In a recent article, Stephen Hawking had the following exchange with his interviewer:
Q. You have three successful children and three grandchildren. You’ve obviously taught them a lot. What have they taught you?[emphasis added]
A. They have taught me that science is not enough. I need the warmth of family life.
Curious that man's quest for knowledge about his surroundings somehow don't satisfy that longing for something even more desirable. The curious part is why man has a desire so simplistic. The longing for knowledge can be somewhat explained from an evolutionary standpoint, albeit not all that satisfactorily. What cannot be explained--- as far as I can imagine the evolutionary view--- is the desire for hearth, home.
Originally posted by FreakyKBH“...The longing for knowledge can be somewhat explained from an evolutionary standpoint, albeit not all that satisfactorily....”
In a recent article, Stephen Hawking had the following exchange with his interviewer:Q. You have three successful children and three grandchildren. You’ve obviously taught them a lot. What have they taught you?[emphasis added]
A. They have taught me that science is not enough. I need the warmth of family life.
Curious that ...[text shortened]... explained--- as far as I can imagine the evolutionary view--- is the desire for hearth, home.
In what sense is it “ not all that satisfactorily”?
Any prick that has no interest in knowledge is going to stay pretty ignorant and obviously this is going to decrease his chances of survival.
“...What cannot be explained--- as far as I can imagine the evolutionary view--- is the desire for hearth, home. ...”
“hearth”?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hearth
“...a hearth is a brick- or stone-lined fireplace or oven often used for cooking and/or heating ..”
don't you mean “health and home”?
If so, if somebody did not desire these things and so didn't strive to obtain them, it is easy to see how that may decrease the chances of that person's survival as well as those of their children.
Originally posted by FreakyKBHYou clearly know very little about evolution, and animal behavior in general, or you are lying. I suspect the latter.
Curious that man's quest for knowledge about his surroundings somehow don't satisfy that longing for something even more desirable. The curious part is why man has a desire so simplistic. The longing for knowledge can be somewhat explained from an evolutionary standpoint, albeit not all that satisfactorily. What cannot be explained--- as far as I can imagine the evolutionary view--- is the desire for hearth, home.
It is patently obvious that all social animals benefit from the desire to be social in almost all the forms that takes - including the desire for hearth and home (and hugs).
What you would have difficulty with is explaining it from a non-evolutionary standpoint. Why would God cause you to favor your grand children over those unrelated to you?
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonIn what sense is it “ not all that satisfactorily”?
“...The longing for knowledge can be somewhat explained from an evolutionary standpoint, albeit not all that satisfactorily....”
In what sense is it “ not all that satisfactorily”?
Any prick that has no interest in knowledge is going to stay pretty ignorant and obviously this is going to decrease his chances of survival.
“...What cannot be ex ...[text shortened]... w that may decrease the chances of that person's survival as well as those of their children.
Any prick that has no interest in knowledge is going to stay pretty ignorant and obviously this is going to decrease his chances of survival.
Two-fold. Fold in half: knowledge of how things work--- at the end of the day--- simply imparts knowledge of how things work. Nothing else is conveyed and certainly no level of value imparted.
Second fold: animals without our knowledge are surviving just fine. Step further, there are some who suggest that our knowledge is dangerous, in that our ability to make machines which lighten our load is working against us and darkening our chances at future survival.
don't you mean “health and home”?
If so, if somebody did not desire these things and so didn't strive to obtain them, it is easy to see how that may decrease the chances of that person's survival as well as those of their children.
No, I meant hearth and home, as duecer pointed out. Hawkings didn't say he really likes copulating in order to increase man's regeneration efforts; he said he really needs the love of his family.
Let's get back on topic.
Originally posted by twhiteheadYou clearly know very little about evolution, and animal behavior in general, or you are lying. I suspect the latter.
You clearly know very little about evolution, and animal behavior in general, or you are lying. I suspect the latter.
It is patently obvious that all social animals benefit from the desire to be social in almost all the forms that takes - including the desire for hearth and home (and hugs).
What you would have difficulty with is explaining it from a ...[text shortened]... ry standpoint. Why would God cause you to favor your grand children over those unrelated to you?
I suspect you're reading too much into motives and not enough into subject matter.
Why would God cause you to favor your grand children over those unrelated to you?
If, by favor, you mean my fulfillment of daily routine obligations, this is the order of life on all levels with nothing spiritual attached to it. However, affection and connection are not required for me to fulfill those obligations--- just a sense of duty. The question here is what drives man to want that connection, those affections, over and against his desire for knowledge?
1 edit
Originally posted by FreakyKBHIf, by favor, you mean my fulfillment of daily routine obligations, this is the order of life on all levels with nothing spiritual attached to it. However, affection and connection are not required for me to fulfill those obligations--- just a sense of duty. The question here is what drives man to want that connection, those affections, over and against his desire for knowledge?
[b]You clearly know very little about evolution, and animal behavior in general, or you are lying. I suspect the latter.
I suspect you're reading too much into motives and not enough into subject matter.
Why would God cause you to favor your grand children over those unrelated to you?
If, by favor, you mean my fulfillment of daily routine o ...[text shortened]... rives man to want that connection, those affections, over and against his desire for knowledge?[/b]
In the words of John McEnroe, "You cannot be serious".
You lift a question from a post by TW where he explicitly states what your question is asking and asks you to explain that from a non-evolutionary standpoint, and you ask him as if he hadn't already given you an explanation? Even more ironic is that as part of your answer you say, "this is order of life on all levels with nothing spiritual attached to it ", which points to evolution.
Priceless.
You have a remarkable ability to twist things up in your mind in order to try to protect your beliefs.
1 edit
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneIn the words of Tatum O'Neal, "Where's my alimony check?"
If, by favor, you mean my fulfillment of daily routine obligations, this is the order of life on all levels with nothing spiritual attached to it. However, affection and connection are not required for me to fulfill those obligations--- just a sense of duty. The question here is what drives man to want that connection, those affections, over and against h remarkable ability to twist things up in your mind in order to try to protect your beliefs.
What your point is, God only knows. How you got so far afield from the topic is mildly amusing.
Even more ironic is that as part of your answer you say, "this is order of life on all levels with nothing spiritual attached to it ", which points to evolution.
I was conceding that this isolated aspect of (for lack of a better phrase) primary nurturing relationships is not spiritual, i.e., there is nothing outside of normal daily functions which could be construed to be of origins other than what is common in all of nature. However, that being said, there is nothing whatsoever which lends such a state as either evidence of--- or a product of--- evolution.
What was being asked was why the longing within such relationships, if duty serves the natural, instinctual purposes.
You have a remarkable ability to twist things up in your mind in order to try to protect your beliefs.
Supposedly, you know someone not ailed by such infirmity.
Originally posted by FreakyKBHYou have a remarkable ability to twist things up in your mind in order to try to protect your beliefs.
In the words of Tatum O'Neal, "Where's my alimony check?"
What your point is, God only knows. How you got so far afield from the topic is mildly amusing.
[b]Even more ironic is that as part of your answer you say, "this is order of life on all levels with nothing spiritual attached to it ", which points to evolution.
I was conceding that this ...[text shortened]... ry to protect your beliefs.[/b]
Supposedly, you know someone not ailed by such infirmity.[/b]
Supposedly, you know someone not ailed by such infirmity.
Scientists
1 edit
Originally posted by FreakyKBHSince you're insisting on being obtuse about it, here is what TW said:
In the words of Tatum O'Neal, "Where's my alimony check?"
What your point is, God only knows. How you got so far afield from the topic is mildly amusing.
[b]Even more ironic is that as part of your answer you say, "this is order of life on all levels with nothing spiritual attached to it ", which points to evolution.
I was conceding that this ...[text shortened]... ry to protect your beliefs.[/b]
Supposedly, you know someone not ailed by such infirmity.[/b]
"It is patently obvious that all social animals benefit from the desire to be social in almost all the forms that takes - including the desire for hearth and home (and hugs)."
In conjunction with that, think about "evolution", "mutations", "natural selection", "adaptations", etc., and neurobiological incentives.
Supposedly, you know someone not ailed by such infirmity.
I know plenty who don't exhibit that ability to the extent that you seem to. Yours is truly remarkable.
Originally posted by FreakyKBHEvolution is blind and often leads to dead ends. It knows nothing of the future and where machines may lead us.
Step further, there are some who suggest that our knowledge is dangerous, in that our ability to make machines which lighten our load is working against us and darkening our chances at future survival.
However, the ability to build machines is clearly quite useful right now.
Now please explain why God with all his foresight would give us such dangerous abilities.
Originally posted by FreakyKBHEvolution is blind and often leads to dead ends. It knows nothing of the future and where machines may lead us.
Step further, there are some who suggest that our knowledge is dangerous, in that our ability to make machines which lighten our load is working against us and darkening our chances at future survival.
However, the ability to build machines is clearly quite useful right now.
Now please explain why God with all his foresight would give us such dangerous abilities. Oh yes. He didn't. He just carelessly left that tree of knowledge in Adams garden, and its all the snakes fault.