10 Mar 11
Originally posted by rvsakhadeoIt depends what you mean by lower level creatures. Dolphins are far superior to us in being able to live, navigate, avoid predators and hunt for food underwater.
Dolphins do not play chess nor do they split hairs on science or metaphysics on RHP forums. They do not mud-sling or adopt hoity toity pseudo-scientific attitudes. Surely they are lower level creatures.
10 Mar 11
Originally posted by JS357I will be thankful if you clarify what you mean by"Not that this applies to to you,---the highest example."
Not that this applies to you, but these improbability discussions seem to gravitate toward humans as the highest example. This seems to imply that our combination of thinking power and emotional range is the important thing to consider. It just happens to be more important to animals that don't have other capabilities to get them through the day. As they say, ...[text shortened]... latecomers to this contest.
http://www.ias.ac.in/resonance/Sept2001/pdf/Sept2001p61-66.pdf
I take it that it was a clumsy effort to chuck some mud by trying to describe me as a less intelligent specimen of humans.
If so,I must reluctantly conclude that the so called science lovers are quite irrational when it comes to disputing a friendly challenge to their positions.
10 Mar 11
Originally posted by robbie carrobieSo you deny that Dolphins are intelligent? Would you read this link?:
What a pile of horse, i see other life forms as invalid???? my goodness that's taking real liberties! simply because i refuse to ascribe to your speculations and unsubstantiated claims founded upon what we dont know rather than what we do! Give up the materialism, its driving you to harbour unfounded and quite serious prejudices!
http://www.littletownmart.com/dolphins/
10 Mar 11
Originally posted by lauseyWhich are" the predators" that humans "fail to avoid" and why do you think that humans are not good at obtaining food from the sea ?
It depends what you mean by lower level creatures. Dolphins are far superior to us in being able to live, navigate, avoid predators and hunt for food underwater.
10 Mar 11
1 edit
Originally posted by rvsakhadeoI said dolphins are superior at doing these things underwater. Not that humans weren't good at it.
Which are" the predators" that humans "fail to avoid" and why do you think that humans are not good at obtaining food from the sea ?
My point is that dolphins are far better adapted naturally in their environment than we are in their environment. Likewise, we are better adapted in our environment to dolphins.
10 Mar 11
Originally posted by rvsakhadeo“...If it is also concerned with thinking and emotions, what streamlining/filtering ,if any, has taken place to give humans the highest thinking powers ...”
Is evolution a process dealing with filtering of biological properties only such as organ structure,organ materials, development of senses and other abilities / skills connected with the use of organs in the living being etc. or is it also concerned with brain processes such as thinking,emotional development etc.
If it is also concerned with thinking a ...[text shortened]... e humans the highest thinking powers and the highest range of emotions among all living beings ?
evolution is not “ concerned” with anything. Evolution has a predisposition to cause certain characteristics to develop and typically, but not necessarily, with ever increasing complexity being added.
Natural selection gave us the intelligence we have because that helps to pass on our genes. There is a certain amount of pseudo-chance involved in which species evolve to have which advantageous characteristics. We just happened to evolve the ability to think in a way that is what I would call the most 'technologically advantageous“ way of thinking.
But there are other modes of thinking other than the kind that specifically helps with the creation and use of tools and technology so you would have to be careful of how you define “ highest thinking powers” -what criteria do you use to define which thinking power is “higher” than another? Does that criteria only involve toolmaking ability and use?
“...and the highest range of emotions among all living beings ? ...”
how do you know that we have “ the highest range of emotions among all living beings “? how would that be demonstrated (scientifically or otherwise) ?
10 Mar 11
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonI used the word "concerned" in the same way that you have used the word "predisposition".I know we are discussing a process and not a living entity. But there are obvious linguistic limitations in such arguments.Let us not jump on each other's language but try to see each other's point of view. After all "
“...If it is also concerned with thinking and emotions, what streamlining/filtering ,if any, has taken place to give humans the highest thinking powers ...”
evolution is not “ concerned” with anything. Evolution has a predisposition to cause certain characteristics to develop and typically, but not necessarily, with ever increasing complexity bein ...[text shortened]... tions among all living beings “? how would that be demonstrated (scientifically or otherwise) ?
Natural Selection" is obviously not a very good combination of words.
Which being other than humans use such a complex language or have developed various systems to acquire and retain Knowledge and which other living being can internalize its thinking i.e.carry a dialogue with oneself inside one's brain.The point that I am making need not be elaborated further. My main point was why has a human being acquired a far bigger capacity to learn,to think, to have a fantastic range of emotions when these characteristics are not required at this stage of evolution of the human being ?Are we not evolved enough?Humans cry,laugh,are happy or unhappy,they are sullen,angry,loving,full of devotion, they blush from pleasure or from shame,they are contrary or cooperative,creative or violently anti-artistic etc. Which Animal has this range of emotions ?My point was why this wide range of emotions developed in humans apart from their intelligence ?
10 Mar 11
Originally posted by twhiteheadThere were two parts to the OP. Firstly the preliminary and then the excerpt from a Jewish Rabbi's article in the Huffington Post. I posted it because it stimulates thought about the issue it addresses.
Well you seem remarkably reluctant to admit that the main argument in your OP is a strawman and flawed in a number of ways.
Do you admit that:
1. The argument that RNA molecules appeared by pure chance is a strawman?
2. You took several quotes from famous people out of context to try and support your possition?
3. You accuse the scientific community o ...[text shortened]... aying "the reasons for believing in a God stated in the OP are not valid".
You appear to be stating that I agree with everything or term the Rabbi uses. I don't, which is why I sought to distinguish his particular interpration from my own, However he stated something in a more rational manner that was different from the usual fundamentalist Creationist line. And I am trying to put staements as divorced from religion as possible, although it does have a non-scientific (currently) reference to something that is still mystical in nature, if so.
I posit that the possibilty of RNA occurring by chance alone is extremely remote. This is not a "massive strawman" as you put it and which is just another way of stating that you disagree.. I have made the point a number of times. I posit that there is a view of many that some form of awareness or consciousness, primal and not derivative from insentient matter, (an Infinite Ground of Being, a Divine Awareness, A Brahman, a Tao, or an Awareness Field) holds a possible and to me necessary missing explanation of how extremely complex molecules and interacting cellular life arose, that most reductionist scientists state happened by pure chance. This as unlikely to me and the good rabbi and many others, as the fundmentalist posit that "God" popped it all up ready made.
You may be correct that I do not always distinguish that some scientists do not think that in some sentences, but I have stated it clearly in the preceding. You make statements that to answer means to spend considerable time and energy, referring to such obvious things that it was not me but the Rabbi that made statements, or point our the exact sentence wherein I gave my answer and you simply disagree.
I did not quote, the Rabbi did. I am not aware of them being out of context, and would be surprised if they were, it being a prominent article in a leading and respected US newspaper. Statements out of context are important and I appreciate if they are pointed out, but they not central to the issue being discussed. We both know that proof by statements of well known people is no proof, but interesting nevertheless and indicative, of serious consideration when made by people respected in their field.
There was an inherent contradiction in one phrasing I used.
I acknowledged that some were doing research and you asked me 'what studies? and replied with an unnecessary directive to how you might obtain access to such.
The hypothesis posited if true would explain other unfinished science and also established, observed psychic phenomenon in both animals and man, besides the pre-evolutionary combination of highly complex molecules that work in unison and require each to be present for the biological function to happen.
To me this is impossible without some unifying communicative awareness-like property, a primal awareness underlying all existence. You do not agree. If you ask me what unfinished science I will only state I am not writing a book here and limit my answers.
You give no indications that such an awareness cannot be because of any finding. You simply dismiss it as an hypothesis on the a priori belief it is not true science.
I gave my opinion of the significance of the Mandelbrot Set. You disagree. You do not see any significance in the central finding of it about order emerging out of seeming chaos and which to some indicate life has an strange underlying tendency to order.
We still don't know what gravity itself is. We can label it. We can measure it. We can state its properties and call it a "force". But we can't say what it actually is. Yet it is central to the emergence and formation of the Universe. What is it that attracts a small rock to a bigger rock? Referring to mass difference only steps it back, why does mass get attracted to mass?
Is that it is somehow related to an underlying awareness field? I am not saying rocks are sentient, but is there a force of some form of awareness-like property if you will inherent in everything?
Similarly in how gases congregate together.
Similarly in how plasma can act as one body, with all molecules in unison.
And you know the importance of gravity in the formation oft he Universe, suns etc, even before any emergence of living matter.
Now that's really cuckoo land to you I expect but ce la vie. I like exploring interesting thoughts freely and not getting bogged down in detail when trying to grasp the big picture - that comes much later in the process of discovery, as the good Einstein and others exhibited. Perhaps we just approach thinking differently. And I expect it is possible we have lost any readers along the way.
You may have the last word if you wish.
Cheers tw.
10 Mar 11
Originally posted by TaomanThe trouble with Science is not one Scientist can define fundamental concepts e.g. what is Mass,Gravity and Energy et al. No one can explain why the Rules are the way they are e.g.why masses exert gravitational attraction towards each other and not repel each other. Observations have been made,theories developed on axiomatic bases. They work splendidly. They are a collection of successful recipes. And nothing more. But I must congratulate you on your clarity of thinking apart from your storehouse of knowledge of
There were two parts to the OP. Firstly the preliminary and then the excerpt from a Jewish Rabbi's article in the Huffington Post. I posted it because it stimulates thought about the issue it addresses.
You appear to be stating that I agree with everything or term the Rabbi uses. I don't, which is why I sought to distinguish his particular interpration from ...[text shortened]... any readers along the way.
You may have the last word if you wish.
Cheers tw.
10 Mar 11
Originally posted by mikelomNo one is knocking dolphins or their 'intelligence', but to state that others feel that non human life forms are invalid, is well, taking liberties!
The way Dolphins communicate is quite meta-physical, and beyond human ability.
They are orderly, highly intelligent, and immeasurable comapared to our fundamental brain qualities.
Don't knock Dolphins, for Christ's sake. 😀
-m.
10 Mar 11
Originally posted by rvsakhadeoVery sorry that my last post got cut off due to
The trouble with Science is not one Scientist can define fundamental concepts e.g. what is Mass,Gravity and Energy et al. No one can explain why the Rules are the way they are e.g.why masses exert gravitational attraction towards each other and not repel each other. Observations have been made,theories developed on axiomatic bases. They work splendidly. ...[text shortened]... t I must congratulate you on your clarity of thinking apart from your storehouse of knowledge of
absence of network over a length of the road my car was moving. My mobile phone is also an old Nokia 61i. Now I am back home and typing away on my PC.
I wanted to congratulate you on the vast storehouse of your knowledge of the Eastern way of thinking about the riddles of Universe,quite apart from your easy style of expressing these abstractions. Truly a performance from a Master who knows.
10 Mar 11
Originally posted by TaomanWhat I find remarkable though is your extreme reluctance to admit that most of what the Rabbi says is a strawman despite I and others pointing this out.
There were two parts to the OP. Firstly the preliminary and then the excerpt from a Jewish Rabbi's article in the Huffington Post. I posted it because it stimulates thought about the issue it addresses.
So can you restate your main point without the Rabbis article, because try as I might, I cant seem to see it in the OP.
You said for example in the OP:
I posit to you that all the evidence points, in an obvious and inextricable way, to a supernatural explanation for the origin of life.
Yet have produced no such evidence whatsoever - other than the strawman from the Rabbi. So where is this evidence?
However he stated something in a more rational manner that was different from the usual fundamentalist Creationist line.
Actually he followed a very popular fundamentalist Creationist line. He is far from being the first to throw out that particular strawman.
I posit that the possibilty of RNA occurring by chance alone is extremely remote. This is not a "massive strawman" as you put it and which is just another way of stating that you disagree.
Do you know what a strawman is?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man
The above claim of yours is a strawman. In other words, I fully agree with you that the possibility of RNA occurring by chance alone is extremely remote, but who cares, because nobody is claiming that RNA did occur by chance alone. I am not claiming it, and no scientist I know of is claiming it.
I posit that there is a view of many that some form of awareness or consciousness, primal and not derivative from insentient matter, (an Infinite Ground of Being, a Divine Awareness, A Brahman, a Tao, or an Awareness Field) holds a possible and to me necessary missing explanation of how extremely complex molecules and interacting cellular life arose, that most reductionist scientists state happened by pure chance.
So you are religious. We know that. But what you don't seem to be willing to accept is:
1. Your belief does not actually answer any questions, it just raises more questions.
2. Your claim about 'reductionist scientists' is a strawman. They do not believe in 'pure chance', and never have.
We both know that proof by statements of well known people is no proof, but interesting nevertheless and indicative, of serious consideration when made by people respected in their field.
Which is of course why the Rabbi made the quotes (and you quoted him making them). But if he is forced to essentially fabricate the quotes then there is something seriously wrong with his claims (or motives for making the claims).
The hypothesis posited if true would explain other unfinished science and also established, observed psychic phenomenon in both animals and man, besides the pre-evolutionary combination of highly complex molecules that work in unison and require each to be present for the biological function to happen.
Well why don't we discuss what this 'other unfinished science' actually is. You seem intent of claiming that your 'god hypothesis' is an answer to all the mysterious questions but remain extremely vague about what those questions actually are or how your hypothesis answers them, and worst of all, the one specific question you chose to state clearly in the OP, it turns out you know next to nothing about anyway and does not suit your argument at all.
If you ask me what unfinished science I will only state I am not writing a book here and limit my answers.
Typical fundamentalist theist stance. You are essentially saying: "I believe in God but I cant tell you why and don't have the time to discuss it, and why do you scientist types not go and look into my religion."
You give no indications that such an awareness cannot be because of any finding. You simply dismiss it as an hypothesis on the a priori belief it is not true science.
Correct. And what is wrong with such a dismissal? You refuse to give any indications as to why anyone should even consider such an awareness, you simply state over and over that it somehow explains everything for you, but now how it explains it or what evidence you see that supports such a hypothesis. So far you are no different from a persons who says "Santa Claus did it".
I gave my opinion of the significance of the Mandelbrot Set. You disagree. You do not see any significance in the central finding of it about order emerging out of seeming chaos and which to some indicate life has an strange underlying tendency to order.
Are we talking about 'life' as in 'living things', or about 'the universe'? I find nothing strange about the underlying tendency to order. Thats what forces do. I really don't see how it is relevant.
Is that it is somehow related to an underlying awareness field?
Maybe, maybe not. Maybe it has something to do with flying toasters. But until there is a reason to consider either proposal, it seems unnecessary to even bother thinking about it. What is an 'underlying awareness field' if not another unexplained 'force'? Is this underlying awareness filed perhaps explainable by some super-supernatural phenomena called the hyper-dyper-underlying field?
Now that's really cuckoo land to you...
Yes, I am afraid it is.
I like exploring interesting thoughts freely and not getting bogged down in detail when trying to grasp the big picture
And there is nothing wrong with that. But when you do the following then there is a problem:
1. Start to protect your hypothesis religiously by refusing to listen to counter arguments, or manufacturing claims in their support.
2. Expect everyone else to think what you are thinking and get upset that scientists are not doing your thinking for you.
(I am not saying you do all of these things but you are getting dangerously close)
Cheers tw.
Cheers. I have enjoyed the discussion so far and hope I have not been rude or disrespectful. If feel that you are avoiding the details of a discussion where your argument is based on generalities and I feel that in every case, in the details, the answers can be found.
ie
You say: There is a God because that answers all unanswered questions.
I say: There is no need to consider a God because all unanswered questions can be answered.
I also say: A God does not actually answer any questions, it just hides them in further layers of complexity.
10 Mar 11
Originally posted by mikelomYes,Dolphins are extraordinary creatures,no doubt.
The way Dolphins communicate is quite meta-physical, and beyond human ability.
They are orderly, highly intelligent, and immeasurable comapared to our fundamental brain qualities.
Don't knock Dolphins, for Christ's sake. 😀
-m.
The point was whether Humans are at the apex of all living beings or not,in so far as Intelligence and the range of Emotions are concerned.
All humans who believe in a Creator do love all the things that were created,as all of them including even non living things are superb creations. Beyond words actually.