Yes, and I don't just mean what "greens" mean by environmental changes. I'm not just talking about global warming and increased mercury. I'm also talking about culture, science and art. This internet we're using to communicate is new to our cultural environment.



I'm not sure what you're getting at with that statement. When I said religion put the policeman inside your head I meant that you might not do some small cheat even though you knew you could get away with it as far as people knowing goes because you'd believe there was a judge above above human that would know.

Of course, the so-called "executive" might be the one who decides what's wrong -- is homosexuality wrong? Is sex out of marriage wrong? Is eating pork or not going to the church every Sunday wrong?

But no matter what's decided to be wrong, religion puts a policeman called "fear and/or hope of otherwordly consequencies" in your head to help enforce it.



Not on an individual standpoint, but we don't survive and breed as mere individuals -- we depend on cultures and groups to survive or die. I couldn't live without some society that provides me with things I don't do for myself -- store to buy food, carpenters to build my house... and I may not die because of a mistake I make. I might die because of a mistake George W. Bush makes, or a decision a crook with a gun makes. In fact, more people will die for Bush's mistakes than a lot of individual stupid behavior that takes people out of the gene pool.



Right, they didn't die before leaving offspring. In fact, Ghandi and the 'K guys, didn't do much more than risk their lives (something we all do when we drive cars) and it was kind of a career choice for them. We all sacrifice a little of our lives for our jobs and this stuff might have seemed like less of a job that computer programming. Those extraordinary people may not be so extraordinary. Each depended on reaching out to a common sense of compassion, justice, desire for freedom and respect that had to exist in people of all sorts of faiths. The power wasn't there's -- it really belonged to all the people they reached with their message.

I was thinking of Ghandi, I was thinking more about the kind of young guys who would throw themselves on grenades to save their buddies, go on suicide missions and stuff like that.

And on the darker side -- those suicide bombers and terrorists who fly into buildings did sacrifice themselves too.

It depends on how much a society needs them. Remember what I said above, these days we often live or die as a group. That entwines our fates on the genetic level over the long term.

Or, think about your own body -- it's made of cells, each with a specialized function and some must die to serve their function. But in the distant past those cells were single celled individual organisms who learned to depend on a group for survival.



It's "artificially intelligent" goal? What does that mean?

Well, there is a point to my ramblings and your starting to pick up on it. Societies ultimately do depend on the will of the people. But if the people can't see their own stake in shaping society then they can be hood-winked into serving any elite that can set itself up over them.



Capitalism depends on "natural selection" (or "consumer selection") while communism depends on "intelligent design."



I'm offering it as a test of what you and I and anybody else here thinks we understand.

In the end we believe in the things we find most useful. The things that give us some kind of power and ability.

But one needs to go farther than that and ask the nature of these powers and abilities. After all, someone who studies theology can get the power to become pope or a cardinal and have lots of people listen.



I'm one of the little guys, and I'm not destroyed -- I'm just used.

I'm powerless in the face of a country going mad as it sinks into religious insanity. And that's not ultimately the power of the big guys, the elites -- that's the power of a lot of other little guys who've been led around by an illusion.



I hope knowledge can change who we trust and believe in, what we believe, and educate our imaginations so they imagine things that are really possible and not put everything off to sime unknowable, untestable fairy tale that happens after death.



How do I do that?

All myths about myths, subject to interpretation at best. I challenge anyone who believes them to find the supporting biblical scriptures.

Good Christ, you guys are still at it! Tenacious!!!

You know Norm, I think you and I aren't really that far apart. I also see the cruelty of "Life"! Translate that into the "coldness" of the universe, the cosmos, nature, evolution, "God", whatever.

If you will excuse me, I believe you are an idealist disillusioned by discovery!

Perhaps this is a bit presumptous since I don't really know you! But I HAVE always wondered at; "Nature; red in tooth and claw"!

Bertrand Russell always made me THINK! You remind me of his thought! When asked about what he would say to "God" after death (if he was to meet God), He said; (paraphrase) " I would say; " YOU didn't give us enough evidence of your existance!"

There is a nobility in your tenaciousness to demand physical proof of metaphyisical theories! It is in the finest tradition of science!

However; You ARE part of a MYTH as much as anyone else! Whether you believe it or not! Science MUST be a QUEST or it is meaningless!

Knowledge gained from that "quest" must be for the benifit of mankind ( and all life) or it has NO value to mankind (or all life).

You ARE a KNIGHT on that quest as much as Perceval in Arthurs' quest for the "Holy Grail"! That "Holy Grail" must ultimately help alleviate suffering, (self-inflicted or natural) through ignorance, or it is not worth the energy expended.

I call that "spiritual"! You can call it "science"!

Gabrielle, I just noticed your words...sometimes we come across thoughts that just jump out and catch our own imagination and such was my feeling when I read this......

I've also admired the works of Keats.....one of those beautiful minds, who sadly, had a brief flame ..
His idea of negative capability was to suspend the intellect and to simply apprehend and appreciate the beauty of the world.

When you walk in a forest of giant redwoods or see the the patterns of waves that interrupt a shoreline, or when you note the pink early morning light reflected on canyon walls....you can do all these things and know them in a sense that doesn't require an explanation, but may only require attention.

Here's the last stanza of his Ode to a Grecian Urn

O Attic shape! Fair attitude! with brede
Of marble men and maidens overwrought,
With forest branches and the trodden weed;
Thou, silent form, dost tease us out of thought
As doth eternity: Cold Pastoral!
When old age shall this generation waste,
Thou shalt remain, in midst of other woe
Than ours, a friend to man, to whom thou say’st,
“Beauty is truth, truth beauty,”—that is all
Ye know on earth, and all ye need to know.


Yes, we certainly need wings to fly......

Breathe Deep the gathering Gloom,
Watch lights fade from every room!

Bed sickened people look back and lament,
Another days' useless penny is spent!

Impassioned lovers wrestle as one,
Lonely men cry for love and have none!

New mother picks up and suckles her son,
Senior citizens wish they were young!

Cold hearted Orb that rules the night,
Removes the colors from our sight!

Red is grey, and yellow white,
But WE decide which is right!

And WHICH is an illusion!

Brave Helios wake up your steeds!

Bring the WARMTH the countryside needs!

-The Night
-The Moody Blues

As far as politics go, that's probably true -- else we wouldn't be on this site.



But I don't think you understand why. In the past you have said some things that reveal a deep ignorance of Darwinian theories of evolution by means of natural selection. For example, you've said this stuff:



Do you remember? Do you still hold to those views after I explained that the consciousness of monkeys was irrelavent because they could be replaced by random number generators and printers? Or when I explained computer virii that copy themselves with modifications?



Not quite. The discoveries aren't disillusioning, they simply explain why the world is disillusioning and point to what must be done -- which is take control of our own evolution.



Good, because I'm trying to make people think.



Only when writers write about it -- the truth is it's usually just a tedious and modestly paying job that keeps you humble.



I call that highly exaggerated hyperbole and poetry. Literary illusions can inspire but also misguide us.

QUOTE;
I call that highly exaggerated hyperbole and poetry. Literary illusions can inspire but also misguide us.
UNQUOTE

Call it what you will!

QUOTE;
Do you remember? Do you still hold to those views after I explained that the consciousness of monkeys was irrelavent because they could be replaced by random number generators and printers? Or when I explained computer virii that copy themselves with modifications?
UNQUOTE

I remember. Yes I still hold to those views! Monkeys are not random number generators! Chimpanzes are capable of ; Jealousy, Hate, Affection, Loyalty, Grief..etc. Number generators are NOT!

In order to write Skakespeare, one MUST factor that in! Computer Virii are written by HUMAN minds. Once again your arguement falls flat!

And so, monkeys would, after a few million years, accidentally type all the works of Shakespear, but random number generators sending random code to printers wouldn't?

Why not?

Ummm, only the first one -- after that they write themselves with modifications. They are very much like living things -- that's why they're called virii.

Because the mathematical probabilities of random number generators(writing Shakespeare) would approach infinity! While the probabilities of Chimps would be far less than infinity using common sense.

I'll bet the mathematics would back me up.

Careful; you're coming close to a "creative" first cause.

What's the matter Norm? Chimp got your tongue? :D

You think monkeys can understand English?

Better than random number generators. :D

Let's go back to a previous post of your's in response to Freedomfor All.

QUOTE;
QUOTE;
He could be... but what evidence do you have? Do you know for sure God uses magnetic fields -- or are you just saying he uses something like magnetic fields? You don't even have a theory -- all you've got is a vague possibility of some unknown entity using some unspecified force to do something for some unspecified reason. The evidence against that vague and unspecified possibility is the meandering history of life on this planet. It is a cruel history, full of violence, predation, suffering and the slow emergence of differences. If God could have evolved us faster -- why didn't he?
UNQUOTE

Well, one possibility is the principle behind the "tachyon"! This postulated an etheric underlayment of Physical Spacetime! The calculations worked out for a negative mass (see Bosonic String Theory) so it was abandoned!

But I wonder! String theory was abandoned before Quantum Mechanics ran into the Planck Scale "quantum foam" problem!

Do you have a response to this?

No, they don't.

Approaching infinity is not infinity. Something is either finite or infinite and the odds of getting Shakespeare by accident are indeed monsterouly against it, but still finite.

The argument about monkeys is actually quite sound -- given enough time and enough monkeys, one could eventually produce "Hamlet" by accident. The fact that it is intuitively sound is the argument's greatest problem, because it means that people generally don't bother checking the exact figures. This is a shame, because it is one of those rare areas of speculation where the exact figures can be calculated.

I'm not going to give it that much time. You can either trust me or calculate yourself.

And if you do calculate it and don't understand how small a microbe is, or how much smaller a strand of DNA or RNA is you might still think it's impossible for chance to create the first genetic codes. This is because you could have millions of monkeys on millions of planets typing for billions of years before you got any decent odds of any Shakespeare play showing up.

However, there are possibly trillions upon trillions of RNA molecules existing in earth's early ocean.

Also, as I've said before -- Evolution by natural selection is not random chance. It's actually a "search algorithm" that underlies things like artificial intelligence. That's a fact you can check up on by typing "genetic algorithm, evolutionary programming, artificial intelligence" into google's search engine.

Yes. It's irrelevant.

Your dodging! The amino acid experiments that I did as a science project in the 1960's have never produced life!

You KNOW that if this mechanistic model was going to work it would have already!

Random variation is a creative force. Selection is a restraining force. Put them together and you've got something that designs.

It's irrelevant to YOU! As you have said to me, "YET"!

That is an absurd statement. Selection combined with Random variation is nonsense.

Selection must have a GOAL! WHO or what imbuded the GOAL Norm? Remember we are dealing with inanimate objects.

Not necessarily. But you're actually wrong anyway -- it is working.

And people win noble prizes working on it:
http://nobelprize.org/chemistry/articles/altman/

And why aren't you checking google for "genetic algorithms and artificial intelligence" ???

No, selection doesn't have to have a goal -- that's why Darwin called it "natural" selection. Things have to eat to survive and then you get evolution selecting for things that don't get eaten before they can eat enough to reproduce. It happens naturally.

I checked your link! Interesting, BUT the scientist in charge of th RNA experiments admits that the "in vitro" state of the RNA is not normal! The eukariyotes exhibited do not lead to the prokariotes found in protein production in nature!

In other words artificial manipulation is required! Guess who is wrong?

More absurdity. Inanimate objects don't have to eat to survive since they are NOT alive!

Calling objects "natural" or "things" doesn't imbue them with LIFE!

No one yet. It's a possible precursor to the RNA world. They keep learning more about how it might have happened. Do you think he's going to think like you and give up?

But once they are eating and alive -- you agree evolution happens naturally after that?

No! If he's anything like you he will call down the lightning in order to shout; IT'S ALIVE, IT'S ALIVE!

Perhaps. Let's get THERE first, eh? It still doesn't explain self-awareness.

If self-awareness doesn't exist in an infant and does exist at a later age then
it is explained by organic maturation, following Piaget. The principle of movement
towards larger more complex units of organization found throughout nature seems
to me to account for the potential for self-awareness through genetic mechanism.

I think Norms explanation that the mechanism of selection was not
pure random chance is a key point that most people who talk as if they don't understand evolution fail to comprehend.

I too think a major paradigm shift is occuring between the 20th and the 21st. century.My major personal and professional interests are in trying to understand
human development, human behavior and human experience. Historically the
sciences reflect a trend towards progressive specialization. One part of the paradigm shift has been to add a parallel trend of combining specialties into new
multidisciplinary sciences such as ecology. Another part of this paradigm change
is a shift to using more multivariate analysis in research designs. From the perspective of human development, the major shift has been away from a medical
model of dis-ease to a health promotion developmental model which grew out
preventive medicine and the use of the social and behavioral sciences to study
human potential and life-long human development. Historically, all the human services-- theology, clinical and counseling psychology, social work, etc.--focused
their study on how human development went wrong. Sin, abnormal behavior and
maladjustment was the content studied. What finally became clear to those
fortunate enough to recognize this shift in perspective was thatThere are an infinite number of ways that human development can go wrong but only a small number of ways that human development can go right. This shift has led to
a search for what concepts, skills and other resources do human beings need to
facilitate self-in-situation adaptation in a given social system and what kind of parenting, education and other community supports facilitate human development?

In this regard I join Norm in believing that we are indeed begining to
learn how to guide our further evolution.

I think you confuse illusion here with allusion......which is a literary device meant to stimulate ideas and associations......it is referential to external stimuli or to other writing or ideas and is also a visual device.

The key word is IF! There are degrees of self-awareness manifest physically. An infants brain has not fully developed. And while this points to increasing complexity ALLOWING greater conscious acuity, and comprehension of the physical reality in which one is embedded; It doesn't prove that the self-awareness is part of the brain itself.

If the selection is not pure random chance then what is it? Calling it "natural" doesn't mean anything unless you are talking about a "living" system. Rocks erode by the action of wind and water, and the debris eventually can "migrate" great distances. Do we equate that "migration" with the actions of living things like birds who "migrate"?

Interesting that you brought up the developmental process and Piaget....
When we were discussing dreams on the other thread, I found some information that indicated that children under the age of say 5-8, have very few dreams, if any...during the developmental process as well, the child functions more in the narrative before more complex functioning such as logical or critical thinking are utilized.....
that not only suggests [in my mind, at least], that it mirrors the evolutionary process itself, and that dreams may be more related to advanced cognitive function either by way of interpretation, integration or learning.

Well, at least you're going into it with an open mind, TRoU.

The huminoid brain is not fully developed untill the early 20's. The part of the brain that controls inhibiting impulsive behavior is notably lacking in teenagers.
the capacity for existential self-awareness is usually developed by the age of 12-14. While the brain and central nervous system is much involved in self-awareness
I didn't say that self-awareness was a part of the brain. I think it would be more accurate to say that both brain function and self-awareness have part-whole relationships with the Self-in-situation adaptation process.

Depending on what you mean by "Self-in-situation adaption process" I think I agree with you.

Yeah, I'm in therapy about that.

Chance plays a part, but that's how mutations are generated not selection.
Selection is whether you live or die. It's whether you breed or fail to. It's whether you have what it takes to produce a part of the next generation thus passing on the genetic code in your cells.

Some babies in healthy mothers die before they are born because they lost the random genetic lottery. Nature (or natural selection), despite our efforts to fight against it, causes that child to die and not contribute its genes to the next generation. Some of us will not have children and we too will not contribute our genetics to the next generation even though we've survived this long.



Not exactly true. Molecules are not inanimate, they bounce around randomly in the heat. That's why biological processes will stop when you freeze living things to liquid nitrogen temperatures as they do in cryonics (though that process will also cause ice shards to form and rip cells open before chemical processes are halted). Many chemical reactions have to happen at a certain temperature.

Yes, eroding rocks are natural processes too. In fact there is nothing but the natural. The only thing outside the natural is the supernatural.



In a way, yes. The boundary between living and non-living is not marked by a wall. Are virii alive? Are self-replicating molecules alive?

In the end, life is just the weird chemistry and mathematics of self-replicating molecules -- something like those found in the RNA world experiments.

Yes, I did -- was writing too fast -- but using "illusion" is not entirely wrong. Allusions can lead to illusions. Watch out for arguments with too much poetry and no math.

I'll be on the lookout, but I did need to defend my craft!
however, don't totally discount the value of the poetic mind....it is also the expressive function of imagination and is highly creative.... and there is such a thing as quality (even if there are some horribly inaccurate writers)!


Our newest American Poet Laureate, Ted Kooser
http://mockingbird.creighton.edu/NCW/kooser.htm

After Years


Today, from a distance, I saw you
walking away, and without a sound
the glittering face of a glacier
slid into the sea. An ancient oak
fell in the Cumberlands, holding only
a handful of leaves, and an old woman
scattering corn to her chickens looked up
for an instant. At the other side
of the galaxy, a star thirty-five times
the size of our own sun exploded
and vanished, leaving a small green spot
on the astronomer's retina
as he stood on the great open dome
of my heart with no one to tell.

There is no such thing as an inanimate object. Not at these temperatures. Everything you see that you think is an inanimate object is actually moving at the molecular scale -- if it weren't, then your hand would freeze if you touched it.

The mountains are moving -- you just don't see it.
The air around you has complex currents you don't see.
The chair you are sitting in is slowly degenerating -- if wood, it's likely slowly rotting, if metal it's bending and rusting... There is nothing around you that isn't dancing at the molecular level according to the rules of physics.

If you don't know that -- then you don't know physics.



Your point is the result of an ignorant illusion common to more primitive peoples. There is no such thing as an inanimate object and there's no such thing as "nothing" either.



The answer depends on how you care to define "life."



Understanding is believing in this realm. Once you get it (if your brain is wired so you can get it) then your whole consciousness will change.

[quote=normdoering,Feb 26 2005, 06:29 PM]
This does not apply to inanimate objects!

[/quote]

There is no such thing as an inanimate object. Not at these temperatures. Everything you see that you think is an inanimate object is actually moving at the molecular scale -- if it weren't, then your hand would freeze if you touched it.

The mountains are moving -- you just don't see it.
The air around you has complex currents you don't see.
The chair you are sitting in is slowly degenerating -- if wood, it's likely slowly rotting, if metal it's bending and rusting... There is nothing around you that isn't dancing at the molecular level according to the rules of physics.

If you don't know that -- then you don't know physics.
That they are natural doesn't make them alive! This was my point.

[/quote]

Your point is the result of an ignorant illusion common to more primitive peoples. There is no such thing as an inanimate object and there's no such thing as "nothing" either.
I don't know the answer to this and neither do you!

[/quote]

The answer depends on how you care to define "life."
Believe what you will.

[/quote]

Understanding is believing in this realm. Once you get it (if your brain is wired so you can get it) then your whole consciousness will change.

[/quote]

Eat Me!