|
On July 03 2013 23:59 mcc wrote:Show nested quote +On July 03 2013 23:22 xM(Z wrote:On July 03 2013 21:43 mcc wrote:On July 03 2013 20:14 xM(Z wrote:On July 03 2013 19:00 snejja wrote:On July 03 2013 18:12 xM(Z wrote:On July 03 2013 17:47 DertoQq wrote:On July 03 2013 17:37 xM(Z wrote:so how would you explain phobias? or, if everything is physical, why are phobias 'treated' psychologically?. Cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) can be beneficial. Cognitive behavioral therapy allows the patient to challenge dysfunctional thoughts or beliefs by being mindful of their own feelings with the aim that the patient will realize their fear is irrational why would the realization of the irrationality of said fear, treat/cure a physical mechanism?. even if it would not provide a cure, it does seem like the mind/consciousness has some control power over the manifestation of physical mechanisms. my general/current take on stuff: one can not control the reaction but he can control the action. laws of the universe/physics/chemistry/biology control the reaction, free will controls the action. Because a psychological treatment is technically a physical treatment. Every time you speak to someone you alter his brain physically. When someone is sad, it is easier to give him a reason not to be sad instead of opening his brain and cutting through it. then, if our thoughts/reason can affect the physical world why would it be limited to only our physical body?. why our thoughts couldn't affect everything else in the material world? because weak electric impulses and small amount of chemicals, confined in a biologically armored head have very little possibility to affect anything beyond brain itself and connected to brain muscles/organs. they could affect EEG, though - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_consumer_brain–computer_interfaces yes but the point i wanted to eventually get to with that, is this: if we, with our weak electric impulses can (and do) control our own physical body why couldn't another entity, like the universe, control its own body?. it would definitely have the energy to do so. basically if a mechanism is valid at a micro scale, why wouldn't it be valid at a macro scale? a universe with thoughts. our evolution pre-determined by thoughts of the universe. Because our control of our body is result of biological evolution and has evolutionary purpose. Universe could have the same property, but as far as we know it is not true. It would require universe to be purposeful in the same sense as organisms are. Our current view is that universe is just a bunch of matter organized by physical laws. But as I said it could be so, but what is relevance of this to this discussion ? you would have to explain/define the word purpose, why do think we have a purpose?. if humans/all life on earth were to go extinct tomorrow, what would happen to that purpose?. does purpose means that something/someone would care if we go extinct?, could we not exist without a purpose (but with laws)?. we might just as well be a bunch of matter organized by physical laws, exactly like the universe. We are also bunch of matter organized by physical laws, but due to us being formed by evolution (as opposed to universe) we have some additional properties, specifically drive to survive and procreate as individual organisms. That is the purpose I mean. Organism's purpose is delivery mechanism for genes and to do that we evolved as individuals (by that I mean systems that consist of parts working towards common purpose) and it is evolutionary advantage for individuals to have coordination between parts and that is exactly what your brain's control over your body is. Coordination mechanism. As far as we know universe did not evolve and has no purposeful coordination taking place.
There is no purpose in evolution. Evolution (though natural selection) is only random. We don't have any "purposeful coordination", just a random set of tool that hopefully end up being very coordinated. (we wouldn't be here talking about it otherwise)
Unless you think there is something more to Evolution than natural selection ofc.
|
On July 04 2013 00:14 xM(Z wrote:Show nested quote +On July 03 2013 23:59 mcc wrote:On July 03 2013 23:22 xM(Z wrote:On July 03 2013 21:43 mcc wrote:On July 03 2013 20:14 xM(Z wrote:On July 03 2013 19:00 snejja wrote:On July 03 2013 18:12 xM(Z wrote:On July 03 2013 17:47 DertoQq wrote:On July 03 2013 17:37 xM(Z wrote:so how would you explain phobias? or, if everything is physical, why are phobias 'treated' psychologically?. Cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) can be beneficial. Cognitive behavioral therapy allows the patient to challenge dysfunctional thoughts or beliefs by being mindful of their own feelings with the aim that the patient will realize their fear is irrational why would the realization of the irrationality of said fear, treat/cure a physical mechanism?. even if it would not provide a cure, it does seem like the mind/consciousness has some control power over the manifestation of physical mechanisms. my general/current take on stuff: one can not control the reaction but he can control the action. laws of the universe/physics/chemistry/biology control the reaction, free will controls the action. Because a psychological treatment is technically a physical treatment. Every time you speak to someone you alter his brain physically. When someone is sad, it is easier to give him a reason not to be sad instead of opening his brain and cutting through it. then, if our thoughts/reason can affect the physical world why would it be limited to only our physical body?. why our thoughts couldn't affect everything else in the material world? because weak electric impulses and small amount of chemicals, confined in a biologically armored head have very little possibility to affect anything beyond brain itself and connected to brain muscles/organs. they could affect EEG, though - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_consumer_brain–computer_interfaces yes but the point i wanted to eventually get to with that, is this: if we, with our weak electric impulses can (and do) control our own physical body why couldn't another entity, like the universe, control its own body?. it would definitely have the energy to do so. basically if a mechanism is valid at a micro scale, why wouldn't it be valid at a macro scale? a universe with thoughts. our evolution pre-determined by thoughts of the universe. Because our control of our body is result of biological evolution and has evolutionary purpose. Universe could have the same property, but as far as we know it is not true. It would require universe to be purposeful in the same sense as organisms are. Our current view is that universe is just a bunch of matter organized by physical laws. But as I said it could be so, but what is relevance of this to this discussion ? you would have to explain/define the word purpose, why do think we have a purpose?. if humans/all life on earth were to go extinct tomorrow, what would happen to that purpose?. does purpose means that something/someone would care if we go extinct?, could we not exist without a purpose (but with laws)?. we might just as well be a bunch of matter organized by physical laws, exactly like the universe. We are also bunch of matter organized by physical laws, but due to us being formed by evolution (as opposed to universe) we have some additional properties, specifically drive to survive and procreate as individual organisms. That is the purpose I mean. Organism's purpose is delivery mechanism for genes and to do that we evolved as individuals (by that I mean systems that consist of parts working towards common purpose) and it is evolutionary advantage for individuals to have coordination between parts and that is exactly what your brain's control over your body is. Coordination mechanism. As far as we know universe did not evolve and has no purposeful coordination taking place. statements and assertions but you are basically saying that purpose = path, (predestined path i might add, based on your wording) right? also, what is evolution, what do you mean when you say evolution?. why would the universe not be able to evolve too?. the universe does expand, it grows, it changes. it's as though it lives, it evolves.
I was using word purpose to communicate my point about how organisms differ from other entities, not to argue about meaning of life. You are missing the point, because you are too hang up on the word.
And by evolution I of course mean biological evolution by natural selection as that is the whole reason how organisms differ from other entities. Evolution by natural selection introduces the purpose that universe most likely does not have. Evolution of universe does not have the same properties as biological evolution.
|
On July 04 2013 00:22 DertoQq wrote:Show nested quote +On July 03 2013 23:59 mcc wrote:On July 03 2013 23:22 xM(Z wrote:On July 03 2013 21:43 mcc wrote:On July 03 2013 20:14 xM(Z wrote:On July 03 2013 19:00 snejja wrote:On July 03 2013 18:12 xM(Z wrote:On July 03 2013 17:47 DertoQq wrote:On July 03 2013 17:37 xM(Z wrote:so how would you explain phobias? or, if everything is physical, why are phobias 'treated' psychologically?. Cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) can be beneficial. Cognitive behavioral therapy allows the patient to challenge dysfunctional thoughts or beliefs by being mindful of their own feelings with the aim that the patient will realize their fear is irrational why would the realization of the irrationality of said fear, treat/cure a physical mechanism?. even if it would not provide a cure, it does seem like the mind/consciousness has some control power over the manifestation of physical mechanisms. my general/current take on stuff: one can not control the reaction but he can control the action. laws of the universe/physics/chemistry/biology control the reaction, free will controls the action. Because a psychological treatment is technically a physical treatment. Every time you speak to someone you alter his brain physically. When someone is sad, it is easier to give him a reason not to be sad instead of opening his brain and cutting through it. then, if our thoughts/reason can affect the physical world why would it be limited to only our physical body?. why our thoughts couldn't affect everything else in the material world? because weak electric impulses and small amount of chemicals, confined in a biologically armored head have very little possibility to affect anything beyond brain itself and connected to brain muscles/organs. they could affect EEG, though - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_consumer_brain–computer_interfaces yes but the point i wanted to eventually get to with that, is this: if we, with our weak electric impulses can (and do) control our own physical body why couldn't another entity, like the universe, control its own body?. it would definitely have the energy to do so. basically if a mechanism is valid at a micro scale, why wouldn't it be valid at a macro scale? a universe with thoughts. our evolution pre-determined by thoughts of the universe. Because our control of our body is result of biological evolution and has evolutionary purpose. Universe could have the same property, but as far as we know it is not true. It would require universe to be purposeful in the same sense as organisms are. Our current view is that universe is just a bunch of matter organized by physical laws. But as I said it could be so, but what is relevance of this to this discussion ? you would have to explain/define the word purpose, why do think we have a purpose?. if humans/all life on earth were to go extinct tomorrow, what would happen to that purpose?. does purpose means that something/someone would care if we go extinct?, could we not exist without a purpose (but with laws)?. we might just as well be a bunch of matter organized by physical laws, exactly like the universe. We are also bunch of matter organized by physical laws, but due to us being formed by evolution (as opposed to universe) we have some additional properties, specifically drive to survive and procreate as individual organisms. That is the purpose I mean. Organism's purpose is delivery mechanism for genes and to do that we evolved as individuals (by that I mean systems that consist of parts working towards common purpose) and it is evolutionary advantage for individuals to have coordination between parts and that is exactly what your brain's control over your body is. Coordination mechanism. As far as we know universe did not evolve and has no purposeful coordination taking place. There is no purpose in evolution. Evolution (though natural selection) is only random. We don't have any "purposeful coordination", just a random set of tool that hopefully end up being very coordinated. (we wouldn't be here talking about it otherwise) Unless you think there is something more to Evolution than natural selection ofc.
You are also knee-jerking to my usage of the word "purpose". Try to see what I actually meant by that word in that context. Evolution has no goal, but it introduces purpose in the organisms it produces. Claws have purpose, feathers have purpose, and so has ability of neural network to control muscles. And evolution is NOT random as natural selection is opposite of randomness.
|
On July 04 2013 00:22 mcc wrote:Show nested quote +On July 04 2013 00:14 xM(Z wrote:On July 03 2013 23:59 mcc wrote:On July 03 2013 23:22 xM(Z wrote:On July 03 2013 21:43 mcc wrote:On July 03 2013 20:14 xM(Z wrote:On July 03 2013 19:00 snejja wrote:On July 03 2013 18:12 xM(Z wrote:On July 03 2013 17:47 DertoQq wrote:On July 03 2013 17:37 xM(Z wrote:
so how would you explain phobias? or, if everything is physical, why are phobias 'treated' psychologically?.
[quote]
why would the realization of the irrationality of said fear, treat/cure a physical mechanism?.
even if it would not provide a cure, it does seem like the mind/consciousness has some control power over the manifestation of physical mechanisms.
my general/current take on stuff: one can not control the reaction but he can control the action. laws of the universe/physics/chemistry/biology control the reaction, free will controls the action.
Because a psychological treatment is technically a physical treatment. Every time you speak to someone you alter his brain physically. When someone is sad, it is easier to give him a reason not to be sad instead of opening his brain and cutting through it. then, if our thoughts/reason can affect the physical world why would it be limited to only our physical body?. why our thoughts couldn't affect everything else in the material world? because weak electric impulses and small amount of chemicals, confined in a biologically armored head have very little possibility to affect anything beyond brain itself and connected to brain muscles/organs. they could affect EEG, though - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_consumer_brain–computer_interfaces yes but the point i wanted to eventually get to with that, is this: if we, with our weak electric impulses can (and do) control our own physical body why couldn't another entity, like the universe, control its own body?. it would definitely have the energy to do so. basically if a mechanism is valid at a micro scale, why wouldn't it be valid at a macro scale? a universe with thoughts. our evolution pre-determined by thoughts of the universe. Because our control of our body is result of biological evolution and has evolutionary purpose. Universe could have the same property, but as far as we know it is not true. It would require universe to be purposeful in the same sense as organisms are. Our current view is that universe is just a bunch of matter organized by physical laws. But as I said it could be so, but what is relevance of this to this discussion ? you would have to explain/define the word purpose, why do think we have a purpose?. if humans/all life on earth were to go extinct tomorrow, what would happen to that purpose?. does purpose means that something/someone would care if we go extinct?, could we not exist without a purpose (but with laws)?. we might just as well be a bunch of matter organized by physical laws, exactly like the universe. We are also bunch of matter organized by physical laws, but due to us being formed by evolution (as opposed to universe) we have some additional properties, specifically drive to survive and procreate as individual organisms. That is the purpose I mean. Organism's purpose is delivery mechanism for genes and to do that we evolved as individuals (by that I mean systems that consist of parts working towards common purpose) and it is evolutionary advantage for individuals to have coordination between parts and that is exactly what your brain's control over your body is. Coordination mechanism. As far as we know universe did not evolve and has no purposeful coordination taking place. statements and assertions but you are basically saying that purpose = path, (predestined path i might add, based on your wording) right? also, what is evolution, what do you mean when you say evolution?. why would the universe not be able to evolve too?. the universe does expand, it grows, it changes. it's as though it lives, it evolves. I was using word purpose to communicate my point about how organisms differ from other entities, not to argue about meaning of life. You are missing the point, because you are too hang up on the word. And by evolution I of course mean biological evolution by natural selection as that is the whole reason how organisms differ from other entities. Evolution by natural selection introduces the purpose that universe most likely does not have. Evolution of universe does not have the same properties as biological evolution.
but it's all atoms. biology is all atoms, we are all atoms, the universe is all atoms. why would atoms have different proprieties then atoms?  .
i might be hang up on the word but if i am to give you an exact law, a physical law, that would define evolution (something like e=mc2) your point would die because that law would apply to everything, including the universe.
you are using undefined concepts, to prove the presence or absence of them, in arbitrary systems and i can't really do anything about it (except agree to disagree). so yea, i have to be hang up on words.
to your above reply: you are looking for the word use. claws have use, feathers have use ... the universe has use.
edit: in a postulated multiverse environment, our universe could be very well seen as competing with those other universes. this would not only drive its evolution but it would also give it purpose and/or use.
|
On July 04 2013 00:58 xM(Z wrote:Show nested quote +On July 04 2013 00:22 mcc wrote:On July 04 2013 00:14 xM(Z wrote:On July 03 2013 23:59 mcc wrote:On July 03 2013 23:22 xM(Z wrote:On July 03 2013 21:43 mcc wrote:On July 03 2013 20:14 xM(Z wrote:On July 03 2013 19:00 snejja wrote:On July 03 2013 18:12 xM(Z wrote:On July 03 2013 17:47 DertoQq wrote:
[quote]
Because a psychological treatment is technically a physical treatment. Every time you speak to someone you alter his brain physically.
When someone is sad, it is easier to give him a reason not to be sad instead of opening his brain and cutting through it. then, if our thoughts/reason can affect the physical world why would it be limited to only our physical body?. why our thoughts couldn't affect everything else in the material world? because weak electric impulses and small amount of chemicals, confined in a biologically armored head have very little possibility to affect anything beyond brain itself and connected to brain muscles/organs. they could affect EEG, though - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_consumer_brain–computer_interfaces yes but the point i wanted to eventually get to with that, is this: if we, with our weak electric impulses can (and do) control our own physical body why couldn't another entity, like the universe, control its own body?. it would definitely have the energy to do so. basically if a mechanism is valid at a micro scale, why wouldn't it be valid at a macro scale? a universe with thoughts. our evolution pre-determined by thoughts of the universe. Because our control of our body is result of biological evolution and has evolutionary purpose. Universe could have the same property, but as far as we know it is not true. It would require universe to be purposeful in the same sense as organisms are. Our current view is that universe is just a bunch of matter organized by physical laws. But as I said it could be so, but what is relevance of this to this discussion ? you would have to explain/define the word purpose, why do think we have a purpose?. if humans/all life on earth were to go extinct tomorrow, what would happen to that purpose?. does purpose means that something/someone would care if we go extinct?, could we not exist without a purpose (but with laws)?. we might just as well be a bunch of matter organized by physical laws, exactly like the universe. We are also bunch of matter organized by physical laws, but due to us being formed by evolution (as opposed to universe) we have some additional properties, specifically drive to survive and procreate as individual organisms. That is the purpose I mean. Organism's purpose is delivery mechanism for genes and to do that we evolved as individuals (by that I mean systems that consist of parts working towards common purpose) and it is evolutionary advantage for individuals to have coordination between parts and that is exactly what your brain's control over your body is. Coordination mechanism. As far as we know universe did not evolve and has no purposeful coordination taking place. statements and assertions but you are basically saying that purpose = path, (predestined path i might add, based on your wording) right? also, what is evolution, what do you mean when you say evolution?. why would the universe not be able to evolve too?. the universe does expand, it grows, it changes. it's as though it lives, it evolves. I was using word purpose to communicate my point about how organisms differ from other entities, not to argue about meaning of life. You are missing the point, because you are too hang up on the word. And by evolution I of course mean biological evolution by natural selection as that is the whole reason how organisms differ from other entities. Evolution by natural selection introduces the purpose that universe most likely does not have. Evolution of universe does not have the same properties as biological evolution. but it's all atoms. biology is all atoms, we are all atoms, the universe is all atoms. why would atoms have different proprieties then atoms? . i might be hang up on the word but if i am to give you an exact law, a physical law, that would define evolution (something like e=mc2) your point would die because that law would apply to everything, including the universe. you are using undefined concepts, to prove the presence or absence of them, in arbitrary systems and i can't really do anything about it (except agree to disagree). so yea, i have to be hang up on words. to your above reply: you are looking for the word use. claws have use, feathers have use ... the universe has use.
You are still missing the point and making a lot of bad inferences. Physical laws might apply to everything, so what ? How does that affect my argument ? It does not. Star is made mostly of hydrogen, does it mean that something made mostly of hydrogen is a star ? That is the exact bad logical inference you are making. Just because all matter is built from the same particles does not mean all the matter has the same configuration. Stars behave differently then nebulas and stars have they own laws governing their behaviour. Yes, those laws can be deduced from general physical laws, but that does not change that stars have different properties than nebulas. So does evolution as a process have different properties than evolution of cosmos. Basically what you are arguing is actually : All things are the same and there are no differences anywhere. Which is obvious nonsense.
And my usage of the word purpose was in that case perfectly correct. Purpose - "The reason for which something is done or created or for which something exists.". Feathers exist to isolate and enable flight. Of course universe has no purpose or use.
|
On July 04 2013 00:22 DertoQq wrote:
There is no purpose in evolution. Evolution (though natural selection) is only random. We don't have any "purposeful coordination", just a random set of tool that hopefully end up being very coordinated. (we wouldn't be here talking about it otherwise)
Unless you think there is something more to Evolution than natural selection ofc.
Evolution isn't just random. Mutations are random, but natural selection is the opposite of random.
|
On July 04 2013 01:09 mcc wrote:Show nested quote +On July 04 2013 00:58 xM(Z wrote:On July 04 2013 00:22 mcc wrote:On July 04 2013 00:14 xM(Z wrote:On July 03 2013 23:59 mcc wrote:On July 03 2013 23:22 xM(Z wrote:On July 03 2013 21:43 mcc wrote:On July 03 2013 20:14 xM(Z wrote:On July 03 2013 19:00 snejja wrote:On July 03 2013 18:12 xM(Z wrote:
[quote]
then, if our thoughts/reason can affect the physical world why would it be limited to only our physical body?. why our thoughts couldn't affect everything else in the material world? because weak electric impulses and small amount of chemicals, confined in a biologically armored head have very little possibility to affect anything beyond brain itself and connected to brain muscles/organs. they could affect EEG, though - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_consumer_brain–computer_interfaces yes but the point i wanted to eventually get to with that, is this: if we, with our weak electric impulses can (and do) control our own physical body why couldn't another entity, like the universe, control its own body?. it would definitely have the energy to do so. basically if a mechanism is valid at a micro scale, why wouldn't it be valid at a macro scale? a universe with thoughts. our evolution pre-determined by thoughts of the universe. Because our control of our body is result of biological evolution and has evolutionary purpose. Universe could have the same property, but as far as we know it is not true. It would require universe to be purposeful in the same sense as organisms are. Our current view is that universe is just a bunch of matter organized by physical laws. But as I said it could be so, but what is relevance of this to this discussion ? you would have to explain/define the word purpose, why do think we have a purpose?. if humans/all life on earth were to go extinct tomorrow, what would happen to that purpose?. does purpose means that something/someone would care if we go extinct?, could we not exist without a purpose (but with laws)?. we might just as well be a bunch of matter organized by physical laws, exactly like the universe. We are also bunch of matter organized by physical laws, but due to us being formed by evolution (as opposed to universe) we have some additional properties, specifically drive to survive and procreate as individual organisms. That is the purpose I mean. Organism's purpose is delivery mechanism for genes and to do that we evolved as individuals (by that I mean systems that consist of parts working towards common purpose) and it is evolutionary advantage for individuals to have coordination between parts and that is exactly what your brain's control over your body is. Coordination mechanism. As far as we know universe did not evolve and has no purposeful coordination taking place. statements and assertions but you are basically saying that purpose = path, (predestined path i might add, based on your wording) right? also, what is evolution, what do you mean when you say evolution?. why would the universe not be able to evolve too?. the universe does expand, it grows, it changes. it's as though it lives, it evolves. I was using word purpose to communicate my point about how organisms differ from other entities, not to argue about meaning of life. You are missing the point, because you are too hang up on the word. And by evolution I of course mean biological evolution by natural selection as that is the whole reason how organisms differ from other entities. Evolution by natural selection introduces the purpose that universe most likely does not have. Evolution of universe does not have the same properties as biological evolution. but it's all atoms. biology is all atoms, we are all atoms, the universe is all atoms. why would atoms have different proprieties then atoms? . i might be hang up on the word but if i am to give you an exact law, a physical law, that would define evolution (something like e=mc2) your point would die because that law would apply to everything, including the universe. you are using undefined concepts, to prove the presence or absence of them, in arbitrary systems and i can't really do anything about it (except agree to disagree). so yea, i have to be hang up on words. to your above reply: you are looking for the word use. claws have use, feathers have use ... the universe has use. You are still missing the point and making a lot of bad inferences. Physical laws might apply to everything, so what ? How does that affect my argument ? It does not. Star is made mostly of hydrogen, does it mean that something made mostly of hydrogen is a star ? That is the exact bad logical inference you are making. Just because all matter is built from the same particles does not mean all the matter has the same configuration. Stars behave differently then nebulas and stars have they own laws governing their behaviour. Yes, those laws can be deduced from general physical laws, but that does not change that stars have different properties than nebulas. So does evolution as a process have different properties than evolution of cosmos. Basically what you are arguing is actually : All things are the same and there are no differences anywhere. Which is obvious nonsense. And my usage of the word purpose was in that case perfectly correct. Purpose - "The reason for which something is done or created or for which something exists.". Feathers exist to isolate and enable flight. Of course universe has no purpose or use.
the universe exists, it was created, so you could fucking live in it. there's the purpose. objections?. if the universe dies, you die so it has to live, for you. there!, a purpose worthy of mmc.
or you figured that when the universe dies, you'll go on living ...
(also expand your conception about life to more then bio-life. it quickly kills/limits an argument)
|
On July 01 2013 10:11 electronic voyeur wrote:
Life is complex, we all get that. Let's focus a bit more, human beings, of all human life forms, is arguably the most complex one, having the only faculty of consciousness capable of complex language, ideas, architecture, composing orchestral pieces, feeling depressed, feel depressed about feeling depressed, writing novels, haikus, building a computer, cloning animals, brain studying itself, appreciating the sunset, and more.
This begs the question, and even impoverishes imagination if you really think hard about it, are all these things, art, architecture, the internet, religion, sociological theory, space rocket, Einstein's thought experiments, emotions, dance, self-reflection merely products of chemical and electrical impulses in the human brain?
To be more exact - is the mind, in all its complexity, physical, the is, the chemical and electric networks in the brain? What about morality, love, ideas, empathy, compassion, imagination? Are these mere byproducts of physiological processes that are in a way similar to the chemical and electrical impulses experienced by other animals?
What are your thoughts? Is the mind all physical?
Yeah all of it is just biological processes and our ability to self-reflect makes us think that we are more than that sometimes, or that we have a 'soul'. When really the brain is just another organ which has a specific job like other organs in the body.
And you give humans too much credit, dolphins have been shown to have the brain capacity of 10ish year old children, they play around with their appearance when shown a mirror, they even rape other dolphins for fun. So yes, they can be depressed as well.
|
On July 04 2013 01:20 xM(Z wrote:Show nested quote +On July 04 2013 01:09 mcc wrote:On July 04 2013 00:58 xM(Z wrote:On July 04 2013 00:22 mcc wrote:On July 04 2013 00:14 xM(Z wrote:On July 03 2013 23:59 mcc wrote:On July 03 2013 23:22 xM(Z wrote:On July 03 2013 21:43 mcc wrote:On July 03 2013 20:14 xM(Z wrote:yes but the point i wanted to eventually get to with that, is this: if we, with our weak electric impulses can (and do) control our own physical body why couldn't another entity, like the universe, control its own body?. it would definitely have the energy to do so. basically if a mechanism is valid at a micro scale, why wouldn't it be valid at a macro scale? a universe with thoughts. our evolution pre-determined by thoughts of the universe. Because our control of our body is result of biological evolution and has evolutionary purpose. Universe could have the same property, but as far as we know it is not true. It would require universe to be purposeful in the same sense as organisms are. Our current view is that universe is just a bunch of matter organized by physical laws. But as I said it could be so, but what is relevance of this to this discussion ? you would have to explain/define the word purpose, why do think we have a purpose?. if humans/all life on earth were to go extinct tomorrow, what would happen to that purpose?. does purpose means that something/someone would care if we go extinct?, could we not exist without a purpose (but with laws)?. we might just as well be a bunch of matter organized by physical laws, exactly like the universe. We are also bunch of matter organized by physical laws, but due to us being formed by evolution (as opposed to universe) we have some additional properties, specifically drive to survive and procreate as individual organisms. That is the purpose I mean. Organism's purpose is delivery mechanism for genes and to do that we evolved as individuals (by that I mean systems that consist of parts working towards common purpose) and it is evolutionary advantage for individuals to have coordination between parts and that is exactly what your brain's control over your body is. Coordination mechanism. As far as we know universe did not evolve and has no purposeful coordination taking place. statements and assertions but you are basically saying that purpose = path, (predestined path i might add, based on your wording) right? also, what is evolution, what do you mean when you say evolution?. why would the universe not be able to evolve too?. the universe does expand, it grows, it changes. it's as though it lives, it evolves. I was using word purpose to communicate my point about how organisms differ from other entities, not to argue about meaning of life. You are missing the point, because you are too hang up on the word. And by evolution I of course mean biological evolution by natural selection as that is the whole reason how organisms differ from other entities. Evolution by natural selection introduces the purpose that universe most likely does not have. Evolution of universe does not have the same properties as biological evolution. but it's all atoms. biology is all atoms, we are all atoms, the universe is all atoms. why would atoms have different proprieties then atoms? . i might be hang up on the word but if i am to give you an exact law, a physical law, that would define evolution (something like e=mc2) your point would die because that law would apply to everything, including the universe. you are using undefined concepts, to prove the presence or absence of them, in arbitrary systems and i can't really do anything about it (except agree to disagree). so yea, i have to be hang up on words. to your above reply: you are looking for the word use. claws have use, feathers have use ... the universe has use. You are still missing the point and making a lot of bad inferences. Physical laws might apply to everything, so what ? How does that affect my argument ? It does not. Star is made mostly of hydrogen, does it mean that something made mostly of hydrogen is a star ? That is the exact bad logical inference you are making. Just because all matter is built from the same particles does not mean all the matter has the same configuration. Stars behave differently then nebulas and stars have they own laws governing their behaviour. Yes, those laws can be deduced from general physical laws, but that does not change that stars have different properties than nebulas. So does evolution as a process have different properties than evolution of cosmos. Basically what you are arguing is actually : All things are the same and there are no differences anywhere. Which is obvious nonsense. And my usage of the word purpose was in that case perfectly correct. Purpose - "The reason for which something is done or created or for which something exists.". Feathers exist to isolate and enable flight. Of course universe has no purpose or use. the universe exists, it was created, so you could fucking live in it. there's the purpose. objections?. if the universe dies, you die so it has to live, for you. there!, a purpose worthy of mmc. or you figured that when the universe dies, you'll go on living ... (also expand your conception about life to more then bio-life. it quickly kills/limits an argument)
Universe exists, it was not created. And it does not exist so I can live in it, if I was never born, universe would still exist. And I am starting to be pretty sure that you are either troll or just not worth discussing, not sure yet which.
|
On July 01 2013 10:11 electronic voyeur wrote:
Are these mere byproducts of physiological processes that are in a way similar to the chemical and electrical impulses experienced by other animals?
...
Is the mind all physical?
Yes and yes.
You should read "Descartes Error" by Antonio Damasio.
|
On July 04 2013 01:32 mcc wrote:Show nested quote +On July 04 2013 01:20 xM(Z wrote:On July 04 2013 01:09 mcc wrote:On July 04 2013 00:58 xM(Z wrote:On July 04 2013 00:22 mcc wrote:On July 04 2013 00:14 xM(Z wrote:On July 03 2013 23:59 mcc wrote:On July 03 2013 23:22 xM(Z wrote:On July 03 2013 21:43 mcc wrote:On July 03 2013 20:14 xM(Z wrote:
[quote]
yes but the point i wanted to eventually get to with that, is this:
if we, with our weak electric impulses can (and do) control our own physical body why couldn't another entity, like the universe, control its own body?. it would definitely have the energy to do so.
basically if a mechanism is valid at a micro scale, why wouldn't it be valid at a macro scale?
a universe with thoughts.
our evolution pre-determined by thoughts of the universe. Because our control of our body is result of biological evolution and has evolutionary purpose. Universe could have the same property, but as far as we know it is not true. It would require universe to be purposeful in the same sense as organisms are. Our current view is that universe is just a bunch of matter organized by physical laws. But as I said it could be so, but what is relevance of this to this discussion ? you would have to explain/define the word purpose, why do think we have a purpose?. if humans/all life on earth were to go extinct tomorrow, what would happen to that purpose?. does purpose means that something/someone would care if we go extinct?, could we not exist without a purpose (but with laws)?. we might just as well be a bunch of matter organized by physical laws, exactly like the universe. We are also bunch of matter organized by physical laws, but due to us being formed by evolution (as opposed to universe) we have some additional properties, specifically drive to survive and procreate as individual organisms. That is the purpose I mean. Organism's purpose is delivery mechanism for genes and to do that we evolved as individuals (by that I mean systems that consist of parts working towards common purpose) and it is evolutionary advantage for individuals to have coordination between parts and that is exactly what your brain's control over your body is. Coordination mechanism. As far as we know universe did not evolve and has no purposeful coordination taking place. statements and assertions but you are basically saying that purpose = path, (predestined path i might add, based on your wording) right? also, what is evolution, what do you mean when you say evolution?. why would the universe not be able to evolve too?. the universe does expand, it grows, it changes. it's as though it lives, it evolves. I was using word purpose to communicate my point about how organisms differ from other entities, not to argue about meaning of life. You are missing the point, because you are too hang up on the word. And by evolution I of course mean biological evolution by natural selection as that is the whole reason how organisms differ from other entities. Evolution by natural selection introduces the purpose that universe most likely does not have. Evolution of universe does not have the same properties as biological evolution. but it's all atoms. biology is all atoms, we are all atoms, the universe is all atoms. why would atoms have different proprieties then atoms? . i might be hang up on the word but if i am to give you an exact law, a physical law, that would define evolution (something like e=mc2) your point would die because that law would apply to everything, including the universe. you are using undefined concepts, to prove the presence or absence of them, in arbitrary systems and i can't really do anything about it (except agree to disagree). so yea, i have to be hang up on words. to your above reply: you are looking for the word use. claws have use, feathers have use ... the universe has use. You are still missing the point and making a lot of bad inferences. Physical laws might apply to everything, so what ? How does that affect my argument ? It does not. Star is made mostly of hydrogen, does it mean that something made mostly of hydrogen is a star ? That is the exact bad logical inference you are making. Just because all matter is built from the same particles does not mean all the matter has the same configuration. Stars behave differently then nebulas and stars have they own laws governing their behaviour. Yes, those laws can be deduced from general physical laws, but that does not change that stars have different properties than nebulas. So does evolution as a process have different properties than evolution of cosmos. Basically what you are arguing is actually : All things are the same and there are no differences anywhere. Which is obvious nonsense. And my usage of the word purpose was in that case perfectly correct. Purpose - "The reason for which something is done or created or for which something exists.". Feathers exist to isolate and enable flight. Of course universe has no purpose or use. the universe exists, it was created, so you could fucking live in it. there's the purpose. objections?. if the universe dies, you die so it has to live, for you. there!, a purpose worthy of mmc. or you figured that when the universe dies, you'll go on living ... (also expand your conception about life to more then bio-life. it quickly kills/limits an argument) Universe exists, it was not created. And it does not exist so I can live in it, if I was never born, universe would still exist. And I am starting to be pretty sure that you are either troll or just not worth discussing, not sure yet which.
i was only using your definition for purpose + Show Spoiler +Purpose - "The reason for which something is done or created or for which something exists."
so the big bang never happened?, the universe didn't sprung from nothingness/a singularity (as physics tell us)?
All things are the same and there are no differences anywhere. Which is obvious nonsense. that is very true is you're an atom. it's not nonsense; but regardless that is not my stance. i'm only asking why do you have a purpose, why only you could have a purpose, why evolution could only affect you?. (and by you i mean whatever fits into your cathegory that is affected by evolution).
|
On July 04 2013 01:51 xM(Z wrote:Show nested quote +On July 04 2013 01:32 mcc wrote:On July 04 2013 01:20 xM(Z wrote:On July 04 2013 01:09 mcc wrote:On July 04 2013 00:58 xM(Z wrote:On July 04 2013 00:22 mcc wrote:On July 04 2013 00:14 xM(Z wrote:On July 03 2013 23:59 mcc wrote:On July 03 2013 23:22 xM(Z wrote:On July 03 2013 21:43 mcc wrote:
[quote]
Because our control of our body is result of biological evolution and has evolutionary purpose. Universe could have the same property, but as far as we know it is not true. It would require universe to be purposeful in the same sense as organisms are. Our current view is that universe is just a bunch of matter organized by physical laws. But as I said it could be so, but what is relevance of this to this discussion ? you would have to explain/define the word purpose, why do think we have a purpose?. if humans/all life on earth were to go extinct tomorrow, what would happen to that purpose?. does purpose means that something/someone would care if we go extinct?, could we not exist without a purpose (but with laws)?. we might just as well be a bunch of matter organized by physical laws, exactly like the universe. We are also bunch of matter organized by physical laws, but due to us being formed by evolution (as opposed to universe) we have some additional properties, specifically drive to survive and procreate as individual organisms. That is the purpose I mean. Organism's purpose is delivery mechanism for genes and to do that we evolved as individuals (by that I mean systems that consist of parts working towards common purpose) and it is evolutionary advantage for individuals to have coordination between parts and that is exactly what your brain's control over your body is. Coordination mechanism. As far as we know universe did not evolve and has no purposeful coordination taking place. statements and assertions but you are basically saying that purpose = path, (predestined path i might add, based on your wording) right? also, what is evolution, what do you mean when you say evolution?. why would the universe not be able to evolve too?. the universe does expand, it grows, it changes. it's as though it lives, it evolves. I was using word purpose to communicate my point about how organisms differ from other entities, not to argue about meaning of life. You are missing the point, because you are too hang up on the word. And by evolution I of course mean biological evolution by natural selection as that is the whole reason how organisms differ from other entities. Evolution by natural selection introduces the purpose that universe most likely does not have. Evolution of universe does not have the same properties as biological evolution. but it's all atoms. biology is all atoms, we are all atoms, the universe is all atoms. why would atoms have different proprieties then atoms? . i might be hang up on the word but if i am to give you an exact law, a physical law, that would define evolution (something like e=mc2) your point would die because that law would apply to everything, including the universe. you are using undefined concepts, to prove the presence or absence of them, in arbitrary systems and i can't really do anything about it (except agree to disagree). so yea, i have to be hang up on words. to your above reply: you are looking for the word use. claws have use, feathers have use ... the universe has use. You are still missing the point and making a lot of bad inferences. Physical laws might apply to everything, so what ? How does that affect my argument ? It does not. Star is made mostly of hydrogen, does it mean that something made mostly of hydrogen is a star ? That is the exact bad logical inference you are making. Just because all matter is built from the same particles does not mean all the matter has the same configuration. Stars behave differently then nebulas and stars have they own laws governing their behaviour. Yes, those laws can be deduced from general physical laws, but that does not change that stars have different properties than nebulas. So does evolution as a process have different properties than evolution of cosmos. Basically what you are arguing is actually : All things are the same and there are no differences anywhere. Which is obvious nonsense. And my usage of the word purpose was in that case perfectly correct. Purpose - "The reason for which something is done or created or for which something exists.". Feathers exist to isolate and enable flight. Of course universe has no purpose or use. the universe exists, it was created, so you could fucking live in it. there's the purpose. objections?. if the universe dies, you die so it has to live, for you. there!, a purpose worthy of mmc. or you figured that when the universe dies, you'll go on living ... (also expand your conception about life to more then bio-life. it quickly kills/limits an argument) Universe exists, it was not created. And it does not exist so I can live in it, if I was never born, universe would still exist. And I am starting to be pretty sure that you are either troll or just not worth discussing, not sure yet which. i was only using your definition for purpose + Show Spoiler +Purpose - "The reason for which something is done or created or for which something exists." . i meant nothing by it, was just a rendition. so the big bang never happened?, the universe didn't sprung from nothingness/a singularity (as physics tell us)? Show nested quote +All things are the same and there are no differences anywhere. Which is obvious nonsense. that is very true is you're an atom. it's not nonsense; but regardless that is not my stance. i'm only asking why do you have a purpose, why only you could have a purpose, why evolution could only affect you?. (and by you i mean whatever fits into your cathegory that is affected by evolution).
After the higgs boson and the problems it created for the big bang models, I would be more wary of just blindly trusting what "physics tells us"
|
|
|
The big bang is just a picture, a model trying to describe a phenomenon about which we don't have a full understanding. There is a reason we cannot go back to the initial moment. Our laws of physics don't work past a given point. So it might very well not have happened the way described by the theory. Anyone with a real knowledge on the subject might correct me, but I think that's pretty much it.
I think I know where you're getting at with your universal purpose. The universe seems to be heading for more complexity. Does that mean that it is intelligent design, that it has a purpose ? No. It could be that the universe is just going "everywhere" it can, only limited by the starting energy available. My lack of english vocabulary is probably going to hurt me on this one, but whatever.
|
On July 04 2013 02:07 D10 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 04 2013 01:51 xM(Z wrote:On July 04 2013 01:32 mcc wrote:On July 04 2013 01:20 xM(Z wrote:On July 04 2013 01:09 mcc wrote:On July 04 2013 00:58 xM(Z wrote:On July 04 2013 00:22 mcc wrote:On July 04 2013 00:14 xM(Z wrote:On July 03 2013 23:59 mcc wrote:On July 03 2013 23:22 xM(Z wrote:
[quote]
you would have to explain/define the word purpose, why do think we have a purpose?. if humans/all life on earth were to go extinct tomorrow, what would happen to that purpose?.
does purpose means that something/someone would care if we go extinct?, could we not exist without a purpose (but with laws)?.
we might just as well be a bunch of matter organized by physical laws, exactly like the universe. We are also bunch of matter organized by physical laws, but due to us being formed by evolution (as opposed to universe) we have some additional properties, specifically drive to survive and procreate as individual organisms. That is the purpose I mean. Organism's purpose is delivery mechanism for genes and to do that we evolved as individuals (by that I mean systems that consist of parts working towards common purpose) and it is evolutionary advantage for individuals to have coordination between parts and that is exactly what your brain's control over your body is. Coordination mechanism. As far as we know universe did not evolve and has no purposeful coordination taking place. statements and assertions but you are basically saying that purpose = path, (predestined path i might add, based on your wording) right? also, what is evolution, what do you mean when you say evolution?. why would the universe not be able to evolve too?. the universe does expand, it grows, it changes. it's as though it lives, it evolves. I was using word purpose to communicate my point about how organisms differ from other entities, not to argue about meaning of life. You are missing the point, because you are too hang up on the word. And by evolution I of course mean biological evolution by natural selection as that is the whole reason how organisms differ from other entities. Evolution by natural selection introduces the purpose that universe most likely does not have. Evolution of universe does not have the same properties as biological evolution. but it's all atoms. biology is all atoms, we are all atoms, the universe is all atoms. why would atoms have different proprieties then atoms? . i might be hang up on the word but if i am to give you an exact law, a physical law, that would define evolution (something like e=mc2) your point would die because that law would apply to everything, including the universe. you are using undefined concepts, to prove the presence or absence of them, in arbitrary systems and i can't really do anything about it (except agree to disagree). so yea, i have to be hang up on words. to your above reply: you are looking for the word use. claws have use, feathers have use ... the universe has use. You are still missing the point and making a lot of bad inferences. Physical laws might apply to everything, so what ? How does that affect my argument ? It does not. Star is made mostly of hydrogen, does it mean that something made mostly of hydrogen is a star ? That is the exact bad logical inference you are making. Just because all matter is built from the same particles does not mean all the matter has the same configuration. Stars behave differently then nebulas and stars have they own laws governing their behaviour. Yes, those laws can be deduced from general physical laws, but that does not change that stars have different properties than nebulas. So does evolution as a process have different properties than evolution of cosmos. Basically what you are arguing is actually : All things are the same and there are no differences anywhere. Which is obvious nonsense. And my usage of the word purpose was in that case perfectly correct. Purpose - "The reason for which something is done or created or for which something exists.". Feathers exist to isolate and enable flight. Of course universe has no purpose or use. the universe exists, it was created, so you could fucking live in it. there's the purpose. objections?. if the universe dies, you die so it has to live, for you. there!, a purpose worthy of mmc. or you figured that when the universe dies, you'll go on living ... (also expand your conception about life to more then bio-life. it quickly kills/limits an argument) Universe exists, it was not created. And it does not exist so I can live in it, if I was never born, universe would still exist. And I am starting to be pretty sure that you are either troll or just not worth discussing, not sure yet which. i was only using your definition for purpose + Show Spoiler +Purpose - "The reason for which something is done or created or for which something exists." . i meant nothing by it, was just a rendition. so the big bang never happened?, the universe didn't sprung from nothingness/a singularity (as physics tell us)? All things are the same and there are no differences anywhere. Which is obvious nonsense. that is very true is you're an atom. it's not nonsense; but regardless that is not my stance. i'm only asking why do you have a purpose, why only you could have a purpose, why evolution could only affect you?. (and by you i mean whatever fits into your cathegory that is affected by evolution). After the higgs boson and the problems it created for the big bang models, I would be more wary of just blindly trusting what "physics tells us"
fair point but it's not worse then blindly trusting evolution 
|
On July 04 2013 02:09 Cynry wrote:
The big bang is just a picture, a model trying to describe a phenomenon about which we don't have a full understanding. There is a reason we cannot go back to the initial moment. Our laws of physics don't work past a given point. So it might very well not have happened the way described by the theory. Anyone with a real knowledge on the subject might correct me, but I think that's pretty much it.
I think I know where you're getting at with your universal purpose. The universe seems to be heading for more complexity. Does that mean that it is intelligent design, that it has a purpose ? No. It could be that the universe is just going "everywhere" it can, only limited by the starting energy available. My lack of english vocabulary is probably going to hurt me on this one, but whatever.
pretty much this.
not only humans go places, everything else does too. purposelessly.
i'll give my left nut to someone who can prove a goal, a purpose, a predetermined end! 'cause as of now, everything seems to be guided/constrained by it's environment, even 'the why'.
|
So you've been obnoxiously arguing about petty words with people who I guess would agree with the basic idea ?
What a waste of time... I thought all this time that you were arguing FOR a universal purpose, not against it... Way to make yourself clear...
|
xM(Z, I suggest you stop responding as fast as you can and take the time to actually read what mcc is saying and explaining to you. Your replies consistently completely miss the point of what he is saying. Try understanding him (in particular what he means by purpose and evolution) before rushing to press the reply button.
|
On July 04 2013 02:32 Cynry wrote:
So you've been obnoxiously arguing about petty words with people who I guess would agree with the basic idea ?
What a waste of time... I thought all this time that you were arguing FOR a universal purpose, not against it... Way to make yourself clear...
i was trying more to deconstruct his idea just by showing a possible alternative. i had to use his definitions/wordings.
as far as purpose goes, he is free to believe in whatever purpose he wants but now he would have to include the universe too.
he didn't agree with the basic idea. for him the universe is only the background on which everything else happens. the universe is not included in 'everything else'.
life, his definition of life, was the only thing with a purpose.
|
On July 04 2013 02:13 xM(Z wrote:Show nested quote +On July 04 2013 02:07 D10 wrote:On July 04 2013 01:51 xM(Z wrote:On July 04 2013 01:32 mcc wrote:On July 04 2013 01:20 xM(Z wrote:On July 04 2013 01:09 mcc wrote:On July 04 2013 00:58 xM(Z wrote:On July 04 2013 00:22 mcc wrote:On July 04 2013 00:14 xM(Z wrote:On July 03 2013 23:59 mcc wrote:
[quote]
We are also bunch of matter organized by physical laws, but due to us being formed by evolution (as opposed to universe) we have some additional properties, specifically drive to survive and procreate as individual organisms. That is the purpose I mean. Organism's purpose is delivery mechanism for genes and to do that we evolved as individuals (by that I mean systems that consist of parts working towards common purpose) and it is evolutionary advantage for individuals to have coordination between parts and that is exactly what your brain's control over your body is. Coordination mechanism. As far as we know universe did not evolve and has no purposeful coordination taking place. statements and assertions but you are basically saying that purpose = path, (predestined path i might add, based on your wording) right? also, what is evolution, what do you mean when you say evolution?. why would the universe not be able to evolve too?. the universe does expand, it grows, it changes. it's as though it lives, it evolves. I was using word purpose to communicate my point about how organisms differ from other entities, not to argue about meaning of life. You are missing the point, because you are too hang up on the word. And by evolution I of course mean biological evolution by natural selection as that is the whole reason how organisms differ from other entities. Evolution by natural selection introduces the purpose that universe most likely does not have. Evolution of universe does not have the same properties as biological evolution. but it's all atoms. biology is all atoms, we are all atoms, the universe is all atoms. why would atoms have different proprieties then atoms? . i might be hang up on the word but if i am to give you an exact law, a physical law, that would define evolution (something like e=mc2) your point would die because that law would apply to everything, including the universe. you are using undefined concepts, to prove the presence or absence of them, in arbitrary systems and i can't really do anything about it (except agree to disagree). so yea, i have to be hang up on words. to your above reply: you are looking for the word use. claws have use, feathers have use ... the universe has use. You are still missing the point and making a lot of bad inferences. Physical laws might apply to everything, so what ? How does that affect my argument ? It does not. Star is made mostly of hydrogen, does it mean that something made mostly of hydrogen is a star ? That is the exact bad logical inference you are making. Just because all matter is built from the same particles does not mean all the matter has the same configuration. Stars behave differently then nebulas and stars have they own laws governing their behaviour. Yes, those laws can be deduced from general physical laws, but that does not change that stars have different properties than nebulas. So does evolution as a process have different properties than evolution of cosmos. Basically what you are arguing is actually : All things are the same and there are no differences anywhere. Which is obvious nonsense. And my usage of the word purpose was in that case perfectly correct. Purpose - "The reason for which something is done or created or for which something exists.". Feathers exist to isolate and enable flight. Of course universe has no purpose or use. the universe exists, it was created, so you could fucking live in it. there's the purpose. objections?. if the universe dies, you die so it has to live, for you. there!, a purpose worthy of mmc. or you figured that when the universe dies, you'll go on living ... (also expand your conception about life to more then bio-life. it quickly kills/limits an argument) Universe exists, it was not created. And it does not exist so I can live in it, if I was never born, universe would still exist. And I am starting to be pretty sure that you are either troll or just not worth discussing, not sure yet which. i was only using your definition for purpose + Show Spoiler +Purpose - "The reason for which something is done or created or for which something exists." . i meant nothing by it, was just a rendition. so the big bang never happened?, the universe didn't sprung from nothingness/a singularity (as physics tell us)? All things are the same and there are no differences anywhere. Which is obvious nonsense. that is very true is you're an atom. it's not nonsense; but regardless that is not my stance. i'm only asking why do you have a purpose, why only you could have a purpose, why evolution could only affect you?. (and by you i mean whatever fits into your cathegory that is affected by evolution). After the higgs boson and the problems it created for the big bang models, I would be more wary of just blindly trusting what "physics tells us" fair point but it's not worse then blindly trusting evolution
There's no need to blindly trust evolution. Given that a nearly infinite amount of evidence exists supporting biological evolution, you may confidently trust it, assuming you are not an irrational person
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
