AgnosticWeb.com

Back to the forum index

Linear

George has declined my invitation to start a new thread on the subject of objections to design. Fair enough, but I would still like to take it out of the evolution thread, which has become far too overcrowded. I would also like to reproduce some of your own objections, George, as you have put the case very succinctly. - First, however, in your latest post, you have queried my phrase "the mechanism which gave rise to evolution". You wrote: It could mean "the way in which molecules first came together to produce self-replication in a molecular system" or it could refer to "the processes of variation and natural selection". - This is central to the argument about design, which is why I'd like to clarify the phrase. The mechanism does not refer to the process, but to the means which enabled the process to take place. Self-replicating molecules would not have been able to undergo subsequent variation (by mutation, combination or environmental influence) if there had not been some mechanism in place that allowed for reproducible change. The design argument therefore refers (a) to self-replication, and (b) to the potential for variation. It has also been argued by proponents of design that some of the developments in the course of evolution itself are too complex to have come about without the input of a designing intelligence. - In spite of my abject failure to bring order to the evolution thread with a summary, I will now try to summarize the objections to design, plus the complications involved in such a concept: - 1) It is not necessary to postulate a designer. Chance and the natural laws provide an adequate explanation.
2) The postulation of a designer merely replaces one mystery with another. George: "We need to know how the gods themselves evolved and acquired their powers to intervene in nature."
3) George: "Since a conscious designer would be a life-form, such a hypothesis entirely undermines the theory by assuming that life already existed before life evolved."
4) The free-for-all of life on Earth shows no sign of the presence of any kind of designer. 
5) What form could such a designer take? We only know of the material, natural world. Any immaterial, supernatural being is pure imagination. - Feel free to add more objections, to comment on these objections, to disagree with these objections, but please remember that they are an attempt to provide a neutral summary and I am not putting forward arguments of my own. Yet.

5515 views

1) It is not necessary to postulate a designer. Chance and the natural laws provide an adequate explanation. - > 2) The postulation of a designer merely replaces one mystery with another. George: "We need to know how the gods themselves evolved and acquired their powers to intervene in nature." - This was one of my earlier arguments as well. "You have to know the limits of a proposed deity, know something about it for you to be able to posit it." - > 3) George: "Since a conscious designer would be a life-form, such a hypothesis entirely undermines the theory by assuming that life already existed before life evolved." - This here I think is the biggest and largest problem with design. It begs the question. - > 4) The free-for-all of life on Earth shows no sign of the presence of any kind of designer. - You can really eliminate this one as it's covered by 1. - > 5) What form could such a designer take? We only know of the material, natural world. Any immaterial, supernatural being is pure imagination. 
> - A little extreme here, and it ties in with both 1, 2, and 3, I'd like to request a change: - What form could such a take? If it is immaterial, how could you say you "knew" anything about it? What limits would it have to have? - > Feel free to add more objections, to comment on these objections, to disagree with these objections, but please remember that they are an attempt to provide a neutral summary and I am not putting forward arguments of my own. Yet.

--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"

\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"

5384 views

1) It is not necessary to postulate a designer. Chance and the natural laws provide an adequate explanation.
4) The free-for-all of life on Earth shows no sign of the presence of any kind of designer. - Matt thinks that 4) is covered by 1).
You're right in a way, but I took 1) mainly as a scientific objection, and 4) more as a history of life, both animal and human. Many monotheists, for instance, believe that their form of designer is interested in human affairs and pray to him. That has nothing to do with explanations. - 5) What form could such a designer take? We only know of the material, natural world. Any immaterial, supernatural being is pure imagination. - Matt: A little extreme here. - Please remember, I'm just summarizing. John Clinch used the words "ridiculous" and "preposterous" and "mumbo-jumbo", and George over the months has used a vast variety of colourful synonyms! - You would like to change the rest of 5) to: "If it is immaterial, how could you say you "knew" anything about it? What limits would it have to have?" - I don't know why you are so keen on "limits". Most monotheists are happy to believe that their designer is infinite and eternal. And they will tell you that they know lots and lots about him. However, your questions provide more talking points than my statements, and I hope we shall get round to discussing them in due course. - (I'm having difficulty matching the speed of all these posts, but I hope to catch up eventually!)

5443 views

OK, I think I agree with all 5 of those propositions, especially as I formulated at least two of them myself. - In future I'm going to have to limit myself to certain threads, and this will be one. There have been just too many posts to follow lately, and they often veer wildly off topic. I'm certainy not getting into the climate change denial thread! - dhw wrote: "Self-replicating molecules would not have been able to undergo subsequent variation (by mutation, combination or environmental influence) if there had not been some mechanism in place that allowed for reproducible change." - I don't see why any special "mechanism" is necessary. Variation will occur quite naturally, sometimes it will be reproducible sometimes not.

--
GPJ

5404 views

George: In future I'm going to have to limit myself to certain threads...There have been just too many posts to follow lately, and they often veer wildly off topic! - That's why I tried so hard (but so unsuccessfully) to sort out the evolution thread. I understand completely, and remain immensely grateful to you for your always invaluable contributions. - You've raised another important issue here: "I don't see why any special "mechanism" is necessary. Variation will occur quite naturally, sometimes it will be reproducible sometimes not." - Nice and easy when it's all done for you. Imagine trying to devise such a mechanism yourself from scratch. A self-replicating machine would be difficult enough to design (we still can't do it), but how would you set about ensuring that changes to the mechanism did not automatically make it break down? And yet the replicas of this self-made machine not only survive changes, they actually in some cases benefit from them and also reproduce them. If you were designing the mechanism, you would soon find out that replication will not "naturally" allow for variation. You would have to build that in as an additional function.

5433 views

I wrote: "I don't see why any special "mechanism" is necessary. Variation will occur quite naturally, sometimes it will be reproducible sometimes not." - dhw responded: "Imagine trying to devise such a mechanism yourself from scratch." - But I've just pointed out that there is no such "mechanism" as you imagine. It's just a molecule or system of molecules living in a sea of molecules. - dhw continues: "A self-replicating machine would be difficult enough to design (we still can't do it), but how would you set about ensuring that changes to the mechanism did not automatically make it break down?" - You are obsessed with this "machine" image. - dhw: "And yet the replicas of this self-made machine ..." - As I keep saying, but you don't pay attention, things do not make themselves, they are not "made" by any deliberative process, they occur, appear, happen (can anyone think of better words?) when the circumstances are favourable, like a chemical reaction happens when the right ingredients come together at the right temperature, pressure, concentrations, etc. - dhw: "... not only survive changes, they actually in some cases benefit from them and also reproduce them." - If they change then they are not the same, so they don't survive, they evolve. - dhw: "If you were designing the mechanism, you would soon find out that replication will not "naturally" allow for variation. You would have to build that in as an additional function." - That may be so in the case of your hypothetical "machine", but in the case of molecules variation is inevitable, due to mistakes in copying, outside interference, e.g. from ultraviolet light or other radiation, energy input from heat jostling, etc, etc.

--
GPJ

5483 views

George: There is no such "mechanism" as you imagine. It's just a molecule or system of molecules living in a sea of molecules. - But one day a molecule self-replicates. And its self-replicating replicas undergo hereditary variations. Please find me another word to describe how this new process functions. - George: You are obsessed with this "machine" image [....] As I keep saying, but you don't pay attention, things do not make themselves, they are not "made" by any deliberative process, they occur, appear, happen (can anyone think of better words?) when the circumstances are favourable. - I can understand your frustration, and it's similar to my own in trying to find ways of conveying the complexity of replication and variation. Mechanism/machine is the best image I can think of (can anyone think of a better one?). Your own explanation is: "a chemical reaction happens when the right ingredients come together at the right temperature, pressure, concentrations, etc." No-one can argue with this, just as no-one can deny that there are self-replicating molecules and inevitable variations. The disagreement is with the enormous leap you then take in joining the two sets of facts together, and concluding that replication with the potential for variation occurred, appeared, happened naturally. "As I keep saying, but you don't pay attention", the problem is that no-one has yet come up with an explanation of how the right ingredients could have come together in the first place. The process has defied all attempts by our brilliant, conscious scientists to reproduce it. And so your conclusion that things happen, and therefore this hugely complex process came into existence naturally, has no scientific backing and is no more than speculation. - We've gone round in yet another circle, I'm afraid. That said, I can also understand your objection to the image of "mechanism" and "machine", which entails design. It's on a par with your use of occur, appear etc., which entails chance (in the first instance, before the laws of Nature took over). We're both using language that supports one or the other scenario ... in your case, to support your belief in spontaneity, and in mine to support my non-belief. I say this only to emphasize that I am fully aware of the arguments against design!

5445 views

It has also been argued by proponents of design that some of the developments in the course of evolution itself are too complex to have come about without the input of a designing intelligence. - It is not possible to simply throw this possibility aside. I actually think that I am a small part of a designing universal intelligence. 
The next part is not intellectual. The concept makes me feel good, as when I think of loving my wife. Both my love of her and my concept of that universal intelligence are at the same level of emotional thought.
 
> In spite of my abject failure to bring order to the evolution thread with a summary, I will now try to summarize the objections to design, plus the complications involved in such a concept: - > 3) George: "Since a conscious designer would be a life-form, such a hypothesis entirely undermines the theory by assuming that life already existed before life evolved." - Since we cannot intimately 'know' the designer, how do we know that it is a life-form as we define that term. Adler makes the designer a 'person like no other person',but that is not our form of natural life. It is supernatural. - > 4) The free-for-all of life on Earth shows no sign of the presence of any kind of designer. - This can prove just the opposite conclusion. If one wanted to create a factory for all living things, the Earth is a perfect design, just like Paley's watch. No one has ever found an undesigned factory. - And here is how intelligent design can speeed evolution. Punctuated equilibrium in the lab: - http://sciencenow.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/2009/727/1

5455 views

Feel free to add more objections, to comment on these objections, to disagree with these objections, but please remember that they are an attempt to provide a neutral summary and I am not putting forward arguments of my own. Yet. - I would add, that no outside designer is needed if within every element (seen and unseen) that IS, lies the ability to be what it was, what it IS and, what it will become.

5452 views

I would add, that no outside designer is needed if within every element (seen and unseen) that IS, lies the ability to be what it was, what it IS and, what it will become. - That is quite a continuum. Do you mean to claim that the information in the DNA code pre-existed life and when the time came to set up DNA, the code was transcribed into it? Or as DNA formed the code automatically appeared in DNA?

5388 views

I would add, that no outside designer is needed if within every element (seen and unseen) that IS, lies the ability to be what it was, what it IS and, what it will become.
> 
> That is quite a continuum. Do you mean to claim that the information in the DNA code pre-existed life and when the time came to set up DNA, the code was transcribed into it? Or as DNA formed the code automatically appeared in DNA? - Not just DNA (why choose one part?), but everything that IS, makes up one unified being we could call IT (some might call GOD). This IT is an ever lasting, ever evolving, ever changing entity with ever evolving parts that serve the one being, IT. Just as my body is one growing living entity made up of a myriad of parts, seen and unseen, working in a unified order to serve one purpose- to be me. After I die, that which was me, seen and unseen, continues to evolve to serve the one entity, IT. - This is how IT appears to me.

5500 views

Feel free to add more objections, to comment on these objections, to disagree with these objections, but please remember that they are an attempt to provide a neutral summary and I am not putting forward arguments of my own. Yet.
> 
> I would add, that no outside designer is needed if within every element (seen and unseen) that IS, lies the ability to be what it was, what it IS and, what it will become. - That sentence reads like a mystical statement...
Isn't that the exact property of something that exists? - I read that as: "Every element that exists must have the capacity to have had an origin, have a present moment, and a future moment." - That could also be read "Must be traceable through time." - That could also mean "Any action or reaction upon the object must be reversible." - Mind cleaning that up just a bit?

--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"

\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"

5418 views

BBella: I would add that no outside designer is needed if within every element (seen and unseen) that IS, lies the ability to be what it was, what it IS and what it will become. - David and Matt have registered their objections to what Matt calls a "mystical statement". I think it's just another way of describing the atheist view of the laws of Nature. And it has a nice Nietzschean ring to it!

5409 views

BBella: I would add that no outside designer is needed if within every element (seen and unseen) that IS, lies the ability to be what it was, what it IS and what it will become.
> 
> David and Matt have registered their objections to what Matt calls a "mystical statement". I think it's just another way of describing the atheist view of the laws of Nature. And it has a nice Nietzschean ring to it! - I know you aren't saying above that I am an atheist but that what I wrote is no different than what atheists claim as the law of nature. One difference is, I do believe that all that 'IS' works in a unified way as one entity and I don't have a problem calling IT God. - My point was an added response to argue that no outside force or designer would be needed if everything has built within it the capacity to be what it IS. That's probably not a good argument against a designer as much as an argument against an outside designer or force.

5442 views

I would add, that no outside designer is needed if within every element (seen and unseen) that IS, lies the ability to be what it was, what it IS and, what it will become.
> 
> That sentence reads like a mystical statement... - Whether mystical or not it seems nearer to a fact to me. - 
> Isn't that the exact property of something that exists? - I believe it is. - 
> 
> I read that as: "Every element that exists must have the capacity to have had an origin, have a present moment, and a future moment." - Every element does have (rather than must have) the capacity to be what it was (if that's what you meant by origin), what it is and what it will become, doesn't it? 
 
> 
> That could also be read "Must be traceable through time." - All that IS is very likely 'knowable' backward, forward, in and out. The problem comes when we inquire to know the history of an element thru time. Elements shapeshift so rapidly it makes it near, if not impossible, to trace backward or forward in time. Time, itself, to me, is an untrustworthy story teller or marker to get to know more about an element or what IS. Quantum theory, for now, seems closer to the avenue to take to know more about elements and its path. 
 
> 
> That could also mean "Any action or reaction upon the object must be reversible." 
> - I'm not sure what you mean by reversible. There is not a circumstance I can think of where something is reversible...like me becoming a child again? Is that what you mean? - > Mind cleaning that up just a bit? - Did I clean it up or did I dirty it up more?

5381 views

I would add, that no outside designer is needed if within every element (seen and unseen) that IS, lies the ability to be what it was, what it IS and, what it will become.
> > 
> > That sentence reads like a mystical statement...
> 
> Whether mystical or not it seems nearer to a fact to me.
> - I meant that more in terms of extracting useful meaning than in a metaphysical manner. Mystical statements tend to be couched in language that allows a myriad of interpretations... for what it is that dhw's trying to do, that isn't good. It's confusing. - > 
> > Isn't that the exact property of something that exists?
> 
> I believe it is. - That confuses the statement even more. If we agree that "if within every element (seen and unseen) that IS, lies the ability to be what it was, what it IS and, what it will become." is the property of anything that exists, that would morph your statement to "No designer is necessary if an [element] exists." Clearly you don't mean that. What do you mean? - > 
> 
> > 
> > I read that as: "Every element that exists must have the capacity to have had an origin, have a present moment, and a future moment." 
> 
> Every element does have (rather than must have) the capacity to be what it was (if that's what you meant by origin), what it is and what it will become, doesn't it? 
> 
> > 
> > That could also be read "Must be traceable through time." 
> 
> All that IS is very likely 'knowable' backward, forward, in and out. The problem comes when we inquire to know the history of an element thru time. Elements shapeshift so rapidly it makes it near, if not impossible, to trace backward or forward in time. Time, itself, to me, is an untrustworthy story teller or marker to get to know more about an element or what IS. Quantum theory, for now, seems closer to the avenue to take to know more about elements and its path. - That's a tall order, I've had 2 consecutive years of "higher math" and I'm only now finding out how to work with those models. The concepts of QM do however make mysticism such as from the Kybalion have a bit more weight.

--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"

\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"

5447 views

If we agree that "if within every element (seen and unseen) that IS, lies the ability to be what it was, what it IS and, what it will become." is the property of anything that exists, that would morph your statement to "No designer is necessary if an [element] exists." Clearly you don't mean that. What do you mean? - I mean that no outside designer is needed if within all elements (or all that IS) the designer resides. It seems that when we think of a god/creator/designer we are always picturing in our minds an outside being tinkering with elements that he has already created trying to get something right. This would mean the designer itself is an outside observer of it's creation and therefore man thinks of this creator as a god separate from himself that cannot possibly understand its creation. My theory is that all that IS is the creator itself...one ever evolving, living being that not only creates but experiences everything that IS. This way, in my mind, I pretty much can have my cake and eat it too. I can believe in a creator God and at the same time feel that the creator God is evolving just as I am. This way, nothing is set in stone...

5443 views

I can believe in a creator God and at the same time feel that the creator God is evolving just as I am. This way, nothing is set in stone... - This is close to my belief that there is a universal intelligence that has always exists at a quantum level an has created the universe and exists both within and without this universe. An eternal quantum mind. In the afterlife our quantum mind joins the universal one.

5374 views

I can believe in a creator God and at the same time feel that the creator God is evolving just as I am. This way, nothing is set in stone...
> 
> This is close to my belief that there is a universal intelligence that has always exists at a quantum level an has created the universe and exists both within and without this universe. An eternal quantum mind. In the afterlife our quantum mind joins the universal one. - Strangely Vedantic.

--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"

\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"

5388 views

Strangely Vedantic. - Well, I've been to India, discussed religion with our Hindu guides, but they never convinced me I should try their beliefs. On the other hand Ganish was lots of fun, as a God to consider.

5409 views

Strangely Vedantic.
> 
> Well, I've been to India, discussed religion with our Hindu guides, but they never convinced me I should try their beliefs. On the other hand Ganish was lots of fun, as a God to consider. - I've studied the Indian religions too in the past, but it was Bohm and Krishnamurti's discussions and a quick study on QT that I felt I could relate to coming out of my OB experience (or whatever it was). But, I have taught myself not to invest my time for too long into anything already set in stone (in this day in time, paper). If there is even the remote possibility there is an ever evolving UI (universal intelligence/ also good initial for You and I, or, You in I), in order to catch a glimpse of the UI's ever evolving state, I must be able to catch it at work. It, after all, is ever changing, ever evolving. Patterns are the only thing at this time that have caught my eye. One reason fractal's were so interesting, for a bit.

5383 views

If there is even the remote possibility there is an ever evolving UI (universal intelligence/ also good initial for You and I, or, You in I), in order to catch a glimpse of the UI's ever evolving state, I must be able to catch it at work. It, after all, is ever changing, ever evolving. - Ps. should have added, ever learning as well. - >Patterns are the only thing at this time that have caught my eye. - I should say, one of the only things that have caught my eye. Also, not just patterns outside me, but patterns within me as well. - >One reason fractal's were so interesting, for a bit. - The reason I didn't look more into fractals is because they were more an affirmation of what I already knew yet could not really explain in a physical way. - Also, I did want to add that if man is the UI's crowning achievement at this time, then 'we' are at (or IS) the cusp of the learning curve...another very exciting thought in the realm of possibilities.

5392 views

This whole thread seems to have flown off into woo-woo land where you believe things because they seem nice to believe and satisfy your emotional needs. - There is no evidence whatsoever for a "Universal Intelligence". In fact the evidence appears to show that the Universe is in a process of fragmentation, with galaxies flying apart at ever increasing speeds, and no prospect of any communication between them. In fact the whole universe could end in a big rip. - For the universe to be some sort of "mind" it would surely need to have lots of interconnections. I suppose someone might claim quantum entanglements do this, but they can only be maintained under artificial laboratory conditions; once opened up to the environment they untangle. - As for other connections such as telepathy; that has been investigated for at least a hundred years and no reproducible effects have been found. Of course such ideas make for good stories, and they are fine in science fiction and fantasy, but there's not even a smidgeon of evidence to support belief in them in reality.

--
GPJ

5455 views

This whole thread seems to have flown off into woo-woo land where you believe things because they seem nice to believe and satisfy your emotional needs. - I am the first to admit, George, that I do believe this kind of thinking because it does satisfy a place in me that wants to believe in a UI because of my own experiences thru life. If there is no such thing as a UI then I have lost nothing when I die. But, while I live, it soothes a part of me that wants to believe in a woo-woo land because it explains perfectly much more than anyone in our halls of institution has so far. 
 
> There is no evidence whatsoever for a "Universal Intelligence". - Yet, it explains a lot of experience's I've personally had when nothing else can, so to me, there is evidence. Science can tell me how my brain works and how these experiences might be a result of how my brain fires, but science isn't infallible. Science is still learning just as we all are and just because science hasn't found UI doesn't mean it's not there or that it isn't as plain as the nose on their face. For me, there is no evidence whatsoever there isn't a UI...maybe it just takes one to know one. After all, when all is said and done, if it hurts nothing to believe in a UI, as long as no harm is being done by the belief, live and let live. - As for the rocks flying about in the universe, seemingly for no purpose, how can we know UI is not busy at work? Maybe that's how we came to be? A man is never around long enuff to see the results because of the time difference in forever and 100 yrs...or a gazillion!!! Given all the time in forever, maybe even man could become his own personal UI! I know...woo-woo land.

5417 views

Strangely Vedantic.
> 
> Well, I've been to India, discussed religion with our Hindu guides, but they never convinced me I should try their beliefs. On the other hand Ganish was lots of fun, as a God to consider. - Hindu syncretism is a beautiful thing in the long line of religions however.

--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"

\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"

5335 views

I can believe in a creator God and at the same time feel that the creator God is evolving just as I am. This way, nothing is set in stone...
> 
> This is close to my belief that there is a universal intelligence that has always exists at a quantum level an has created the universe and exists both within and without this universe. An eternal quantum mind. In the afterlife our quantum mind joins the universal one. - Good to know!!! When someone uses the word God, this idea of UI (universal intelligence) is what comes to mind for me. I do use the word God at times (when speaking to others that believe in the Christian idea of God) and do tend to speak to this UI to gain favor, out of a religious habit, as well. Altho, I believe as well there is much we do not know and have yet to learn about how UI works. I do believe the law of attraction has some basis in QTheory. It is a good way to think regardless, in my perspective, to believe this UI grows in learning and understanding of self, just as we do. This leaves an amazing feeling within that is worth the perspective...true or not. - Also, one other thought, this universal could be reflective of our own body. Altho we are consciously mindful of our physical self we are not mindful of the actual hands on of the many different physical aspects that run the whole show within the body. There seems to be some kind of disconnection there that I am actually seeking to understand more about. Somewhere within the physical body there is an internal knowing of exactly how to run everything presumably for the good of the whole. Seems reasonable. I believe it is probable we could tap into that ability. Something like connecting to the UI in a mindful/conscious way. Ok...enuff hocus pocus...or is it?

5404 views

This leaves an amazing feeling within that is worth the perspective...true or not. - I get the same feeling. I recognize it is totally at an emotional level. - 
> Somewhere within the physical body there is an internal knowing of exactly how to run everything presumably for the good of the whole. - The body does know how to run itself. All organs have feedback systems to judge levels of various chemicals. The lower brain has automatic centers to keep an eye on blood pressure, pulse, respiratory rate, etc. For example your pH (acid level) should be 7.4, your sodium(salt) level is 0.9%, just like ocean water, and should be interesting to you since life developed at sea and came on land later. - Nerves from the brain keep an eye on digestive function, for example (vagus nerve). Various hormones also have regulatory control functions and are watched by the lower brain which then signals the pituitary to get things under control by releasing hormones that stimulate other homone glands. - All of this is extremely finely controlled. For example living by dialysis never achieves the quality of life good kidneys give you. That is why folks look for transplants. We have no way to implant man-made kidneys or livers; e can't make any machine or mechanisms that matches. It would be nice as there would be no rejection problems.

5325 views

Somewhere within the physical body there is an internal knowing of exactly how to run everything presumably for the good of the whole. 
> 
> The body does know how to run itself. - Right...I understand the body does know how to run itself...but, I do still find it curious that there appears to be a disconnection between the conscious awareness and the lower brain that runs the whole show. I actually believe there isn't a disconnection but more of a forgetfulness... but I am about observing how they are connected.

5403 views

Right...I understand the body does know how to run itself...but, I do still find it curious that there appears to be a disconnection between the conscious awareness and the lower brain that runs the whole show. I actually believe there isn't a disconnection but more of a forgetfulness... but I am about observing how they are connected. - If we had to worry consciously about breathing, adjusting pulse rate to exercise, oxygen levels, etc., we would not have time to mentally handle everything else we do. But if we stop and think about breathing, etc. we are aware of its rate and depth. There are connections between the brain stem and the cortex, but we are supposed to forget the automatic processes unless our attention is called to them. To me the concept of forgetfulness doesn't raise any issues.

5416 views

Right...I understand the body does know how to run itself...but, I do still find it curious that there appears to be a disconnection between the conscious awareness and the lower brain that runs the whole show. I actually believe there isn't a disconnection but more of a forgetfulness... but I am about observing how they are connected.
> 
> If we had to worry consciously about breathing, adjusting pulse rate to exercise, oxygen levels, etc., we would not have time to mentally handle everything else we do. But if we stop and think about breathing, etc. we are aware of its rate and depth. - I didn't mean to imply we should be able to connect to every aspect of our bodies ability to run the whole show, as in consciously breathing, running the heart, etc., I am speaking about becoming conscious when something isn't running correctly and being able to consciously do something about it. - >There are connections between the brain stem and the cortex, but we are supposed to forget the automatic processes unless our attention is called to them. - Right...and possibly our awareness is being brought to these automatic processor's when something isn't right but maybe we have lost (or have yet to become aware of) our ability to recognize when something is out of whack or moving in a direction that will ultimately be detrimental for our health. - >To me the concept of forgetfulness doesn't raise any issues. - It may not be about forgetfulness it may be more about awareness and the need to develop our ability to recognize the connection between the body and the mind in order to enhance the health of both.

5398 views

I am speaking about becoming conscious when something isn't running correctly and being able to consciously do something about it. - > It may not be about forgetfulness it may be more about awareness and the need to develop our ability to recognize the connection between the body and the mind in order to enhance the health of both. - True fact: Hypnosis can be used to get rid of warts, but more interestingly, the hypnotist can direct his subject to lose them on the right or left side and they will disappear only on the side designated. Warts are due to a virus, and a dermatologist, in his training, proved it by innoculating volunteer prisoners in jail with ground up wart material. He was a friend of mine years ago. - The mind is a very powerful influence on our health. Placebos work all the time. I know because I used the effect when needed. I once had a patient whom I thought was mildly addicted to pain shots. In the hospital, at the time, we gave her placebos, which worked completely. I did this to convince her to get into addiction therapy. She did, but fired me for the deception. I didn't care. I'd helped someone who needed help and I could find no other way to convince her.

5421 views

I am speaking about becoming conscious when something isn't running correctly and being able to consciously do something about it.
> 
> > It may not be about forgetfulness it may be more about awareness and the need to develop our ability to recognize the connection between the body and the mind in order to enhance the health of both.
> 
> True fact: Hypnosis can be used to get rid of warts, but more interestingly, the hypnotist can direct his subject to lose them on the right or left side and they will disappear only on the side designated. Warts are due to a virus, and a dermatologist, in his training, proved it by innoculating volunteer prisoners in jail with ground up wart material. He was a friend of mine years ago.
> - A hypnotist normally brings the person's mind and body to a peaceful state in order to begin the process of change in the mind and body, and yet, we are bombarded everyday with supposed 'facts' which our subconscious mind many times turns into our reality, which can and does effect the mind and body. For me, it's not really about if it is happening (as I know it does) or even about how, but what I can do about it on a conscious level. - > The mind is a very powerful influence on our health. Placebos work all the time. I know because I used the effect when needed. I once had a patient whom I thought was mildly addicted to pain shots. In the hospital, at the time, we gave her placebos, which worked completely. I did this to convince her to get into addiction therapy. She did, but fired me for the deception. I didn't care. I'd helped someone who needed help and I could find no other way to convince her. - Yes, the mind and body is so very plastic (for want of a better term) and I want to know more about just how plastic it is and how much influence the 'I' of myself has upon my own reality....and of course I know I am not the only one wanting to know this as I am sure there are many studies being done to find out more. But why wait for the studies? I have plenty of time to observe it for myself..at least as long as I am here. Since it is always happening on a continuous basis, it's really about my broadening my awareness to catch it at work.

5374 views

Are you serious: Hypnosis can be used to get rid of warts?

5509 views

Are you serious: Hypnosis can be used to get rid of warts? - Proven about 50 years Ago.

5391 views

I mean that no outside designer is needed if within all elements (or all that IS) the designer resides. It seems that when we think of a god/creator/designer we are always picturing in our minds an outside being tinkering with elements that he has already created trying to get something right. This would mean the designer itself is an outside observer of it's creation and therefore man thinks of this creator as a god separate from himself that cannot possibly understand its creation. My theory is that all that IS is the creator itself...one ever evolving, living being that not only creates but experiences everything that IS. This way, in my mind, I pretty much can have my cake and eat it too. I can believe in a creator God and at the same time feel that the creator God is evolving just as I am. This way, nothing is set in stone... - Ah... an interesting proposition. This sounds more or less "in the middle" of process philosophy and panentheism.

--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"

\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"

5405 views

BBella: My theory is that all that IS is the creator itself...one ever evolving, living being that not only creates but experiences everything that IS. - I equated your initial statement with the atheist view of the laws of Nature, because if each element has "the ability to be what it was, what it IS and what it will become", there is no need for any sort of overall designer figure. The universe and the elements within it run themselves. However, if you say that God is the universe and everything in it, the question of consciousness becomes paramount. I don't know of any concept of a creator god that does not involve consciousness. So just what is conscious of what? - As usual, I'd like to apply the question to life on Earth. Apologies for treading the same old track. Your point that all the ingredients have been there for ever is difficult to refute, but even in a continuum you can still have new beginnings. Each birth results in a new creature, although we all know the sequence of cause and effect. The fact is that unless science has got things totally wrong, our world had a beginning, and life in our world also had a beginning. And so, at some point in the continuous history of the universe, there was on Earth a new thing we can call a self-replicating molecule. The question is: how did the self-replicating model come to replicate itself? - In your Universe as Tragedy post, "playing along with the what if's", you write: "Who is to say that a creator cannot grow in variety of shapes and sizes, having the ability to shapeshift yet also having a 'center' within all that IS that 'knows' it/himself." It's this 'center' that is the source of all the controversy. If the universe is a gigantic, evolving body, do you then see this evolution (e.g. the self-replicating molecule) as something that happens of its own accord, as something controlled by a conscious mind, or as something that happens independently of a conscious mind which experiences but does not control what is happening?

5443 views

BBella: My theory is that all that IS is the creator itself...one ever evolving, living being that not only creates but experiences everything that IS. 
> 
>...if you say that God is the universe and everything in it, the question of consciousness becomes paramount. I don't know of any concept of a creator god that does not involve consciousness. So just what is conscious of what? - I akin consciousness to awareness. Self awareness as well as awareness of the surroundings. If there is a UI then I figure it is aware of itself.
 
>The fact is that unless science has got things totally wrong, our world had a beginning, and life in our world also had a beginning. And so, at some point in the continuous history of the universe, there was on Earth a new thing we can call a self-replicating molecule. The question is: how did the self-replicating model come to replicate itself? - I would think self-replication was not a new thing when self-replicating molecules appeared on earth. If there is a UI, then what science calls self-replication is UI in the process of morphing/shapeshifting/self-replicating, etc..whatever UI is about doing at the time while being watched. It seems to me holography seems to be a closer model for how that happens. If there is a UI, it is the fabric of which everything is made of. So even tho something seems to self-replicate before our eyes, in reality it would just be morphing/shapeshifting the fabric into what it is becoming. 
 
> 
> In your Universe as Tragedy post, "playing along with the what if's", you write: "Who is to say that a creator cannot grow in variety of shapes and sizes, having the ability to shapeshift yet also having a 'center' within all that IS that 'knows' it/himself." It's this 'center' that is the source of all the controversy. If the universe is a gigantic, evolving body, do you then see this evolution (e.g. the self-replicating molecule) as something that happens of its own accord, as something controlled by a conscious mind, or as something that happens independently of a conscious mind which experiences but does not control what is happening? - If there is a UI, then we have to consider it's makeup, what it is made up of...it's elements. Nothing can happen that isn't already a part of that makeup...there are only so many elements in which to work. Even if we/it creates new elements, these new elements are still made up of what already was here. Even if the UI may be gaining in intelligence, growing in emotional understanding of self, etc...still it is what it is. It/We can only work within the framework of the fabric that IS (as self-replicating molecules) we still only have so much freedom. It's like placing a baby in a play pen with a bottle and toys...it only has so many choices (<---not a great analogy, but you get the point). - In the end tho, I believe if there is a UI, then it is intelligent and is about it's own business ultimately for it's own good.

5303 views

BBella: If there is a UI then I figure it is aware of itself [.......] If there is a UI, it is the fabric of which everything is made of. So even tho something seems to self-replicate before our eyes, in reality it would just be morphing/shapeshifting the fabric into what it is becoming.... - Thank you for your explanations. Clearly self-awareness is the crucial factor distinguishing your concept from the atheist one. If I've understood you correctly, the UI deliberately transforms a bit of its material self into a self-replicating molecule. Since there is no new substance, all the replications and indeed all of us are "shapeshifts" by the UI, and evolution is a consciously engineered process through which the UI continually transforms itself, although it is learning as it goes along. - If this interpretation is correct, what we have in essence is a combination of mind and body. In this case, the conscious mind can do whatever it wants with the body ... in other words, it is the mind, the UI, that is in control. Is there, then, any difference between this concept and that of the conventional Creator figure, who also does what he pleases with the material world? Instead of fiddling around with extraneous matter, your UI fiddles around with its own "fabric". - You pointed out in an earlier post (1 August at 21.24) that some people picture God as an outside being "tinkering", but even as an insider he's monitoring himself and his work, and according to the above he's still tinkering. So he's not an outside designer but an inside designer. And if he's learning, he must have some degree of detachment. Furthermore, if you ask your Christian, Jewish and Muslim friends when God was born, they'll tell you he's eternal; if you ask, as Matt does, what are his limits, they'll tell you he's infinite; if you ask where you can find him, they'll tell you he's everywhere and in everything, including you. And so the only real difference ... please forgive me if I'm being obtuse ... between your God and the conventional monotheistic God / Yahweh / Allah, is that yours is still learning, whereas theirs already knows it all. Is that an accurate assessment, or have I missed something? - None of the above should be taken negatively, by the way. I'm just trying to understand the concept, and am breaking it down into my own terms. - In your reply to George, you emphasize the limitations of science, and adduce your personal experiences as evidence. This is a point that has been raised many times on the forum, but it keeps disappearing again. Your own case can be multiplied many times over, and since all our conclusions in this context are based ultimately on conviction and not on provable fact, I think it's a point well worth repeating!

5421 views

And so the only real difference ... please forgive me if I'm being obtuse ... between your God and the conventional monotheistic God / Yahweh / Allah, is that yours is still learning, whereas theirs already knows it all. Is that an accurate assessment, or have I missed something? - No, I don't think you missed anything as that is an accurate assessment. - > 
> None of the above should be taken negatively, by the way. I'm just trying to understand the concept, and am breaking it down into my own terms. - Yes, I can see that and, I definitely did not take anything negatively. - > In your reply to George, you emphasize the limitations of science, and adduce your personal experiences as evidence. - Yes, evidence to me only, of course, as I do not expect anyone else to use my evidence as theirs. - >This is a point that has been raised many times on the forum, but it keeps disappearing again. Your own case can be multiplied many times over, and since all our conclusions in this context are based ultimately on conviction and not on provable fact, I think it's a point well worth repeating! - I agree. And in recounting my experience, which I've mentioned before, of recognizing the pattern of my own belief systems during my religious bout (which was most of my life), and observing how each time I changed my belief, the Bible seemed to accommodate this new belief, I then wondered when coming out of my NDE/OBE?, if I could not only choose my own religious belief but choose my own reality perspective? So putting this to the test, I saw, to my own amazement/fear, that not only could I, but I have been doing this all along! This then placed me on pause about just what perspective to now take? And that is where I am....still on pause, more or less.

5414 views

BBella's concept of a possible Universal Intelligence is that it lies within everything, and is continually learning about itself. - Once again, thank you for your direct answers. I wonder if we could tie this concept in with the interesting discussion that David and Matt have been having about free will. (I'd also like to thank Matt for the brilliant Nietzsche quote, "In Conclusion"...4 August at 03.36). - If the UI is an outside force, I can quite see that we could have free will ... and this would link up with the concept of God using us for entertainment. (If I may digress briefly, I think this would be far less boring for God than just watching inorganic materials chucking themselves around.) However, if the UI is an inside force, which means that you and I are just parts of its conscious self, wouldn't that make our free will an illusion? - Incidentally, I like the expression "on pause". It's far more promising than my feeble "sitting on the fence"!

5416 views

BBella's concept of a possible Universal Intelligence is that it lies within everything, and is continually learning about itself. - I would more emphasize experiencing as much as learning, which could be the same thing, I guess? - > 
> Once again, thank you for your direct answers. I wonder if we could tie this concept in with the interesting discussion that David and Matt have been having about free will. (I'd also like to thank Matt for the brilliant Nietzsche quote, "In Conclusion"...4 August at 03.36).
> 
> If the UI is an outside force, I can quite see that we could have free will ... and this would link up with the concept of God using us for entertainment. (If I may digress briefly, I think this would be far less boring for God than just watching inorganic materials chucking themselves around.) - I don't know, I've placed myself in a UI's place (as much as a human can) and thought about how I could travel at any moment to anywhere in the universe and can see myself getting bored pretty quickly...which then could make for interesting creative spurts I guess. But, still, I'd rather taste a banana than watch someone else taste it, or swim in the ocean rather than watch someone swim...just doesn't seem it would be all that entertaining for very long just observing everything happening and not be able to just jump in and have a go at it. - >However, if the UI is an inside force, which means that you and I are just parts of its conscious self, wouldn't that make our free will an illusion? - Possibly. But using the analogy of the baby in the play pen with the toys and bottle, as long as the baby is fascinated with its effects, etc, then nothing more is needed. The baby needs as much free will as should be given for its age and abilities. We/UI, only have what is needed as we grow...our free will would be just as fascinating for our age, and seems to be doing just fine as we grow. Even if we do have so much free will, or have none, still we are all fairly happy with what we have to be entertained with as long as no one is harming us. As long as there are just so many elements in our play pen then we can only have so much free will. The elements or fabric we are working with is either freeing or imprisoning, one way or another...maybe it's just perspective? But really, can we complain? 
 
> Incidentally, I like the expression "on pause". It's far more promising than my feeble "sitting on the fence"!

5433 views

I've placed myself in a UI's place (as much as a human can) and thought about how I could travel at any moment to anywhere in the universe and can see myself getting bored pretty quickly...which then could make for interesting creative spurts I guess. But, still, I'd rather taste a banana than watch someone else taste it, or swim in the ocean rather than watch someone swim...just doesn't seem it would be all that entertaining for very long just observing everything happening and not be able to just jump in and have a go at it.
> - 
And...thinking about it more...this is a UI we are talking about here. Already, we humans are creating different ways to experience different things, other than just experiencing them, why? We started off very small; watching tv, then video games, the Wii, holographic virtuality (in the making), etc. What are we working toward with this virtual reality? We already experience what we experience so where are we going with virtual reality? We want to experience what we want when we want. Could we just be working toward the recognition of just who we are? A creator experiencing what it wants when it wants? - Think about it...if you were a UI, why would you just create and sit back and watch when you obviously have the ability to create and experience every creation as it happens simultaneously! What a rush!!! Imagine if it is possible, why not? Holographics seems to have the key of just how something very similar could be possible even for us, the human race, given a few more 100 yrs more or less...imagine a million or so years? who knows, maybe each of us could be our own created civilization experiencing a multitude of lives all at once. The ultimate video game???

5403 views

BBella: Think about it...if you were a UI, why would you just create and sit back and watch when you obviously have the ability to create and experience every creation as it happens simultaneously! - This is somewhat akin to writing plays and fiction: the writer experiences in his mind what his characters go through, and yet at the same time he's detached and able to watch them. You seem to be going one step further and saying that the UI undergoes the experiences physically. Christians would probably welcome the concept in terms of Christ/God suffering on the cross, but I wonder if they would be equally at home with Christ/God staggering home on a Saturday night, vomiting all over the living-room carpet, and then stabbing his wife in the chest with a carving knife. And I wonder if God would also enjoy being the wife at the same time. I'd have thought that by now he'd have had enough of the pain he keeps inflicting on himself. On the other hand, you're right, it would also be pretty boring just to watch the same old shows. You will gather that I continue to have trouble with the whole concept, but maybe I still haven't really grasped it. - In response to my question about free will, you wrote: "Even if we do have so much free will, or have none, still we are all fairly happy with what we have to be entertained with as long as no one is harming us. As long as there are just so many elements in our play pen then we can only have so much free will." - That is not quite what I meant. It's not the limitation of materials available to us, but what we do with those materials that relates to free will. If we are simply part of the UI, which is inside us and directing us, none of our decisions are ours and even our belief that we are real as individuals is an illusion. In fact, this ties in with the whole subject of identity, of which will and morality ... now being discussed on The Human Animal thread ... are just a part. It's a broad subject, and perhaps we should start a separate thread on it.

5385 views

BBella: Think about it...if you were a UI, why would you just create and sit back and watch when you obviously have the ability to create and experience every creation as it happens simultaneously!
> 
> This is somewhat akin to writing plays and fiction: the writer experiences in his mind what his characters go through, and yet at the same time he's detached and able to watch them. You seem to be going one step further and saying that the UI undergoes the experiences physically. Christians would probably welcome the concept in terms of Christ/God suffering on the cross, but I wonder if they would be equally at home with Christ/God staggering home on a Saturday night, vomiting all over the living-room carpet, and then stabbing his wife in the chest with a carving knife. And I wonder if God would also enjoy being the wife at the same time. - No, for the most part, Christian's definitely would not welcome this concept, altho the scriptures themselves do claim the concept. Being a Christian myself for most of my life (altho with different religious beliefs), and knowing the in's and out's of the scriptures for the most part, I can tell you this concept would repulse most of them! - >I'd have thought that by now he'd have had enough of the pain he keeps inflicting on himself. - Maybe the God I am speaking of, the All that Is, may be evolving it's way out of a pain inflicting way of being for a purpose that may resolve the problem of ever having to go backward, or starting from square ONE (alone) ever again, for ALL involved. WE mainly learn from experiencing and something you have to go to hell to get to heaven (literally). Imagine that this God does not want to create just a few select beings that are replicas of himself, but a whole race of beings very similar to himself, yet different. If I were a UI, and all ONE, or better said, al-one, I think I would want to create as many selves (cells) as possible. If I were able to replicate myself once, I could do it a zillion times. Yet, why replicate a zillion when I want all zillion to feel autonomous, be creative, and be happy as well, not go around creating hells for other created beings? I would have need of a plan to do so, but not only that, I would have to go by trial and error (era). And remember, for the most part, this is all being done holographically. So some part of each being does know, maybe only subconsciously, just what is truly going on here. - If (of course this is all conjecture) I could replicate some beings and get them somewhat balanced first then move on from there....no telling what could come of it. It's just getting these beings to work together in the first place while consciously feeling completely separate and autonomous that is the catch, and of course would take 'time.' And I would also think that this ONE being would want what is best not only for the one self but for all selves as.... all are ONE. - >On the other hand, you're right, it would also be pretty boring just to watch the same old shows. You will gather that I continue to have trouble with the whole concept, but maybe I still haven't really grasped it. - Maybe you are trying to combine the old idea of the Christian God with this concept. What I am speaking of really has nothing to do with the old idea but does have some similarities to the Christian God and maybe even to many other concepts of God or supreme being around the world. Many written scripts may hold some of this concept because possibly somewhere in our memory is a remembrance of this knowing, but all is distorted thru time, perception and power. But in the end of it all, it's all old concepts. This being is ever evolving and so would have evolved from most if not all concepts, including even what I am speaking of. Everything is really only being spoken of in past tense always anyway. - continued....

5416 views


> In response to my question about free will, you wrote: "Even if we do have so much free will, or have none, still we are all fairly happy with what we have to be entertained with as long as no one is harming us. As long as there are just so many elements in our play pen then we can only have so much free will."
> 
> That is not quite what I meant. It's not the limitation of materials available to us, but what we do with those materials that relates to free will. If we are simply part of the UI, which is inside us and directing us, none of our decisions are ours and even our belief that we are real as individuals is an illusion. - None of us hold or have any identity apart from that which we relate with and to. In other words, we are nothing without each other. This being so, just the fact that we all ARE, engenders care for each other if for no other reason than to preserve, or better yet, to grow one-self. My point about free will is why does it matter if we do or we don't have free will? What if we are ONE being operating as many for the good of all, or many beings operating for the good of one (self)? What if we are all directing each other by each decision made, or one directing all by one decision made? It would make no difference either way. Our will is as free as it IS allowed to be, or, as free as we perceive it to be. One way or the other, it appears free to our conscious awareness. How we choose to believe about what appears matters more than what actually is, in my estimation, as that is what guides our own happiness or peace in our everyday life. - >In fact, this ties in with the whole subject of identity, of which will and morality ... now being discussed on The Human Animal thread ... are just a part. It's a broad subject, and perhaps we should start a separate thread on it. - What would be the title of the new thread?

5371 views

BBella has once again explained her concept of a Universal Intelligence. Thank you for your patience. I'd like to comment very briefly on a couple of your remarks: - 1) Many written scripts may hold some of this concept because possibly somewhere in our memory is a remembrance of this knowing, but all is distorted thru time, perception and power.
An important argument for religious tolerance. If there really is some kind of god ... no matter what kind ... it makes perfect sense to me that all the religions would have a grain of truth in them. They all look to capture the same unknowable force, and so they all use their own imagery, because it's only through imagery that we can gain any access to it. But try telling that to the fundamentalists! - 2) None of us hold or have any identity apart from that which we relate with and to. In other words, we are nothing without each other.
I think this is only partly true. We have relations with ourselves as well as with others, and these depend largely on our own characteristics. Perhaps, though, you can develop this idea on the new "Identity" thread. - 3) How we choose to believe about what appears matters more than what actually is, in my estimation, as that is what guides our own happiness or peace in everyday life.
Since we can't know "what actually is", this has to be right. - 4) What would be the title of the new thread?
"Identity". I hope we can now shift this discussion across, as we've gone some distance away from the "Arguments against Design". As an illustration of the problem, if we take 3), we might ask why we choose what we choose. You are right when you say the choice "appears free to our conscious awareness", and maybe it doesn't matter whether it is or isn't free, but the question I would like to pursue is the source of the ability to make the choice, because it's that source (whatever it may be) that shapes our identity.

5468 views

Anyone interested in obtaining a PhD in Intelligent Design? - http://www.designinference.com/teaching/teaching.htm - This link to Professor Dembski's course has provoked much comment on RD.net. - "... provide at least 10 posts defending ID that you've made on "hostile" websites, the posts totalling 2,000 words, along with the URLs" - I wonder if AgnosticWeb counts as hostile or friendly or is it neutral?

--
GPJ

5415 views

Anyone interested in obtaining a PhD in Intelligent Design?
> 
> http://www.designinference.com/teaching/teaching.htm
> 
> This link to Professor Dembski's course has provoked much comment on RD.net.
> 
> "... provide at least 10 posts defending ID that you've made on "hostile" websites, the posts totalling 2,000 words, along with the URLs"
> 
> I wonder if AgnosticWeb counts as hostile or friendly or is it neutral? - I would say it doesn't know...

--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"

\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"

5459 views

George (under 'Quantum Science', 8 August at 19.17) : "As to people believing what they want to believe for aesthetic or emotional reasons, or [...] because it makes a good story, I've nothing against this. In fact I do it myself. Problems only arise when people state these beliefs as totally established facts that we must all bow down to." - Every so often, George, you come up with a post that merits a round of loud applause and raised glasses. This is one of them. Thank you. - George (on this thread, concerning a PhD in Intelligent Design): "I wonder if AgnosticWeb counts as hostile or friendly or is it neutral?" - Some posts are hostile, some friendly, and some neutral. We are therefore nicely balanced! And for the most part we are fortunate in having contributors who do not state their beliefs as totally established facts that we must all bow down to.

5438 views

dhw: And for the most part we are fortunate in having contributors who do not state their beliefs as totally established facts that we must all bow down to. - This is not to say however that there aren't many swathes of well established facts that we should all adhere to. Like most of scientific knowledge.

--
GPJ

5366 views

dhw: And for the most part we are fortunate in having contributors who do not state their beliefs as totally established facts that we must all bow down to.
> 
> This is not to say however that there aren't many swathes of well established facts that we should all adhere to. Like most of scientific knowledge. - I add my complete agreement. I will continue to bring speculative experimentation to attention here, but I wish everyone will understand its true nature.

5449 views

dhw: And for the most part we are fortunate in having contributors who do not state their beliefs as totally established facts that we must all bow down to. - George: This is not to say however that there aren't many swathes of well established facts that we should all adhere to. Like most of scientific knowledge. - This is not to say, however, that there aren't some people who think certain theories are based on well established facts, and constitute scientific knowledge, whereas in fact they are still only theories. And we must also bear in mind that science is continually uncovering new facts which replace what used to be considered facts but in fact were not facts. But for the most part we are fortunate in having contributors who are aware of this fact.

5406 views

RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum