Show on Earth was also some what vitriolic, but otherwise I very much enjoy Dawkins. hmm you enjoy dawkins. not to be offensive but, judging by your questions in this thread, i take it you haven't read the selfish gene? dawkins is rather straightforward in the god delusion, but is that really an example of "bad thinking"? is there a particular argument he makes that you find unreasonable, or is it just his tone that you disapprove of? I've read The Selfish Gene, yes. Actually, I read that and The Blind Watchmaker consecutively. No offense taken in your asking. Dawkins is an extremely gifted writer, and I would agree with more than a few people in believing that The Selfish Gene (especially his account of bats) is probably his best work. The reason I asked my previous questions (aside from being dull and stupid) is because I find great interest in the question "why did life evolve at all?" And, actually, "why did life evolve the way it did?" It's not at all apparent to me that life should have to function as it does, aside from it being carbon based, to use our planet as an example. Why RNA, DNA, reproduction, age, survival, advancement, adaptation... Consciousness, appreciation of beauty, discovery of logics, etc. Why life at all? Dawkins has some very good speculation in The Selfish Gene, especially where altruism is concerned, but I don't feel he gives satisfactory answers to these more basic questions, which are perhaps unanswerable--"why this way?" Life seems wonderful, and I have a hard time accepting it as millions of happenstances (just as I have a hard time accepting "God did it"). I'm digressing, so onto The God Delusion. Dawkins was very straightforward, and that's not something I wold consider an example of "bad thinking". The reasoning in the book, in general, is what I believe constitutes bad thinking. His arguments just didn't seem well thought out, he messes up an argument against the trinity, misrepresents Aquinas, flippantly casts aside the ontological argument... It was an interesting book, just not well thought out.
fair enough
perhaps the "why" questions you're asking are unanswerable because they're invalid (like asking what the square root of the color orange is), and the "how" questions are what are worth asking
|
On July 16 2010 02:39 Win.win wrote:
perhaps the "why" questions you're asking are unanswerable because they're invalid (like asking what the square root of the color orange is), and the "how" questions are what are worth asking
Why would these be invalid?
And why would 'how' questions be truly worthy?
|
Objectivism is the only correct philosophy. Anyone want to try and provide proof to the contrary? (This is an attempt to continue some interesting discussion.)
|
On July 16 2010 23:56 Jazriel wrote:
Objectivism is the only correct philosophy. Anyone want to try and provide proof to the contrary? (This is an attempt to continue some interesting discussion.)
I have an objection
Life isn't the ultimate end to everyone
How do you explain suicide?
|
You should read "Venus on the Half-Shell" of Philip José Farmer.
Quote:
At the end of this book you will find the Definitive Answer to the Ultimate Question
|
On July 16 2010 01:48 Gnosis wrote:Show nested quote +On July 16 2010 01:23 Win.win wrote:On July 16 2010 01:11 Gnosis wrote:On July 16 2010 00:54 Win.win wrote:On July 16 2010 00:50 Epsilon8 wrote:On July 15 2010 17:51 rockslave wrote:
Dennet is a known name because Dawkins keeps endorsing him, but sometimes he takes truths from nothing. In the language of mathematics, he doesn't prove the isomorphisms between his models and the modelled stuff before he uses them. If Daniel Dennet is well liked by Dawkins I am very skeptical. Dawkins is a bad thinker if I ever saw one. if you wouldn't mind, i'd love to hear some examples of Dawkins thinking poorly The God Delusion was Dawkins far from his best. The Greatest Show on Earth was also some what vitriolic, but otherwise I very much enjoy Dawkins. hmm you enjoy dawkins. not to be offensive but, judging by your questions in this thread, i take it you haven't read the selfish gene? dawkins is rather straightforward in the god delusion, but is that really an example of "bad thinking"? is there a particular argument he makes that you find unreasonable, or is it just his tone that you disapprove of? I've read The Selfish Gene, yes. Actually, I read that and The Blind Watchmaker consecutively. No offense taken in your asking. Dawkins is an extremely gifted writer, and I would agree with more than a few people in believing that The Selfish Gene (especially his account of bats) is probably his best work. The reason I asked my previous questions (aside from being dull and stupid) is because I find great interest in the question "why did life evolve at all?" And, actually, "why did life evolve the way it did?" It's not at all apparent to me that life should have to function as it does, aside from it being carbon based, to use our planet as an example. Why RNA, DNA, reproduction, age, survival, advancement, adaptation... Consciousness, appreciation of beauty, discovery of logics, etc. Why life at all? Dawkins has some very good speculation in The Selfish Gene, especially where altruism is concerned, but I don't feel he gives satisfactory answers to these more basic questions, which are perhaps unanswerable--"why this way?" Life seems wonderful, and I have a hard time accepting it as millions of happenstances (just as I have a hard time accepting "God did it"). I'm digressing, so onto The God Delusion. Dawkins was very straightforward, and that's not something I wold consider an example of "bad thinking". The reasoning in the book, in general, is what I believe constitutes bad thinking. His arguments just didn't seem well thought out, he messes up an argument against the trinity, misrepresents Aquinas, flippantly casts aside the ontological argument... It was an interesting book, just not well thought out.
Life is merely a consequence of Chemistry and Physics. In theory if you put the right ingredients and enough energy in a swirling space for long enough you'll get life, that's the whole point of The Blind Watchmaker. If you ask 'why RNA' its because that form was the only self-replicating chemical that could lead to life's development. There's not some deep philosophical answer to it, it just was the only way logical conclusion given the Physics of Chemistry. Everything else is just the same: reproduction, aging, the concept of survival and adaption just happened. I don't see whats so hard to understand or believe about it. They're just logical conclusions given the self-replicating nature of chemistry and simple life.
This is a very interesting article about a similar phenomenon:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conway's_Game_of_Life
The fact that simple rules were arbitrarily selected and yet self-replicating structures developed isn't some magical thing that needs deep explanation.
|
On July 17 2010 00:17 Yurebis wrote:Show nested quote +On July 16 2010 23:56 Jazriel wrote:
Objectivism is the only correct philosophy. Anyone want to try and provide proof to the contrary? (This is an attempt to continue some interesting discussion.) I have an objection Life isn't the ultimate end to everyone How do you explain suicide?
While I only until recently would have agreed that Objectivism is the only correct philosophy (I assume you don't mean political "Objectivism" like what Ayn Rand advocates, but rather a view of the world through objective external consensus reality), I think there is enough sense of doubt in the world and in the failures of our senses to reject that Objectivism should be the only correct philosophical view.
Either way this argument is stupid. If life is the ultimate end to everyone there would be more, not less motivation for committing suicide.
|
On July 17 2010 00:30 SirKibbleX wrote:Show nested quote +On July 16 2010 01:48 Gnosis wrote:On July 16 2010 01:23 Win.win wrote:On July 16 2010 01:11 Gnosis wrote:On July 16 2010 00:54 Win.win wrote:On July 16 2010 00:50 Epsilon8 wrote:On July 15 2010 17:51 rockslave wrote:
Dennet is a known name because Dawkins keeps endorsing him, but sometimes he takes truths from nothing. In the language of mathematics, he doesn't prove the isomorphisms between his models and the modelled stuff before he uses them. If Daniel Dennet is well liked by Dawkins I am very skeptical. Dawkins is a bad thinker if I ever saw one. if you wouldn't mind, i'd love to hear some examples of Dawkins thinking poorly The God Delusion was Dawkins far from his best. The Greatest Show on Earth was also some what vitriolic, but otherwise I very much enjoy Dawkins. hmm you enjoy dawkins. not to be offensive but, judging by your questions in this thread, i take it you haven't read the selfish gene? dawkins is rather straightforward in the god delusion, but is that really an example of "bad thinking"? is there a particular argument he makes that you find unreasonable, or is it just his tone that you disapprove of? I've read The Selfish Gene, yes. Actually, I read that and The Blind Watchmaker consecutively. No offense taken in your asking. Dawkins is an extremely gifted writer, and I would agree with more than a few people in believing that The Selfish Gene (especially his account of bats) is probably his best work. The reason I asked my previous questions (aside from being dull and stupid) is because I find great interest in the question "why did life evolve at all?" And, actually, "why did life evolve the way it did?" It's not at all apparent to me that life should have to function as it does, aside from it being carbon based, to use our planet as an example. Why RNA, DNA, reproduction, age, survival, advancement, adaptation... Consciousness, appreciation of beauty, discovery of logics, etc. Why life at all? Dawkins has some very good speculation in The Selfish Gene, especially where altruism is concerned, but I don't feel he gives satisfactory answers to these more basic questions, which are perhaps unanswerable--"why this way?" Life seems wonderful, and I have a hard time accepting it as millions of happenstances (just as I have a hard time accepting "God did it"). I'm digressing, so onto The God Delusion. Dawkins was very straightforward, and that's not something I wold consider an example of "bad thinking". The reasoning in the book, in general, is what I believe constitutes bad thinking. His arguments just didn't seem well thought out, he messes up an argument against the trinity, misrepresents Aquinas, flippantly casts aside the ontological argument... It was an interesting book, just not well thought out. Life is merely a consequence of Chemistry and Physics. In theory if you put the right ingredients and enough energy in a swirling space for long enough you'll get life, that's the whole point of The Blind Watchmaker. If you ask 'why RNA' its because that form was the only self-replicating chemical that could lead to life's development. There's not some deep philosophical answer to it, it just was the only way logical conclusion given the Physics of Chemistry. Everything else is just the same: reproduction, aging, the concept of survival and adaption just happened. I don't see whats so hard to understand or believe about it. They're just logical conclusions given the self-replicating nature of chemistry and simple life. This is a very interesting article about a similar phenomenon: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conway's_Game_of_LifeThe fact that simple rules were arbitrarily selected and yet self-replicating structures developed isn't some magical thing that needs deep explanation.
Thank you for your time; however (as you know) I'm very aware of these "answers" and for various reasons do not accept them as "base" explanations (I do not believe the "how" answers the "why," or vice-versa). If that frustrates you - or causes you to believe that I'm being ridiculous or outright idiotic - then please don't worry, after all, you believe you already have the answers to your questions and you can be secure in that knowledge. It really shouldn't bother anyone that I prefer to keep questioning.
|
What is the point of life ?
To succeed in some way that benefits yourself and others (both criteria need to be filled).
What can bring you lasting happiness?
A sense that I have made progress towards the goal of life (read above).
What are your most important values ?
Empathy, vanity, and ambition.
What is good and what is evil ?
Evil is to chose not to help someone even though that help would mean no personal investment from your part, alternatively to cause suffering that requires personal investment from your part.
being good is being anything not evil.
What is Wisdom?
Wisdom comes from an internal, or otherwise, discussion about a subject and it is the premeditated and well thought out answers or arguments from that discussion that is wisdom.
|
On July 17 2010 00:33 SirKibbleX wrote:Show nested quote +On July 17 2010 00:17 Yurebis wrote:On July 16 2010 23:56 Jazriel wrote:
Objectivism is the only correct philosophy. Anyone want to try and provide proof to the contrary? (This is an attempt to continue some interesting discussion.) I have an objection Life isn't the ultimate end to everyone How do you explain suicide? While I only until recently would have agreed that Objectivism is the only correct philosophy (I assume you don't mean political "Objectivism" like what Ayn Rand advocates, but rather a view of the world through objective external consensus reality), I think there is enough sense of doubt in the world and in the failures of our senses to reject that Objectivism should be the only correct philosophical view. Either way this argument is stupid. If life is the ultimate end to everyone there would be more, not less motivation for committing suicide.
By suicide I mean, ending ones own life
How's ending one's life a motivation for the pursuit of life?
hmmm
|
On July 17 2010 00:46 Gnosis wrote:Show nested quote +On July 17 2010 00:30 SirKibbleX wrote:On July 16 2010 01:48 Gnosis wrote:On July 16 2010 01:23 Win.win wrote:On July 16 2010 01:11 Gnosis wrote:On July 16 2010 00:54 Win.win wrote:On July 16 2010 00:50 Epsilon8 wrote:On July 15 2010 17:51 rockslave wrote:
Dennet is a known name because Dawkins keeps endorsing him, but sometimes he takes truths from nothing. In the language of mathematics, he doesn't prove the isomorphisms between his models and the modelled stuff before he uses them. If Daniel Dennet is well liked by Dawkins I am very skeptical. Dawkins is a bad thinker if I ever saw one. if you wouldn't mind, i'd love to hear some examples of Dawkins thinking poorly The God Delusion was Dawkins far from his best. The Greatest Show on Earth was also some what vitriolic, but otherwise I very much enjoy Dawkins. hmm you enjoy dawkins. not to be offensive but, judging by your questions in this thread, i take it you haven't read the selfish gene? dawkins is rather straightforward in the god delusion, but is that really an example of "bad thinking"? is there a particular argument he makes that you find unreasonable, or is it just his tone that you disapprove of? I've read The Selfish Gene, yes. Actually, I read that and The Blind Watchmaker consecutively. No offense taken in your asking. Dawkins is an extremely gifted writer, and I would agree with more than a few people in believing that The Selfish Gene (especially his account of bats) is probably his best work. The reason I asked my previous questions (aside from being dull and stupid) is because I find great interest in the question "why did life evolve at all?" And, actually, "why did life evolve the way it did?" It's not at all apparent to me that life should have to function as it does, aside from it being carbon based, to use our planet as an example. Why RNA, DNA, reproduction, age, survival, advancement, adaptation... Consciousness, appreciation of beauty, discovery of logics, etc. Why life at all? Dawkins has some very good speculation in The Selfish Gene, especially where altruism is concerned, but I don't feel he gives satisfactory answers to these more basic questions, which are perhaps unanswerable--"why this way?" Life seems wonderful, and I have a hard time accepting it as millions of happenstances (just as I have a hard time accepting "God did it"). I'm digressing, so onto The God Delusion. Dawkins was very straightforward, and that's not something I wold consider an example of "bad thinking". The reasoning in the book, in general, is what I believe constitutes bad thinking. His arguments just didn't seem well thought out, he messes up an argument against the trinity, misrepresents Aquinas, flippantly casts aside the ontological argument... It was an interesting book, just not well thought out. Life is merely a consequence of Chemistry and Physics. In theory if you put the right ingredients and enough energy in a swirling space for long enough you'll get life, that's the whole point of The Blind Watchmaker. If you ask 'why RNA' its because that form was the only self-replicating chemical that could lead to life's development. There's not some deep philosophical answer to it, it just was the only way logical conclusion given the Physics of Chemistry. Everything else is just the same: reproduction, aging, the concept of survival and adaption just happened. I don't see whats so hard to understand or believe about it. They're just logical conclusions given the self-replicating nature of chemistry and simple life. This is a very interesting article about a similar phenomenon: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conway's_Game_of_LifeThe fact that simple rules were arbitrarily selected and yet self-replicating structures developed isn't some magical thing that needs deep explanation. Thank you for your time; however (as you know) I'm very aware of these "answers" and for various reasons do not accept them as "base" explanations (I do not believe the "how" answers the "why," or vice-versa). If that frustrates you - or causes you to believe that I'm being ridiculous or outright idiotic - then please don't worry, after all, you believe you already have the answers to your questions and you can be secure in that knowledge. It really shouldn't bother anyone that I prefer to keep questioning.
just curious: concerning the link sirkibble provided, you wouldn't ask "why" those patterns arose in conway's game of life, would you? similarly, if you understood the physics/chemistry of what caused life to arise the way it did, you wouldn't ask "why" it happened this way, would you? if so, can you explain what you mean by the question? what sort of answer are you looking for?
|
On July 17 2010 01:00 Win.win wrote:Show nested quote +On July 17 2010 00:46 Gnosis wrote:On July 17 2010 00:30 SirKibbleX wrote:On July 16 2010 01:48 Gnosis wrote:On July 16 2010 01:23 Win.win wrote:On July 16 2010 01:11 Gnosis wrote:On July 16 2010 00:54 Win.win wrote:On July 16 2010 00:50 Epsilon8 wrote:On July 15 2010 17:51 rockslave wrote:
Dennet is a known name because Dawkins keeps endorsing him, but sometimes he takes truths from nothing. In the language of mathematics, he doesn't prove the isomorphisms between his models and the modelled stuff before he uses them. If Daniel Dennet is well liked by Dawkins I am very skeptical. Dawkins is a bad thinker if I ever saw one. if you wouldn't mind, i'd love to hear some examples of Dawkins thinking poorly The God Delusion was Dawkins far from his best. The Greatest Show on Earth was also some what vitriolic, but otherwise I very much enjoy Dawkins. hmm you enjoy dawkins. not to be offensive but, judging by your questions in this thread, i take it you haven't read the selfish gene? dawkins is rather straightforward in the god delusion, but is that really an example of "bad thinking"? is there a particular argument he makes that you find unreasonable, or is it just his tone that you disapprove of? I've read The Selfish Gene, yes. Actually, I read that and The Blind Watchmaker consecutively. No offense taken in your asking. Dawkins is an extremely gifted writer, and I would agree with more than a few people in believing that The Selfish Gene (especially his account of bats) is probably his best work. The reason I asked my previous questions (aside from being dull and stupid) is because I find great interest in the question "why did life evolve at all?" And, actually, "why did life evolve the way it did?" It's not at all apparent to me that life should have to function as it does, aside from it being carbon based, to use our planet as an example. Why RNA, DNA, reproduction, age, survival, advancement, adaptation... Consciousness, appreciation of beauty, discovery of logics, etc. Why life at all? Dawkins has some very good speculation in The Selfish Gene, especially where altruism is concerned, but I don't feel he gives satisfactory answers to these more basic questions, which are perhaps unanswerable--"why this way?" Life seems wonderful, and I have a hard time accepting it as millions of happenstances (just as I have a hard time accepting "God did it"). I'm digressing, so onto The God Delusion. Dawkins was very straightforward, and that's not something I wold consider an example of "bad thinking". The reasoning in the book, in general, is what I believe constitutes bad thinking. His arguments just didn't seem well thought out, he messes up an argument against the trinity, misrepresents Aquinas, flippantly casts aside the ontological argument... It was an interesting book, just not well thought out. Life is merely a consequence of Chemistry and Physics. In theory if you put the right ingredients and enough energy in a swirling space for long enough you'll get life, that's the whole point of The Blind Watchmaker. If you ask 'why RNA' its because that form was the only self-replicating chemical that could lead to life's development. There's not some deep philosophical answer to it, it just was the only way logical conclusion given the Physics of Chemistry. Everything else is just the same: reproduction, aging, the concept of survival and adaption just happened. I don't see whats so hard to understand or believe about it. They're just logical conclusions given the self-replicating nature of chemistry and simple life. This is a very interesting article about a similar phenomenon: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conway's_Game_of_LifeThe fact that simple rules were arbitrarily selected and yet self-replicating structures developed isn't some magical thing that needs deep explanation. Thank you for your time; however (as you know) I'm very aware of these "answers" and for various reasons do not accept them as "base" explanations (I do not believe the "how" answers the "why," or vice-versa). If that frustrates you - or causes you to believe that I'm being ridiculous or outright idiotic - then please don't worry, after all, you believe you already have the answers to your questions and you can be secure in that knowledge. It really shouldn't bother anyone that I prefer to keep questioning. just curious: concerning the link sirkibble provided, you wouldn't ask "why" those patterns arose in conway's game of life, would you? similarly, if you understood the physics/chemistry of what caused life to arise the way it did, you wouldn't ask "why" it happened this way, would you? if so, can you explain what you mean by the question? what sort of answer are you looking for?
I wouldn't ask "why" with respect to Conway's "game" because I know it was programmed by an intelligence to behave that way. So yes, I would still ask "why" - unless you are suggesting life has been programmed. If you are, the "why" might turn into a "where" did the programming come from (or as more commonly stated, where did this "information" come from).
|
On July 17 2010 01:10 Gnosis wrote:Show nested quote +On July 17 2010 01:00 Win.win wrote:On July 17 2010 00:46 Gnosis wrote:On July 17 2010 00:30 SirKibbleX wrote:On July 16 2010 01:48 Gnosis wrote:On July 16 2010 01:23 Win.win wrote:On July 16 2010 01:11 Gnosis wrote:On July 16 2010 00:54 Win.win wrote:On July 16 2010 00:50 Epsilon8 wrote:On July 15 2010 17:51 rockslave wrote:
Dennet is a known name because Dawkins keeps endorsing him, but sometimes he takes truths from nothing. In the language of mathematics, he doesn't prove the isomorphisms between his models and the modelled stuff before he uses them. If Daniel Dennet is well liked by Dawkins I am very skeptical. Dawkins is a bad thinker if I ever saw one. if you wouldn't mind, i'd love to hear some examples of Dawkins thinking poorly The God Delusion was Dawkins far from his best. The Greatest Show on Earth was also some what vitriolic, but otherwise I very much enjoy Dawkins. hmm you enjoy dawkins. not to be offensive but, judging by your questions in this thread, i take it you haven't read the selfish gene? dawkins is rather straightforward in the god delusion, but is that really an example of "bad thinking"? is there a particular argument he makes that you find unreasonable, or is it just his tone that you disapprove of? I've read The Selfish Gene, yes. Actually, I read that and The Blind Watchmaker consecutively. No offense taken in your asking. Dawkins is an extremely gifted writer, and I would agree with more than a few people in believing that The Selfish Gene (especially his account of bats) is probably his best work. The reason I asked my previous questions (aside from being dull and stupid) is because I find great interest in the question "why did life evolve at all?" And, actually, "why did life evolve the way it did?" It's not at all apparent to me that life should have to function as it does, aside from it being carbon based, to use our planet as an example. Why RNA, DNA, reproduction, age, survival, advancement, adaptation... Consciousness, appreciation of beauty, discovery of logics, etc. Why life at all? Dawkins has some very good speculation in The Selfish Gene, especially where altruism is concerned, but I don't feel he gives satisfactory answers to these more basic questions, which are perhaps unanswerable--"why this way?" Life seems wonderful, and I have a hard time accepting it as millions of happenstances (just as I have a hard time accepting "God did it"). I'm digressing, so onto The God Delusion. Dawkins was very straightforward, and that's not something I wold consider an example of "bad thinking". The reasoning in the book, in general, is what I believe constitutes bad thinking. His arguments just didn't seem well thought out, he messes up an argument against the trinity, misrepresents Aquinas, flippantly casts aside the ontological argument... It was an interesting book, just not well thought out. Life is merely a consequence of Chemistry and Physics. In theory if you put the right ingredients and enough energy in a swirling space for long enough you'll get life, that's the whole point of The Blind Watchmaker. If you ask 'why RNA' its because that form was the only self-replicating chemical that could lead to life's development. There's not some deep philosophical answer to it, it just was the only way logical conclusion given the Physics of Chemistry. Everything else is just the same: reproduction, aging, the concept of survival and adaption just happened. I don't see whats so hard to understand or believe about it. They're just logical conclusions given the self-replicating nature of chemistry and simple life. This is a very interesting article about a similar phenomenon: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conway's_Game_of_LifeThe fact that simple rules were arbitrarily selected and yet self-replicating structures developed isn't some magical thing that needs deep explanation. Thank you for your time; however (as you know) I'm very aware of these "answers" and for various reasons do not accept them as "base" explanations (I do not believe the "how" answers the "why," or vice-versa). If that frustrates you - or causes you to believe that I'm being ridiculous or outright idiotic - then please don't worry, after all, you believe you already have the answers to your questions and you can be secure in that knowledge. It really shouldn't bother anyone that I prefer to keep questioning. just curious: concerning the link sirkibble provided, you wouldn't ask "why" those patterns arose in conway's game of life, would you? similarly, if you understood the physics/chemistry of what caused life to arise the way it did, you wouldn't ask "why" it happened this way, would you? if so, can you explain what you mean by the question? what sort of answer are you looking for? I wouldn't ask "why" with respect to Conway's "game" because I know it was programmed by an intelligence to behave that way. So yes, I would still ask "why" - unless you are suggesting life has been programmed. If you are, the "why" might turn into a "where" did the programming come from (or as more commonly stated, where did this "information" come from).
of course, the programming of life comes from natural selection. (as i'm sure you aware, if you have indeed read the selfish gene+blind watchmaker)
|
What is the point of life ?
There is more than one imo. But making yourself happy without hurting anyone is at least one of mine. Making others happy is also kinda important.
What can bring you lasting happiness?
I doubt life-lasting happiness really exists. There must be some darkness so that people can appreciate the light.
What is Wisdom?
"Knowledge comes from finding the answers, but understanding what the answers mean is what brings wisdom"
|
On July 17 2010 01:19 Win.win wrote:Show nested quote +On July 17 2010 01:10 Gnosis wrote:On July 17 2010 01:00 Win.win wrote:On July 17 2010 00:46 Gnosis wrote:On July 17 2010 00:30 SirKibbleX wrote:On July 16 2010 01:48 Gnosis wrote:On July 16 2010 01:23 Win.win wrote:On July 16 2010 01:11 Gnosis wrote:On July 16 2010 00:54 Win.win wrote:On July 16 2010 00:50 Epsilon8 wrote:
[quote]
If Daniel Dennet is well liked by Dawkins I am very skeptical. Dawkins is a bad thinker if I ever saw one. if you wouldn't mind, i'd love to hear some examples of Dawkins thinking poorly The God Delusion was Dawkins far from his best. The Greatest Show on Earth was also some what vitriolic, but otherwise I very much enjoy Dawkins. hmm you enjoy dawkins. not to be offensive but, judging by your questions in this thread, i take it you haven't read the selfish gene? dawkins is rather straightforward in the god delusion, but is that really an example of "bad thinking"? is there a particular argument he makes that you find unreasonable, or is it just his tone that you disapprove of? I've read The Selfish Gene, yes. Actually, I read that and The Blind Watchmaker consecutively. No offense taken in your asking. Dawkins is an extremely gifted writer, and I would agree with more than a few people in believing that The Selfish Gene (especially his account of bats) is probably his best work. The reason I asked my previous questions (aside from being dull and stupid) is because I find great interest in the question "why did life evolve at all?" And, actually, "why did life evolve the way it did?" It's not at all apparent to me that life should have to function as it does, aside from it being carbon based, to use our planet as an example. Why RNA, DNA, reproduction, age, survival, advancement, adaptation... Consciousness, appreciation of beauty, discovery of logics, etc. Why life at all? Dawkins has some very good speculation in The Selfish Gene, especially where altruism is concerned, but I don't feel he gives satisfactory answers to these more basic questions, which are perhaps unanswerable--"why this way?" Life seems wonderful, and I have a hard time accepting it as millions of happenstances (just as I have a hard time accepting "God did it"). I'm digressing, so onto The God Delusion. Dawkins was very straightforward, and that's not something I wold consider an example of "bad thinking". The reasoning in the book, in general, is what I believe constitutes bad thinking. His arguments just didn't seem well thought out, he messes up an argument against the trinity, misrepresents Aquinas, flippantly casts aside the ontological argument... It was an interesting book, just not well thought out. Life is merely a consequence of Chemistry and Physics. In theory if you put the right ingredients and enough energy in a swirling space for long enough you'll get life, that's the whole point of The Blind Watchmaker. If you ask 'why RNA' its because that form was the only self-replicating chemical that could lead to life's development. There's not some deep philosophical answer to it, it just was the only way logical conclusion given the Physics of Chemistry. Everything else is just the same: reproduction, aging, the concept of survival and adaption just happened. I don't see whats so hard to understand or believe about it. They're just logical conclusions given the self-replicating nature of chemistry and simple life. This is a very interesting article about a similar phenomenon: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conway's_Game_of_LifeThe fact that simple rules were arbitrarily selected and yet self-replicating structures developed isn't some magical thing that needs deep explanation. Thank you for your time; however (as you know) I'm very aware of these "answers" and for various reasons do not accept them as "base" explanations (I do not believe the "how" answers the "why," or vice-versa). If that frustrates you - or causes you to believe that I'm being ridiculous or outright idiotic - then please don't worry, after all, you believe you already have the answers to your questions and you can be secure in that knowledge. It really shouldn't bother anyone that I prefer to keep questioning. just curious: concerning the link sirkibble provided, you wouldn't ask "why" those patterns arose in conway's game of life, would you? similarly, if you understood the physics/chemistry of what caused life to arise the way it did, you wouldn't ask "why" it happened this way, would you? if so, can you explain what you mean by the question? what sort of answer are you looking for? I wouldn't ask "why" with respect to Conway's "game" because I know it was programmed by an intelligence to behave that way. So yes, I would still ask "why" - unless you are suggesting life has been programmed. If you are, the "why" might turn into a "where" did the programming come from (or as more commonly stated, where did this "information" come from). of course, the programming of life comes from natural selection. (as i'm sure you aware, if you have indeed read the selfish gene+blind watchmaker)
I would be asking the "where" in relation to the initial "rise" of information. Natural selection would not account for this initial instance, but only subsequent modifications. At least, as far as I understand natural selection. Because it seems to me that for natural selection to work as a process, information is assumed.
(And Epsilon, I'm getting to your reply eventually)
|
On July 17 2010 01:19 Win.win wrote:
of course, the programming of life comes from natural selection. (as i'm sure you aware, if you have indeed read the selfish gene+blind watchmaker)
After thinking some more of this - 'how', 'why' tension between science and spirituality I have come to what I believe to be a fuller definition of the 'why' question :
Science looks at this 'why' and say : "Well thats simple there is no 'why', it just is. Random happenstance."
However, I believe it is more appropriate to say that people asking the 'why' question are really asking 'what'? And the what question when not answered naturally leads to a why question.
And it is still the 'what' that science has yet to answer. It may say "Well of course the what is energy and the atoms composed of this energy." But taken in this way since energy and not atoms (because atoms are composed of energy) is all there is, it is not possible to contrast it with anything, and hence you cannot truly define what it actually is. Can you truly give an answer to the question of "What is energy?". You may try to say what it is by talking about how it works, i.e. it has the power to effect things in a kinetic way, but this would not establish what it actually is. I would take this a step further and say that if you cannot define what it is then you cannot actually establish its existence at all.
And then the natural question after the 'what is it' question has failed is to ask well if we can't answer the what then it must be a 'why' question. Because if 'what' it is can not really be said to be anything, then we must ask a 'why' this is.
|
On July 17 2010 02:26 Gnosis wrote:
I would be asking the "where" in relation to the initial "rise" of information. Natural selection would not account for this initial instance, but only subsequent modifications. At least, as far as I understand natural selection.
I think this question implies that natural selection exists when to my mind it is only a process which succeeds in creating specific results that we then call natural selection.
Just an aside. Have we ended our previous dialogue lol?
|
On July 17 2010 02:28 Epsilon8 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 17 2010 02:26 Gnosis wrote:
I would be asking the "where" in relation to the initial "rise" of information. Natural selection would not account for this initial instance, but only subsequent modifications. At least, as far as I understand natural selection. I think this question implies that natural selection exists when to my mind it is only a process which succeeds in creating specific results that we then call natural selection. Just an aside. Have we ended our previous dialogue lol?
No, I'm going to be getting to that today. I've been reading up on Buddhism, which accounts for the delay. As for the question, in my mind information is required before natural selection can work.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
