Global Myths - Evolution spin-off

[Starboy]

Quote by: Zeebadee Ok, and what they are seeing is 12.7 billions years old. They have no idea what might be there now. Even what we can see of the Andromeda galaxy is about 2 million years old. And you have no direct knowledge of what makes up intergalactic space, although you may have theories. No one and nothing has ever been there to send any information back. The farthest man made object from us is barely out of the solar system, nowhere near intergalactic space.

Your doing it again. You are using the phrase, "no idea". This is inaccurate. There are ideas as to what is in intergallactic space. We can observe a great deal of it. And we do not expect galaxies to be a whole lot different than they are now based on what we can see because we can look at our own galaxy. I admit it is not as good as being there but it is not as if there is "no idea". Light contains a tremendous amount of information. We have just begun to harvest the data available in the photons that reach us and we are dreaming up new scheems to extract even more data, but it is not as if the picture of our local group has changed a whole lot in the last 50 years. It just gets less fuzzy but no big surprises. It would be a giant leap to suppose that if we did go to Andromeda that it would have dissapeared. Could happened but based on what we know it is extremely unlikely. But in any case I would love to be able to go to all those galaxies for a closer look. But it is not as if we can't look at all.

"...because you think that your ignorance passes as my knowledge." I'm not too sure what this is supposed to mean, although I assume it's meant as an insult. I'm also not sure why you would want to insult anyone that posts to a discussion web site, since the purpose of the site is the actual discussion. Would you rather have this as a site where you just post your beliefs and have no discussion? Do you feel that personal insults enhance the value or the validity of your posts?

Hey you are the one claiming ignorance and now you are insulted when I agree with you. You want an insult? All you have to do is ask.

Starboy

[Zeebadee]

Quote by: Starboy Your doing it again. You are using the phrase, "no idea". This is inaccurate. There are ideas as to what is in intergallactic space. We can observe a great deal of it.

It's you that is displaying the ignorance. The definition of intergalactic space is "the physical space between galaxies. Generally free of dust and debris intergalactic space is very close to a vacuum with an average density of less than one atom per cubic meter.", As such, there is no way to observe it. You don't know what's there in the form of radiation, or what particles or other things might be passing through it. You are, though, a master at taking "There are ideas", "we do not expect", "based on what we can see", "no big surprises", and "based on what we know" and presenting such claims as hard facts.


"You want in insult?"

Ignorance?? You display it with every post.

Starboy[/quote]

[Starboy]

Quote by: Zeebadee It's you that is displaying the ignorance. The definition of intergalactic space is "the physical space between galaxies. Generally free of dust and debris intergalactic space is very close to a vacuum with an average density of less than one atom per cubic meter.", As such, there is no way to observe it. You don't know what's there in the form of radiation, or what particles or other things might be passing through it. You are, though, a master at taking "There are ideas", "we do not expect", "based on what we can see", "no big surprises", and "based on what we know" and presenting such claims as hard facts.

They are pretty good facts. For some reason you think that a complete survey of intergallactic space must be conducted by someone going to each and every point in that space. We don't even do that on earth. We use remote sensing.

Ignorance?? You display it with every post.

Maybe I do but if I claim ignorance I am not a weasel and then try to make it out as an insult when someone agrees that I am ignorant.

Starboy

[jeffl]

Quote by: Starboy The consequences of evolution are that we are the result of mindless physical processes.

You have no ground for this statement. You are admittedly ignorant of mind, and have no right to suggest where it may or may not reside.

[Starboy]

Quote by: jeffl You have no ground for this statement. You are admittedly ignorant of mind, and have no right to suggest where it may or may not reside.

Jeffl, parse the sentence carefully. You can do it. Maybe you will have to get off some of the drugs you are taking for a day or two so your mind clears up but I bet you can do it.

"The consequences of evolution are that we are the result of mindless physical processes."

The "mindless physical process" is just another way to express the ideas behind the theory of evolution. The process of "Natural Selection" as it is used in the theory of evolution is a "mindless physical process". So if such “evolution” is posited then what results is the consequence of “mindless physical processes“.

Now if you want to say that evolution as described in the theory of evolution is not how the biota on this planet got to be the way they are then that is fine, but my sentence still stands.

Starboy

[jeffl]

Quote by: Starboy The process of "Natural Selection" as it is used in the theory of evolution is a "mindless physical process".

I don't think it is entirely mindless. I think the experiential aspect of being suggests some presence of mind; while the 'amount' of mind that presents in physical evolution may be steadily increasing, there's no good reason to assume that the total 'amount' of mind in Being does not remain constant.

[Starboy]

Quote by: jeffl I don't think it is entirely mindless. I think the experiential aspect of being suggests some presence of mind; while the 'amount' of mind that presents in physical evolution may be steadily increasing, there's no good reason to assume that the total 'amount' of mind in Being does not remain constant.

Maybe that is so but there is no experimental evidence to support that claim. Evolutionary processess can be explained as a completely mindless process. As mindless as gravity or the chemical reactions of explosives or the movement of water through pipes. The expanations do not have a "mind" term.

Starboy

[jeffl]

Quote by: Starboy Maybe that is so but there is no experimental evidence to support that claim.

There has to be a theory to test before there can be experimental evidence. There has to be open discussion before there can be a grounded theory to test. Are you saying open discussion should be avoided until there is evidence to support a theory that's not allowed to be born?

Evolutionary processess can be explained as a completely mindless process.

Ofcourse they can. But it's my contention that an understanding of mind will suggest certain parallels between how the brain works and how evolution works. Prudence suggests a measure of respect

As mindless as gravity or the chemical reactions of explosives or the movement of water through pipes. The expanations do not have a "mind" term. Starboy

Again, i'm not so quick to judge. I've had some experience doing instrumentation tubing for pneumatic controls for oilfield process equipment; it's just neat the way pipeline pressure drives everything, and its functioning is like the spirit of soul. And when i think about long period comets at apogee, i get chills. The explainations don't have a 'mind' term, perhaps because noone has cared to look.

[Starboy]

Quote by: jeffl There has to be a theory to test before there can be experimental evidence. There has to be open discussion before there can be a grounded theory to test. Are you saying open discussion should be avoided until there is evidence to support a theory that's not allowed to be born?

Do you have a comprehension problem? How does me saying, ‘Maybe that is so but there is no experimental evidence to support that claim." preclude you from concocting your own explanation. How does it preclude you from conducting your own experiments? Do any dang thing you want. You do not need my approval.

But it's my contention that an understanding of mind will suggest certain parallels between how the brain works and how evolution works. Prudence suggests a measure of respect

I know that. You have repeated it many times. Too bad repeating it doesn't make it so. No one is stopping you from doing anything other than your own knowledge, ability, preparation and desire. Don't let me stop you but don't expect me to think much of your usual gibberish.

Again, i'm not so quick to judge. I've had some experience doing instrumentation tubing for pneumatic controls for oilfield process equipment; it's just neat the way pipeline pressure drives everything, and its functioning is like the spirit of soul. And when i think about long period comets at apogee, i get chills. The explainations don't have a 'mind' term, perhaps because noone has cared to look.

You think you are first to personify reality? It is an age old practice, but it is not science. Only persons have personalities. But hey, if you want to try to explain reality by talking to the mind in the pipe then go right ahead. But when it starts talking back do not tell anyone cause they are gonna lock you up in a padded room if they haven't done so already.

Starboy

[Zeebadee]

Quote by: Starboy Evolutionary processess can be explained as a completely mindless process. Starboy

Yes, those processes can be explained that way, but that doesn't mean that's the single, one and only explanation. Acquired knowledge, personal beliefs, even ingrained prejudices can all affect human behavior, and thus, in extremes, have an impact on individual survivability, which may directly affect the human gene pool, and human evolution.

And personal preferences in choosing a mate as opposed to the males battling it out for the females has a direct and almost immediate influence on human evolution. No more survival of the fittest, it's now survival of the best looking, or survival of the richest.

[Starboy]

Quote by: Zeebadee Yes, those processes can be explained that way, but that doesn't mean that's the single, one and only explanation.

I understand that scientific explanations are not the end all and be all. They are just the best explanations to date. Anyone is welcome to try to do better, but they will have much to learn since current scientific explanations represent hundreds of years of research, investigation and experimentation.

Acquired knowledge, personal beliefs, even ingrained prejudices can all affect human behavior, and thus, in extremes, have an impact on individual survivability, which may directly affect the human gene pool, and human evolution.

I understand that we are the result of a dance of our heredity and our environment. What does this have to do with Natural Selection and a "mind" term in that explanation? Are you talking about our minds? I don't think that is what Jeffl was talking about. He was talking about the mind in the rock or in his pneumatic system. Not in a human being. Our minds are explained by Natural Selection as an adaptation.

Take your time before you reply. Read the posts. Try to figure out what is going on. You will not look as much like Emily Litella if you do.

Starboy

[Detritus]

This debate is getting wooly. What is the presumption being argued pro/con at this point?

[JamesMcBride]

It saddens me that in my life time we'll probably never know what life is like on planets millions of light years away.

[Starboy]

Quote by: Detritus This debate is getting wooly. What is the presumption being argued pro/con at this point?

It's not going anywhere. It has been awhile since SeanG has replied to any of the posts.

Starboy

[jeffl]

Quote by: Starboy He was talking about the mind in the rock or in his pneumatic system. Not in a human being. Our minds are explained by Natural Selection as an adaptation.

I was compelled to articulate this more clearly in the consciousness thread.

I think it's fair to say that consciousness is at least a system of iconic representation(SIR). Further, one could also say that self-consciousness must involve an icon of self in the SIR. And none of this means anything if there is no experiential aspect to being; and that's the stuff, the potential for mind, that must be kept in mind. It's not that we're conscious, but that we feel anything at all. I realize that the dictionary definition probably has 'feel' as 'be made conscious' or something like that, but i'd take issue.

The pneumatic system could be said to have 'soul,' as the 'spirit,' represented by the process fluid, flows through it. It can be said to have 'understanding' in it; i'd say there's something like procedural information in it. How much there is depends on lots of things, ofcourse.

Certainly natural selection developed the physical structures in context; but that doesn't explain the experiential aspect.

[SeanG]

This is a little much for me to catch up with. As a few people here believe I dropped out of the debate, I haven't, untill I saw the pages added. I am a father of two boys, one is about to turn 13. I have two jobs, and a wife, neighbors who wish to visit almost every-day. I have a new I-Tunes toy. And Tom Clancy’s got two games coming out this month. As much as I would like, I cannot respond to all the points herein. I believe my points though, on the moths and inferring evolutionary comparisons to the fetus, are quite well argued and agreed with by most of the evolutionary community outside of the textbook producers.

G.

[Detritus]

Quote by: SeanG This is a little much for me to catch up with. As a few people here believe I dropped out of the debate, I haven't, untill I saw the pages added. I am a father of two boys, one is about to turn 13. I have two jobs, and a wife, neighbors who wish to visit almost every-day. I have a new I-Tunes toy. And Tom Clancy’s got two games coming out this month. As much as I would like, I cannot respond to all the points herein.

Dude, I hear you. My son's still a toddler. Two near-teenage boys...whooee. Good luck with that. :eek:

I maintain that Intelligent Design, as I have seen it, is not science and its adherents should stop pretending that it is. But for a lot of us, that's a tangential issue when dealing with everyday life.

We owe it to our kids to make our best effort to help them discover what life really is, if such a thing is possible, and science seems to me to be a better guide than faith, most of the time. I want my son to be rational. But I also want him to be kind.

Would a "reciprocal altruism" spinoff be redundant at this point?