Origin of Life; pre-planning (Introduction)

by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Sunday, October 09, 2011, 03:49 (4795 days ago) @ dhw

DHW: But I don't see how scientists can operate by "letting understanding come to them", as it did with your Game Design problem (of which more in a moment). Science can only proceed by painstaking observation and experimentation within the material world, and our advances in technology and medicine provide ample evidence that it doesn't always lead us up the wrong paths. Its range is limited, many of its practitioners may be blinkered, and many of their findings may be suspect, but the scientific method is still a richly productive method of investigating the universe.
> -
Do not confuse knowledge with understanding, my well spoken friend. Knowledge must be actively sought after, science is the pursuit of knowledge. Knowledge could be summed up as a collection of facts and figures pertaining to a subject, and does not in and of itself imply understanding of that data. The pursuit of knowledge can only lead to more knowledge, not understanding. What it does do however, is open the door for understanding to occur, and one might hope that said understanding would eventually lead to wisdom, though apparently that has not happened in humanity yet. -
> That sounds like a well balanced view to me. Although I don't think science can "let understanding come", I certainly agree with you that there are other methods of understanding the world. Your repeated experience of "spontaneous solutions" is one that I'm very familiar with. It usually happens when I end the day with an apparently insoluble problem, go to bed, and wake up with the whole thing sorted. I would put this on a par with instinct and intuition, and if we go one step further, with the emergence of new ideas. The mechanisms of the unconscious mind are as far beyond our comprehension as those of the conscious mind, and are often more reliable than the equally incomprehensible power of conscious reason. But it all boils down to the nature of the problem, and there are some problems that science can deal with more reliably than intuition.
> -Science can not do anything but pursue knowledge. Scientist, on the other hand, can try to attain understanding, and perhaps a little wisdom in the process. Intuition is something altogether different, and just as wonderful and amazing in its own right.-
> On the subject of wonderment, I simply cannot accept the suggestion that "unapologetic theists" are more aware of life's beauty, complexity, richness etc. than non-believers. You'll probably be surprised to hear that unapologetic atheists and agnostics can actually enjoy life for its own sake (and can also be kind to their fellow creatures for their own sake). Some would even argue that they can enjoy it all the more for not having to worry about what a UI might be thinking of them.-I never said that unapologetic theists had a monopoly on being aware or appreciative of life's beauty, complexity, and richness. I said that we are less tied to pet theories and other such non-sense. Less shackled by things that would inhibit or otherwise sour that moment of appreciation. I have no tenure to worry over, no fellows to impress, no grants to earn or papers to publish or books to write. I can enjoy for the sheer bliss of enjoying without concern over my state of ignorance of which I am well aware(and hopefully any educated person worth their salt is well aware of their own as well).

--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.