🚀 go-pugleaf

janettt@my-deja.com writes:

>      I discovered a fascinating discussion of three books
> on the struggle between science and religion at
> http://www.techdirections.com/html/in_review.html
> 
> The three books (along with the Amazon.com listings) are
> 
> ROCKS OF AGES
> http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0345430093/
> 
> TOWER OF BABEL
> http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/026216180X/
> 
> BIBLE ACCORDING TO EINSTEIN
> http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0965517691/
> 
> Particularly favorable comments are made about the latter.
> 
> --Jane

Let me recommend
A HISTORY OF THE WARFARE OF SCIENCE WITH THEOLOGY IN CHRISTENDOM,
by ANDREW DICKSON WHITE
You can read it on-line for free at
ftp://wiretap.area.com/Library/Classic/wartheo.txt.


-- 
John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/progress/
He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.

janettt@my-deja.com wrote in message <7rrk1v$tr6$1@nnrp1.deja.com>...
>
>
>     I discovered a fascinating discussion of three books
>on the struggle between science and religion at
>http://www.techdirections.com/html/in_review.html
>
>The three books (along with the Amazon.com listings) are
>
>ROCKS OF AGES
>http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0345430093/
>
>TOWER OF BABEL
>http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/026216180X/
>
>BIBLE ACCORDING TO EINSTEIN
>http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0965517691/
>
>Particularly favorable comments are made about the latter.
>
>--Jane


There is a hidden assumption in this whole subject line.  The assumption is
that there is an absolute "truth" that science can ultimately answer, if we
pursue science long enough.  This way of looking at the world is probably
flawed.  In effect, all of the currently accepted practices of this day and
time are based on theories that happen to be the best known way of
explaining sets of scientific data.  There are certainly many different ways
to explain the same data, and there are probably simpler explanations that
can be formulated to explain some of the data that we currently take for
granted.  To conclude that currently accepted scientific explanations are
necessarily in conflict with currently accepted religious explanations,
based on the fact that the language of the two explanations seems to be
"discontinuous", is an opinion that can't be validated by any known
scientific method.  In effect, the bible (if that is the document that you
wish to use for your religious core beliefs) is not a scientific document,
which strongly implies that one who compares science and religion is
comparing "apples and oranges".

In article <7rsg3h$2rss$1@news.hal-pc.org>, 
"charliew" <charliew@hal-pc.org> wrote:
>janettt@my-deja.com wrote in message <7rrk1v$tr6$1@nnrp1.deja.com>...
>>     I discovered a fascinating discussion of three books
>>on the struggle between science and religion at
>>http://www.techdirections.com/html/in_review.html
>
>There is a hidden assumption in this whole subject line.  The assumption is
>that there is an absolute "truth" that science can ultimately answer, if we
>pursue science long enough.  This way of looking at the world is probably
>flawed.  In effect, all of the currently accepted practices of this day and
>time are based on theories that happen to be the best known way of
>explaining sets of scientific data.  There are certainly many different ways
>to explain the same data, and there are probably simpler explanations that
>can be formulated to explain some of the data that we currently take for
>granted.  To conclude that currently accepted scientific explanations are
>necessarily in conflict with currently accepted religious explanations,
>based on the fact that the language of the two explanations seems to be
>"discontinuous", is an opinion that can't be validated by any known
>scientific method.  In effect, the bible (if that is the document that you
>wish to use for your religious core beliefs) is not a scientific document,
>which strongly implies that one who compares science and religion is
>comparing "apples and oranges".

There was recently some discussion of science and religion following
the decision by the Kansas school board to make the teaching of 
evolution optional.  _Time Magazine_ ran an essay on the topic penned
by Prof. Stephen Jay Gould:

<quoting myself from an earlier message>

[snip]  There was a "Viewpoint" article in a recent _Time Magazine_ 
on the topic: "Dorothy, It's Really Oz" by Prof. Stephen Jay Gould 
(23 Aug 99, p.53).

As Gould points out, the whole concern of the Fundamentalists 
demonstrates their lack of understanding of religion as well as 
of science:  "No scientific theory, including evolution, can pose 
any threat to religion-for these two great tools of human understanding
operate in complementary (not contrary) fashion in their totally 
separate realms: science as an inquiry about the factual state of 
the natural world, religion as a search for spiritual meaning and 
ethical values."
</quoting>

Cheers,  Ian S.

ianstDELETE@THISdpi.qld.gov.au

--------------1F6E0B92382ED1B09EC04907
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Ian Staples quotes:

>  Gould points out, the whole concern of the Fundamentalists
> demonstrates their lack of understanding of religion as well as
> of science:  "No scientific theory, including evolution, can pose
> any threat to religion-for these two great tools of human understanding
> operate in complementary (not contrary) fashion in their totally
> separate realms: science as an inquiry about the factual state of
> the natural world, religion as a search for spiritual meaning and
> ethical values."
> </quoting>
>
> Cheers,  Ian S.

There is a problem with this "apartheid" approach. Neither science nor religion
has any fixed "realm".  Religion has in past cheerfully offered explanations
for observed patterns in nature, such as Design as an explanation for organic
order.  The whole concept of a "spiritual realm" probably arises from a
homunculus
theory of mind (the little man sitting in the Cartesian Theater in your head),
which
after all is an attempt, however primitive and wrong, to explain some things
about
human cognition. Science on the other hand begins to regard "spiritual meaning
and
ethical values" as fair game for study in areas such as cognitive science,
evolutionary
psychology (pace Gould) and brain research.

I think Steven Wienberg had it right in_ Dreams of a Final Theory_.  Religion
really
always meant to be a cosmological theory, in which humanity was central. But
everything
we have learned through science suggests the universe is fundamentally
"pointless"
in terms of human wishes and fears. We aren't central, our minds don't survive
death
in a spirit realm, prayer is not answered, and the universe doesn't care if we
make it
or  not.

Religion finds that view abhorrent because, well, it *is* abhorrent  to
organisms that
work the way we do.  Just more of the universe's pointlessness. Unfortunately,
it
happens to be true.

------------
Alan McGowen




--------------1F6E0B92382ED1B09EC04907
Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

<!doctype html public "-//w3c//dtd html 4.0 transitional//en">
<html>
Ian Staples quotes:
<blockquote TYPE=CITE>&nbsp;Gould points out, the whole concern of the
Fundamentalists
<br>demonstrates their lack of understanding of religion as well as
<br>of science:&nbsp; "No scientific theory, including evolution, can pose
<br>any threat to religion-for these two great tools of human understanding
<br>operate in complementary (not contrary) fashion in their totally
<br>separate realms: science as an inquiry about the factual state of
<br>the natural world, religion as a search for spiritual meaning and
<br>ethical values."
<br>&lt;/quoting>
<p>Cheers,&nbsp; Ian S.</blockquote>
There is a problem with this "apartheid" approach<font face="Arial,Helvetica">.
</font>Neither science nor religion
<br>has any fixed "realm".&nbsp; Religion has in past cheerfully offered
explanations
<br>for observed patterns in nature, such as Design as an explanation for
organic
<br>order.&nbsp; The whole concept of a "spiritual realm" probably arises
from a homunculus
<br>theory of mind (the little man sitting in the Cartesian Theater in
your head), which
<br>after all is an attempt, however primitive and wrong, to explain some
things about
<br>human cognition. Science on the other hand begins to regard "spiritual
meaning and
<br>ethical values" as fair game for study in areas such as cognitive science,
evolutionary
<br>psychology (pace Gould) and brain research.
<p>I&nbsp;think Steven Wienberg had it right in_ Dreams of a Final Theory_.&nbsp;
Religion really
<br>always meant to be a cosmological theory, in which humanity was central.
But everything
<br>we have learned through science suggests the universe is fundamentally
"pointless"
<br>in terms of human wishes and fears. We aren't central, our minds don't
survive death
<br>in a spirit realm, prayer is not answered, and the universe doesn't
care if we make it
<br>or&nbsp; not.
<p>Religion finds that view abhorrent because, well, it *is* abhorrent&nbsp;
to organisms that
<br>work the way we do.&nbsp; Just more of the universe's pointlessness.
Unfortunately,&nbsp; it
<br>happens to be true.
<pre>------------&nbsp;
Alan McGowen
&nbsp;

</pre>
&nbsp;</html>

--------------1F6E0B92382ED1B09EC04907--

I am in substantial agreement with Allen McGowen on this one.

1. All religion formerly made scientific claims, because it was an
attempt to understand and control the world, and some forms of
religion still do.  Some present religious writers claim to make no
scientific claims, but perhaps they do when they write about the mind.

2. It has turned out that the universe has no purpose that anyone has
been able to make a convincing case for.  It is not a person that
cares what we do or think.

3. Human purposefulness and morality has and must have human sources.

-- 
John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/progress/
He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.

--------------6AAFFCA82942C98B70E080F2
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

John McCarthy wrote:

> 3. Human purposefulness and morality has and must have human sources.

Since the human brain is a result of evolution, human purposefulness and
morality has
and must have adaptive sources. It is even possible this applies to
religious impulses.
But this does not make them "true". It makes them biases that perhaps
served our
ancestors.

It's a major function of science to identify and correct for deep biases
of this sort;
this is perhaps the root source of the confllict between science and
religion, since
religion depends on such biases.  This seems also to be the root of the
conflict
between science and postmodernism.

--
Alan McGowen

--------------6AAFFCA82942C98B70E080F2
Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

<!doctype html public "-//w3c//dtd html 4.0 transitional//en">
<html>
John McCarthy wrote:
<blockquote TYPE=CITE>3. Human purposefulness and morality has and must
have human sources.</blockquote>
Since the human brain is a result of evolution, human purposefulness and
morality has
<br>and must have adaptive sources. It is even possible this applies to
religious impulses.
<br>But this does not make them "true". It makes them biases that perhaps
served our
<br>ancestors.
<p>It's a major function of science to identify and correct for deep biases
of this sort;
<br>this is perhaps the root source of the confllict between science and
religion, since
<br>religion depends on such biases.&nbsp; This seems also to be the root
of the conflict
<br>between science and postmodernism.
<pre>--&nbsp;
Alan McGowen

</pre>
</html>

--------------6AAFFCA82942C98B70E080F2--

--------------BE64D75E16C4CB078E47059C
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

charliew wrote:

> There is a hidden assumption in this whole subject line.  The assumption is
> that there is an absolute "truth" that science can ultimately answer, if we
> pursue science long enough.  This way of looking at the world is probably
> flawed.

Let's bear in mind that a truth is  a  (necessarily finite) *description* of
objective
reality, and as such,  has a *resolution* or *precision*. It only makes sense
to
ask whether a map of the Himalayas is accurate at its scale of resolution, not
at "infinitely fine" scales.

If by "absolute truth" you mean an infinite precision description of the world,

then science is not obligated to produce any such thing in order to be right.
And certainly religion has never done this either :-)

A map of the Himalyas shows some features of objective reality at a certain
precision. It does not need to be more precise to be right that the mountains
are really there.

--
Alan McGowen

--------------BE64D75E16C4CB078E47059C
Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

<!doctype html public "-//w3c//dtd html 4.0 transitional//en">
<html>
charliew wrote:
<blockquote TYPE=CITE>There is a hidden assumption in this whole subject
line.&nbsp; The assumption is
<br>that there is an absolute "truth" that science can ultimately answer,
if we
<br>pursue science long enough.&nbsp; This way of looking at the world
is probably
<br>flawed.</blockquote>
Let's bear in mind that a truth is&nbsp; a&nbsp; (necessarily finite) *description*
of objective
<br>reality, and as such,&nbsp; has a *resolution* or *precision*. It only
makes sense to
<br>ask whether a map of the Himalayas is accurate at its scale of resolution,
not
<br>at "infinitely fine" scales.
<p>If by "absolute truth" you mean an infinite precision description of
the world,
<br>then science is not obligated to produce any such thing in order to
be right.
<br>And certainly religion has never done this either :-)
<p>A map of the Himalyas shows some features of objective reality at a
certain
<br>precision. It does not need to be more precise to be right that the
mountains
<br>are really there.
<pre>--&nbsp;
Alan McGowen


</pre>
</html>

--------------BE64D75E16C4CB078E47059C--

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

------=_NextPart_000_002B_01BF03BF.1EC7A320
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable


Alan McGowen wrote in message <37E684FF.81B159A2@cup.hp.com>...
    charliew wrote:=20
    There is a hidden assumption in this whole subject line.  The =
assumption is=20
        that there is an absolute "truth" that science can ultimately =
answer, if we=20
        pursue science long enough.  This way of looking at the world is =
probably=20
        flawed.
        Let's bear in mind that a truth is  a  (necessarily finite) =
*description* of objective=20
    reality, and as such,  has a *resolution* or *precision*. It only =
makes sense to=20
    ask whether a map of the Himalayas is accurate at its scale of =
resolution, not=20
    at "infinitely fine" scales.=20
    (cut)
   =20
    charliew replies:
   =20
    I think you completely missed my point.  If you study such things as =
special relativity, general relativity, and quantum mechanics, you =
quickly start realizing that the term "objective reality" is not really =
so objective after all.  Therefore, an "accurate" description of a =
somewhat subjective reality cannot be claimed to be an absolute truth.  =
In many ways, my "argument" has very little to do with *precision*.  If =
you don't believe me, merely go into the appropriate relativity text, =
and look up various descriptions of "simultaneity".  If you manage to =
understand the implications of what you read, I'll wager that you will =
not see reality as being so "objective" after all.  The most amazing =
thing about this line of reasoning is the fact that such non-intuitive =
results are derived from such apparently advanced science.
   =20
   =20
   =20

------=_NextPart_000_002B_01BF03BF.1EC7A320
Content-Type: text/html;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD W3 HTML//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>

<META content=3Dtext/html;charset=3Diso-8859-1 =
http-equiv=3DContent-Type><!doctype html public "-//w3c//dtd html 4.0 =
transitional//en">
<META content=3D'"MSHTML 4.71.1712.3"' name=3DGENERATOR>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=3D#ffffff>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE=20
style=3D"BORDER-LEFT: #000000 solid 2px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; PADDING-LEFT: =
5px">
    <DIV>Alan McGowen<AMCGOWEN@CUP.HP.COM> wrote in message &lt;<A=20
    =
href=3D"mailto:37E684FF.81B159A2@cup.hp.com">37E684FF.81B159A2@cup.hp.com=
</A>&gt;...</DIV>charliew=20
    wrote:=20
    <BLOCKQUOTE TYPE =3D CITE>There is a hidden assumption in this whole =

        subject line.&nbsp; The assumption is <BR>that there is an =
absolute=20
        &quot;truth&quot; that science can ultimately answer, if we =
<BR>pursue=20
        science long enough.&nbsp; This way of looking at the world is =
probably=20
        <BR>flawed.</BLOCKQUOTE>Let's bear in mind that a truth is&nbsp; =
a&nbsp;=20
    (necessarily finite) *description* of objective <BR>reality, and as=20
    such,&nbsp; has a *resolution* or *precision*. It only makes sense =
to=20
    <BR>ask whether a map of the Himalayas is accurate at its scale of=20
    resolution, not <BR>at &quot;infinitely fine&quot; scales.=20
    <P><FONT color=3D#000000 size=3D2>(cut)</FONT>
    <P><FONT size=3D2>charliew replies:</FONT></P>
    <P><FONT size=3D2>I think you completely missed my point.&nbsp; If =
you study=20
    such things as special relativity, general relativity, and quantum=20
    mechanics, you quickly start realizing that the term &quot;objective =

    reality&quot; is not really so objective after all.&nbsp; Therefore, =
an=20
    &quot;accurate&quot; description of a somewhat subjective reality =
cannot be=20
    claimed to be an absolute truth.&nbsp; In many ways, my =
&quot;argument&quot;=20
    has very little to do with *precision*.&nbsp; If you don't believe =
me,=20
    merely go into the appropriate relativity text, and look up various=20
    descriptions of &quot;simultaneity&quot;.&nbsp; If you manage to =
understand=20
    the implications of what you read, I'll wager that you will not see =
reality=20
    as being so &quot;objective&quot; after all.&nbsp; The most amazing =
thing=20
    about this line of reasoning is the fact that such non-intuitive =
results are=20
    derived from such apparently advanced science.</FONT></P>
    <P>&nbsp;</P></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>

------=_NextPart_000_002B_01BF03BF.1EC7A320--

"charliew" <charliew@hal-pc.org> writes:

> [1  <text/plain; iso-8859-1 (quoted-printable)>]
> 
> Alan McGowen wrote in message <37E684FF.81B159A2@cup.hp.com>...
>     charliew wrote: 
>     There is a hidden assumption in this whole subject line.  The assumption is 
>         that there is an absolute "truth" that science can ultimately answer, if we 
>         pursue science long enough.  This way of looking at the world is probably 
>         flawed.
>         Let's bear in mind that a truth is  a  (necessarily finite) *description* of objective 
>     reality, and as such,  has a *resolution* or *precision*. It only makes sense to 
>     ask whether a map of the Himalayas is accurate at its scale of resolution, not 
>     at "infinitely fine" scales. 
>     (cut)
>     
>     charliew replies:
>     
>     I think you completely missed my point.  If you study such things as special relativity, general relativity, and quantum mechanics, you quickly start realizing that the term "objective reality" is not really so objective after all.  Therefore, an "accurate" description of a somewhat subjective reality cannot be claimed to be an absolute truth.  In many ways, my "argument" has very little to do with *precision*.  If you don't believe me, merely go into the appropriate relativity text, and look up various descriptions of "simultaneity".  If you manage to understand the implications of what you read, I'll wager that you will not see reality as being so "objective" after all.  The most amazing thing about this line of reasoning is the fact that such non-intuitive results are derived from such apparently advanced science.

I took courses in relativity and quantum mechanics.  Informed opinions
differ about the Bohr somewhat subjective interpretation of quantum
mechanics, but I hold with those who regard quantum mechanics as
strange but objective, e.g. the Everett interpretation.  _Physics
Today_ had a recent exchange of opinions on the subject.

-- 
John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/progress/
He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.

>>>1. All religion formerly made scientific claims, because it was an
attempt to understand and control the world, and some forms of
religion still do.  Some present religious writers claim to make no
scientific claims, but perhaps they do when they write about the mind.<<<

"Science" is not an attempt to control the world.  That would be technology.
Science is a process whereby the physical world can be understood.  This
done through direct observation and measurement.  Religion attempts to
answer questions of value, purpose and meaning.  Questions which good
science assiduouly avoids for very good reason.  Science cannot answer such
questions.

>>>2. It has turned out that the universe has no purpose that anyone has
been able to make a convincing case for.  It is not a person that
cares what we do or think.<<<

Many persons are convinced that their life (and the world around them) is
meaningful.  Whether you or anyone else fails to be convinced is another
question entirely.

>>>3. Human purposefulness and morality has and must have human sources.<<<

Human sources can provide purpose and morality.  I question whether one can
logically assert that it MUST have human sources until one has examined and
exhausted all other potential sources.  I sincerely doubt that anyone has
even attempted such a heroic endeavor, let alone accomplished it
successfully.


--
To respond via email remove the "X" from the address.

This stuff has been spammed to every newsgroup I read, and many others
that I
hear of.

Edwin.

--------------0B09135360BA2C5E1EE6B9DE
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit


--------------0B09135360BA2C5E1EE6B9DE
Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

<!doctype html public "-//w3c//dtd html 4.0 transitional//en">
<html>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
charliew wrote:
<blockquote TYPE=CITE>&nbsp;
<blockquote 
style="BORDER-LEFT: #000000 solid 2px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px">Alan
McGowen<AMCGOWEN@CUP.HP.COM> wrote in message &lt;<a href="mailto:37E684FF.81B159A2@cup.hp.com">37E684FF.81B159A2@cup.hp.com</a>>...charliew
wrote:
<blockquote TYPE = CITE>There is a hidden assumption in this whole subject
line.&nbsp; The assumption is
<br>that there is an absolute "truth" that science can ultimately answer,
if we
<br>pursue science long enough.&nbsp; This way of looking at the world
is probably
<br>flawed.</blockquote>
Let's bear in mind that a truth is&nbsp; a&nbsp; (necessarily finite) *description*
of objective
<br>reality, and as such,&nbsp; has a *resolution* or *precision*. It only
makes sense to
<br>ask whether a map of the Himalayas is accurate at its scale of resolution,
not
<br>at "infinitely fine" scales.
<p><font color="#000000"><font size=-1>(cut)</font></font>
<p><font size=-1>charliew replies:</font>
<p><font size=-1>I think you completely missed my point.&nbsp; If you study
such things as special relativity, general relativity, and quantum mechanics,</font></blockquote>
</blockquote>

<p><br>I have.
<blockquote TYPE=CITE>
<blockquote 
style="BORDER-LEFT: #000000 solid 2px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px"><font size=-1>you
quickly start realizing that the term "objective reality" is not really
so objective after all.</font></blockquote>
</blockquote>

<p><br>Nothing of the sort. In special relativity e.g. what is objective
(not dependent on the observer) is
<br>the Minkowski interval. In general relativity,&nbsp; geometry&nbsp;
is objective.
<p>In QM,&nbsp; the idea popularized by Frizof Capra and others that subjectivity
is rampant is dismissed
<br>by most theorists.&nbsp; E.g. the decoherent histories interpretation
(Gell-Mann and others) elimimates
<br>any special metaphysical role for observers or minds.
<p>See
<p>Gell-Mann, Alternative Decohering Histories in Quantum Mechanics (with
J.B. Hartle) in Proceedings of the 25th International Conference on High
Energy&nbsp; Physics: 2-8 August, 1990, (South East Asia Theoretical Physics
Association, Physical Society of Japan; Teaneck, NJ) vol. 2, pp. 1303-10
(1991).
<p>Gell-Mann, Strong Decoherence (with J.B. Hartle) in D.H. Feng and B.L.
Hu (eds.), Quantum Classical Correspondence: The 4th Drexel Symposium on
Quantum Nonintegrability. (International Press: Cambridge, MA, 1997) pp.
3-35. Conference held at Drexel University in Philadelphia, PA, Sept.
<br>8-11, 1994.
<p>For a nontechnical discussion see
<p>Gell-Mann, The Quark and the Jaguar: Adventures in the Simple and the
Complex (New York, NY: W.H. Freeman and Co., 1994).
<p>Another good book that puts the lie to the claims of Capra and other
mystics is
<p>Victor Stenger. The Unconscious Quantum: Metaphysics in Modern Physics
and Cosmology (1995)
<br>ISBN 1-57392-022-3. rometheus Books 59 John Glenn Drive, Amherst, New
York
<p>Stenger's home&nbsp; page at&nbsp; <A HREF="http://www.phys.hawaii.edu/vjs/">http://www.phys.hawaii.edu/vjs/</A> is
filled wih skeptical discussions of
<br>quantum quackery.
<br>&nbsp;
<blockquote TYPE=CITE>
<blockquote 
style="BORDER-LEFT: #000000 solid 2px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px"><font size=-1>Therefore,
an "accurate" description of a somewhat subjective reality cannot be claimed
to be an absolute truth.</font></blockquote>
</blockquote>

<p><br>For&nbsp; a coherent treatment of the subject of accuracy and limits
to predictability in an objective
<br>reality, see Murray Gell-Mann's Fundamental Sources of Unpredictability,
available on the
<br>web at his home page <A HREF="http://www.santafe.edu/sfi/People/mgm/">http://www.santafe.edu/sfi/People/mgm/</A>.
<blockquote TYPE=CITE>
<blockquote 
style="BORDER-LEFT: #000000 solid 2px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px"><font size=-1>In
many ways, my "argument" has very little to do with *precision*.</font></blockquote>
</blockquote>

<p><br>This subject has everything to do with information and precision
(c.f. Gell-Mann's "coarse graining"
<br>at the above web page.)
<blockquote TYPE=CITE>
<blockquote 
style="BORDER-LEFT: #000000 solid 2px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px"><font size=-1>If
you don't believe me, merely go into the appropriate relativity text, and
look up various descriptions of "simultaneity".&nbsp; If you manage to
understand the implications of what you read, I'll wager that you will
not see reality as being so "objective" after all.</font></blockquote>
</blockquote>

<p><br>If you had understood what *you* had read, you would have realized
that Einstein's analysis
<br>demonstrates that classical concepts of space and time are not independent
of the motion
<br>of observers. For that very reason, Einstein replaces them with something
that is
<br>observer-independent, Minkowski space-time. In other words, special
relativity is *more*
<br>objective than classical physics.
<pre>-&nbsp;
Alan McGowen



</pre>

</body>
</html>

--------------0B09135360BA2C5E1EE6B9DE--

Starbuck wrote in response to John McCarthy:

> >>>1. All religion formerly made scientific claims, because it was an
> attempt to understand and control the world, and some forms of
> religion still do.  Some present religious writers claim to make no
> scientific claims, but perhaps they do when they write about the mind.<<<
>
> "Science" is not an attempt to control the world.  That would be technology.
> Science is a process whereby the physical world can be understood.  This
> done through direct observation and measurement.  Religion attempts to
> answer questions of value, purpose and meaning.  Questions which good
> science assiduouly avoids for very good reason.  Science cannot answer such
> questions.

I think there is little doubt the adaptive value of cognition to an organism
stems
from increased control over the environment as a result of having better models

of it. Science is primarily aimed at the modeling end, and technology at the
control
end.  But in its roots, this is overall an adaptive learning process.

As to religious questions about value, purpose, meaning etc. I find it
remarkable
anyone could believe that psychology , evolutionary biology and neural science
can have nothing to say about these subjects. Economists already have plenty to

say about value, and  what they have to say is listened to far more  often in
social
decision making than what religions have to say . The idea that value theory is
the 0
exclusive province of religion doesn't stand up to observation.

> >>>2. It has turned out that the universe has no purpose that anyone has
> been able to make a convincing case for.  It is not a person that
> cares what we do or think.<<<
>
> Many persons are convinced that their life (and the world around them) is
> meaningful.

So what? E.g. maybe that's more or less inevitable given the way our brains
work.
That wouldn't make it true.

> Whether you or anyone else fails to be convinced is another
> question entirely.
>

The burden of proof is on those making the claim that such and such is "the
meaning
of  the universe".  Which purported meaning are you defending, and what is your

evidence?

>
> >>>3. Human purposefulness and morality has and must have human sources.<<<
>
> Human sources can provide purpose and morality.  I question whether one can
> logically assert that it MUST have human sources until one has examined and
> exhausted all other potential sources.  I sincerely doubt that anyone has
> even attempted such a heroic endeavor, let alone accomplished it
> successfully.
>

Perhaps purpose and morality are forms of adaptive information, which like all
adapations code certain features of an environment . Humans don't generate
all this information ex nihilo, with no natural selection working,  because
then it
would have no adaptive value. Some of undoubtedly has no adaptive value and
is a sort of ethical noise. But surely not all of it --  after all, we did get
here.

--
Alan McGowen

--------------FECD7AF449DEDF7EAFCFC218
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

I wrote:

> The burden of proof is on those making the claim that such and such is "the
> meaning of  the universe".  Which purported meaning are you defending, and what
> is your evidence?

E.g. a few years back there was a good deal of noise about something called the
Anthropic
Principle, which some popular accounts held up as proof that the meaning of the
universe is
Life or Conciousness or some such. But it turned out  you can't predict anything
new with
the Anthropic Principle, so it died in physics rather quickly.  A related claim
that the constants
of nature had to be very precisely "tuned" or life could not have evolved has also
been exploded.

However,  news of  exploded claims of meaning and mystery spreads slowly, while
"news"
that  humans are miraculous and central to the cosmos, or have psychic powers, or
past lives,
or that prayer works etc. spreads quickly and is easily believed by many people;
it is what they
want to hear. In the population equilibrium that results, paranormal and religious
beliefs are
therefore pandemic, and skeptical beliefs are much more rare.

Citing the fact that "many persons are convinced" of these magical things is an
important data
point on human psychology, but not evidence of their reality. Many people are also
convinced
the government has extraterrestrials in pickle jars at Area 51  :-)

--
Alan McGowen

--------------FECD7AF449DEDF7EAFCFC218
Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

<!doctype html public "-//w3c//dtd html 4.0 transitional//en">
<html>
I wrote:
<blockquote TYPE=CITE>The burden of proof is on those making the claim
that such and such is "the
<br>meaning of&nbsp; the universe".&nbsp; Which purported meaning are you
defending, and what is your evidence?</blockquote>
E.g. a few years back there was a good deal of noise about something called
the Anthropic
<br>Principle, which some popular accounts held up as proof that the meaning
of the universe is
<br>Life or Conciousness or some such. But it turned out&nbsp; you can't
predict anything new with
<br>the Anthropic Principle, so it died in physics rather quickly.&nbsp;
A related claim that the constants
<br>of nature had to be very precisely "tuned" or life could not have evolved
has also been exploded.
<p>However,&nbsp; news of&nbsp; exploded claims of meaning and mystery
spreads slowly, while "news"
<br>that&nbsp; humans are miraculous and central to the cosmos, or have
psychic powers, or past lives,
<br>or that prayer works etc. spreads quickly and is easily believed by
many people; it is what they
<br>want to hear. In the population equilibrium that results, paranormal
and religious beliefs are
<br>therefore pandemic, and skeptical beliefs are much more rare.
<p>Citing the fact that "many persons are convinced" of these magical things
is an important data
<br>point on human psychology, but not evidence of their reality. Many
people are also convinced
<br>the government has extraterrestrials in pickle jars at Area 51&nbsp;
:-)
<pre>--&nbsp;
Alan McGowen

</pre>
</html>

--------------FECD7AF449DEDF7EAFCFC218--

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

------=_NextPart_000_0067_01BF0457.C41D8CC0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

>>>Citing the fact that "many persons are convinced" of these magical =
things is an important data=20
point on human psychology, but not evidence of their reality. Many =
people are also convinced=20
the government has extraterrestrials in pickle jars at Area 51  :-) <<<

So you are claiming that you have extensively searched Area 51, in such =
detail that any pickle jar would not have been able to escape your =
detection?

:-)

--=20
To respond via email remove the "X" from the address.

------=_NextPart_000_0067_01BF0457.C41D8CC0
Content-Type: text/html;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD W3 HTML//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>

<META content=3Dtext/html;charset=3Diso-8859-1 =
http-equiv=3DContent-Type>
<META content=3D'"MSHTML 4.72.3612.1706"' name=3DGENERATOR>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=3D#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#000000 size=3D2>&gt;&gt;&gt;Citing the fact that =
&quot;many=20
persons are convinced&quot; of these magical things is an important data =

<BR>point on human psychology, but not evidence of their reality. Many =
people=20
are also convinced <BR>the government has extraterrestrials in pickle =
jars at=20
Area 51&nbsp; :-) &lt;&lt;&lt;</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#000000 size=3D2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2>So you are claiming that you have extensively =
searched Area=20
51, in such detail that any pickle jar would not have been able to =
escape your=20
detection?</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2>:-)</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#000000 size=3D2><BR>-- <BR>To respond via email =
remove the=20
&quot;X&quot; from the address.</FONT></DIV></BODY></HTML>

------=_NextPart_000_0067_01BF0457.C41D8CC0--

>>>As to religious questions about value, purpose, meaning etc. I find it
remarkable
anyone could believe that psychology , evolutionary biology and neural
science
can have nothing to say about these subjects.<<<<

I readily accede that those fields have a great deal to say. In fact, I
would say that the "psychology" of yesterday becomes the "religion" of
tomorrow. The Bible contains a great deal of practical wisdom that can
perhaps be described as the "pop psychology" of middle eastern shepherds.

>>> Economists already have plenty to
say about value, and what they have to say is listened to far more often in
social decision making than what religions have to say . The idea that value
theory is
the 0 exclusive province of religion doesn't stand up to observation.<<<

I don't exclude other forms of knowledge from my religious learning, but
rather use reason and the current knowledge from (all) other fields to
augment and clarify my interpretations of religious belief. This concept was
articulated by Thomas Aquinas, William Law, Francis Schaeffer, C. S. Lewis
and many other Christian writers through the centuries. Representative of
denominations that use this approach include Roman Catholic, Quakers,
Episcopal, Presbyterian, Methodist, etc.

In contrast is the "sola scriptura" view of the fundamentalists which do
reject learning from other fields of endeavor, and also reject the "value"
or reason when it comes to understanding life. This represents a minority
position in Christianity. Representative examples of this view include some
Southern Baptists, Independent Bible Churches, and some others.

As an interpretive matter, what value to economists place upon family
relationships, patriotism, and the enjoyment of sunsets? How much should a
man sell his wife or daughter for? Not all of life can be quantified and
evaluated economically (as useful as that may be for many purposes).

>>>Many persons are convinced that their life (and the world around them) is
meaningful.<<<
>>>So what? E.g. maybe that's more or less inevitable given the way our
brains work.  That wouldn't make it true.<<<

I submit that the way our brains work is VERY pertinent to what is "true".
The fact that many persons do find meaning and purpose through religious
faith indicates that it does speak to a certain kind of "spiritual truth"...
which may be different from empirical truth.. but it is certainly just as
valid as "Truth"... even if of a different type.

>>>The burden of proof is on those making the claim that such and such is
"the
meaning of the universe". Which purported meaning are you defending, and
what is your evidence?<<<

I purport that the meaning of the universe (contrary to the clever opinions
of Douglas Adams) is that of a Transcendent Intelligence who has a personal
and ultimately benevolent interest in all of us.

--
To respond via email remove the "X" from the address.

It seems to me that the anthropic principle suffered a hit recently
when the conditions for survival of prokaryote bacteria were
discovered to be much less demanding than previously thought.
-- 
John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/progress/
He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.

Starbuck wrote:

> As an interpretive matter, what value to economists place upon family
> relationships, patriotism, and the enjoyment of sunsets? How much should a
> man sell his wife or daughter for?

Irrelevant. I'm not  interested in defending utility theory, I'm just pointing
out
that it is a nonreligious value theory, and so the claim that religion has
exclusive
authority over matters of value, and science may not comment on them,  is not
even
how things stand at present, let alone how they might look in future.

> >>>Many persons are convinced that their life (and the world around them) is
> meaningful.<<<
> >>>So what? E.g. maybe that's more or less inevitable given the way our
> brains work.  That wouldn't make it true.<<<
>
> I submit that the way our brains work is VERY pertinent to what is "true".
> The fact that many persons do find meaning and purpose through religious
> faith indicates that it does speak to a certain kind of "spiritual truth"...

Suppose the way our brains work also predisposes us to be rather easily
rendered xenophobic. Would xenophobia then also be spiritual truth?

> which may be different from empirical truth.. but it is certainly just as
> valid as "Truth"... even if of a different type.

I.e. we want to believe it, so it is "true" -- just maybe not empirically true,

some other kind of true.

Then try this version out: I want to be rich. I mean, I really *really* want to
be
rich. Therefore, I will win the lottery. This may not be an empirical truth,
but it
is certainly just as valid as "Truth"... even if of a different type.

:-)

>I  purport that the meaning of the universe (contrary to the clever opinions
of
>Douglas Adams) is that of a Transcendent Intelligence who has a personal and
>ultimately benevolent interest in all of us.

A Trancendent Intelligence responsible for sickle cell anemia and other genetic

diseases doesn't seem very benevolent.

But I asked for your evidence.  You offered none.

--
Alan McGowen

--------------74D3F2DC4BF6AC91DDD1B88C
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Starbuck wrote:

>  >>>Citing the fact that "many persons are convinced" of these magical
> things is an important data
> point on human psychology, but not evidence of their reality. Many
> people are also convinced
> the government has extraterrestrials in pickle jars at Area 51  :-)
> <<< So you are claiming that you have extensively searched Area 51, in
> such detail that any pickle jar would not have been able to escape
> your detection? :-)

You don't seem to  understand the basic rules of evidence and burden of
proof.
It's not incumbent on me to prove the negative. It's incumbent on those
who assert
the ETs are there to produce the evidence.

E.g. suppose I said that the Vatican is a brothel, and it's up to you to
search the Vatican, every
last  corner of it, to prove there are no prostitutes hidden there. That
would never stand in a
court -- I would be the one making the claim,  it would be up to me to
provide evidence for
it.

--
Alan McGowen



--------------74D3F2DC4BF6AC91DDD1B88C
Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

<!doctype html public "-//w3c//dtd html 4.0 transitional//en">
<html>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
Starbuck wrote:
<blockquote TYPE=CITE>&nbsp;<font color="#000000"><font size=-1>>>>Citing
the fact that "many persons are convinced" of these magical things is an
important data</font></font>
<br><font color="#000000"><font size=-1>point on human psychology, but
not evidence of their reality. Many people are also convinced</font></font>
<br><font color="#000000"><font size=-1>the government has extraterrestrials
in pickle jars at Area 51&nbsp; :-) &lt;&lt;&lt;</font></font> <font size=-1>So
you are claiming that you have extensively searched Area 51, in such detail
that any pickle jar would not have been able to escape your detection?</font>
<font size=-1>:-)</font></blockquote>
You don't seem to&nbsp; understand the basic rules of evidence and burden
of proof.
<br>It's not incumbent on me to prove the negative. It's incumbent on those
who assert
<br>the ETs are there to produce the evidence.
<p>E.g. suppose I said that the Vatican is a brothel, and it's up to you
to search the Vatican, every
<br>last&nbsp; corner of it, to prove there are no prostitutes hidden there.
That would never stand in a
<br>court -- I would be the one making the claim,&nbsp; it would be up
to me to provide evidence for
<br>it.
<pre>--&nbsp;
Alan McGowen

</pre>
&nbsp;
</body>
</html>

--------------74D3F2DC4BF6AC91DDD1B88C--

--------------4BCBE64AD030E5910E295C87
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

John McCarthy wrote:

> It seems to me that the anthropic principle suffered a hit recently
> when the conditions for survival of prokaryote bacteria were
> discovered to be much less demanding than previously thought.

I'm not sure what this has to do with the anthropic principle, but
it does make one think again about panspermia.

--
Alan McGowen

--------------4BCBE64AD030E5910E295C87
Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

<!doctype html public "-//w3c//dtd html 4.0 transitional//en">
<html>
John McCarthy wrote:
<blockquote TYPE=CITE>It seems to me that the anthropic principle suffered
a hit recently
<br>when the conditions for survival of prokaryote bacteria were
<br>discovered to be much less demanding than previously thought.</blockquote>
I'm not sure what this has to do with the anthropic principle, but
<br>it does make one think again about panspermia.
<pre>--&nbsp;
Alan McGowen
</pre>
</html>

--------------4BCBE64AD030E5910E295C87--

Alan McGowen <amcgowen@cup.hp.com> writes:

> [1  <text/plain; us-ascii (7bit)>]
> John McCarthy wrote:
> 
> > It seems to me that the anthropic principle suffered a hit recently
> > when the conditions for survival of prokaryote bacteria were
> > discovered to be much less demanding than previously thought.
> 
> I'm not sure what this has to do with the anthropic principle, but
> it does make one think again about panspermia.

If the conditions for life are less demanding than previously thought, 
it isn't so much of a miracle that life is possible on earth.
-- 
John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/progress/
He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

------=_NextPart_000_0021_01BF0485.5882ECC0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable


Alan McGowen wrote in message <37E7BD29.4827D612@cup.hp.com>...
    charliew said:
    If you don't believe me, merely go into the appropriate relativity =
text, and look up various descriptions of "simultaneity".  If you manage =
to understand the implications of what you read, I'll wager that you =
will not see reality as being so "objective" after all.
   =20
    If you had understood what *you* had read, you would have realized =
that Einstein's analysis=20
    demonstrates that classical concepts of space and time are not =
independent of the motion=20
    of observers. For that very reason, Einstein replaces them with =
something that is=20
    observer-independent, Minkowski space-time. In other words, special =
relativity is *more*=20
    objective than classical physics.=20
   =20
    -=20
Alan McGowen


    But Alan, I don't live at relativistic velocities.  My everyday =
experience is in the
    realm of classical physics, where simultaneity does not apply.  This =
also applies to you,=20
    and everyone else on this planet.  That is my original point - this =
"common" view of
    reality is somewhat subjective, even if most of us are not aware =
that it is.

   =20

------=_NextPart_000_0021_01BF0485.5882ECC0
Content-Type: text/html;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD W3 HTML//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>

<META content=3Dtext/html;charset=3Diso-8859-1 =
http-equiv=3DContent-Type><!doctype html public "-//w3c//dtd html 4.0 =
transitional//en">
<META content=3D'"MSHTML 4.71.1712.3"' name=3DGENERATOR>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=3D#ffffff>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE=20
style=3D"BORDER-LEFT: #000000 solid 2px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; PADDING-LEFT: =
5px">
    <DIV>Alan McGowen<AMCGOWEN@CUP.HP.COM> wrote in message &lt;<A=20
    =
href=3D"mailto:37E7BD29.4827D612@cup.hp.com">37E7BD29.4827D612@cup.hp.com=
</A>&gt;...</DIV><FONT=20
    size=3D-1></FONT></BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE=20
style=3D"BORDER-LEFT: #000000 solid 2px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; PADDING-LEFT: =
5px"><FONT=20
    size=3D-1></FONT><FONT color=3D#000000 size=3D2>charliew =
said:</FONT></BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE=20
style=3D"BORDER-LEFT: #000000 solid 2px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; PADDING-LEFT: =
5px"><FONT=20
    size=3D-1>If you don't believe me, merely go into the appropriate =
relativity=20
    text, and look up various descriptions of =
&quot;simultaneity&quot;.&nbsp; If=20
    you manage to understand the implications of what you read, I'll =
wager that=20
    you will not see reality as being so &quot;objective&quot; after =
all.</FONT>
    <P><BR>If you had understood what *you* had read, you would have =
realized=20
    that Einstein's analysis <BR>demonstrates that classical concepts of =
space=20
    and time are not independent of the motion <BR>of observers. For =
that very=20
    reason, Einstein replaces them with something that is=20
    <BR>observer-independent, Minkowski space-time. In other words, =
special=20
    relativity is *more* <BR>objective than classical physics. =
<PRE>-&nbsp;
Alan McGowen

</PRE><PRE>But Alan, I don't live at relativistic velocities.  My =
everyday experience is in the</PRE><PRE>realm of classical physics, =
where simultaneity does not apply.  This also applies to you, =
</PRE><PRE>and everyone else on this planet.  That is my original point =
- this &quot;common&quot; view of</PRE><PRE>reality is somewhat =
subjective, even if most of us are not aware that it is.
</PRE></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>

------=_NextPart_000_0021_01BF0485.5882ECC0--

--------------F5655EC01AD634D3A420D309
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

charliew wrote:

>      But Alan, I don't live at relativistic velocities.  My everyday experience is in the
>
>      realm of classical physics, where simultaneity does not apply.  This also applies to you,
>
>      and everyone else on this planet.  That is my original point - this "common" view of
>
>      reality is somewhat subjective, even if most of us are not aware that it is.
>

You have shifted your argument. Orginally, you were claiming that
reality is "subjective". Now you are saying that  something  called "the
common view" of reality is somewhat subjective.

I have no disagreement with that. But it's the business of science to
identify the biases in "the common
view" and correct for them, exactly as Einstein did in special
relativity. That is how we come to understand more of the objective
order of reality.

--
Alan McGowen




--------------F5655EC01AD634D3A420D309
Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

<!doctype html public "-//w3c//dtd html 4.0 transitional//en">
<html>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
charliew wrote:
<blockquote TYPE=CITE>
<blockquote 
style="BORDER-LEFT: #000000 solid 2px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px">
<pre>But Alan, I don't live at relativistic velocities.&nbsp; My everyday experience is in the</pre>

<pre>realm of classical physics, where simultaneity does not apply.&nbsp; This also applies to you,</pre>

<pre>and everyone else on this planet.&nbsp; That is my original point - this "common" view of</pre>

<pre>reality is somewhat subjective, even if most of us are not aware that it is.</pre>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>

<p><br>You have shifted your argument. Orginally, you were claiming that
reality is "subjective". Now you are saying that&nbsp; something&nbsp;
called "the common view" of reality is somewhat subjective.
<p>I have no disagreement with that. But it's the business of science to
identify the biases in "the common
<br>view" and correct for them, exactly as Einstein did in special relativity.
That is how we come to understand more of the objective order of reality.
<pre>--&nbsp;
Alan McGowen

&nbsp;
&nbsp;
</pre>

</body>
</html>

--------------F5655EC01AD634D3A420D309--

Starbuck wrote:

> >>>, I'm just pointing out that it is a nonreligious value theory, and so
> the claim that religion has exclusive authority over matters of value, and
> science may not comment on them, is not even how things stand at present,
> let alone how they might look in future.<<<
>
> Whatever did I say that implied that religion has exclusive authority over
> matters of value? I simply stated that it is one area of religion. Obviously
> philosophy and social traditions are two other areas that bear upon
> questions of social value. But neither are (to my way of thinking)
> "scientific".

You claimed that science has no business addressing values, and this is
not even consistent with current social practice as exemplified in economics.

> One apriori assumption of the physical sciences is that reality is
> observable. Another is that the natural world behaves according to orderly
> patterns. Both are questions of value which are indispensable to the
> physical sciences.

These are strategies that are also essential in everyday life. They are not
unique to science.

Do you look both ways before you cross the street? Do you count your change?
Then you concede that reality is observable and has orderly patterns.

> One pertinent question is whether a Supernatural Being has been arbitrarily
> meddling with the evidence, in which case even the most confirmed evidence
> of "hard" sciences would be suspect. I think rather not... but it's a
> hypothetical possibility.
>

Which is cut away by Occam's Razor. [I.e. it is not the most parsimoneous
explanation,
and requires additional evidence to establish it.]

>
> >>>Suppose the way our brains work also predisposes us to be rather easily
> rendered xenophobic. Would xenophobia then also be spiritual truth?<<<
>
> Yes, as I understand things.
>

Nice to know that Hitler may have been a deeply spiritual man, in your view :-)

>
> >>>Then try this version out: I want to be rich. I mean, I really *really*
> want to be rich. Therefore, I will win the lottery. This may not be an
> empirical truth, but it is certainly just as valid as "Truth"... even if of
> a different type.<<<<
>
> When speaking of "Truth" I believe that it's helpful to understand the
> methodology by which evidence is weighed and evaluated for "truthness".
> Science has such a protocol, and so does most established religion. Your
> comment was intended to be facetious, and yet... it is perfectly proper.
>

I understand. You want us to choose strategies for living by whatever feels
good.
This is why xenophobia is spiritual truth if we are biased that way.

>
> >>>A Transcendent Intelligence responsible for sickle cell anemia and other
> genetic diseases doesn't seem very benevolent. But I asked for your
> evidence. You offered none.<<<
>
> Oh please. You know as well as I do that genetic mutations carry with them
> the potential to develop superior adaptive responses.

Why, the sickling gene does confer a heterozygote advantage in malarial
conditions;
that is why it is retained in the population, despite the fact that it is
usually lethal in
the homozygous state. This makes perfect sense in terms of natural selection.
But it makes no sense at all in terms of intelligent Design by a beneficent
Transcendental
engineer.

Unless he is constrained to work by natural processes, that is. In which case,
* he*
dies by Occam's Razor.

> Furthermore, my
> closest friend and cousin struggled with a terminal brain tumor for seven
> years before succumbing. The heroic faith and trust in God that he exhibited
> during that difficult struggle is an inspiration to myself and others to
> this day. A Transcendent Intelligence isn't a tool to be used by us for our
> own private purposes, we are a tool that we (might) allow Him to use.
> Benevolence is one thing... our insistence upon being spoiled brats is
> something different.
>

A child dying of sickle cell anemia is automatically a spoiled brat?

> What qualities would you require to be accepted by you as sufficient
> "evidence"? Lightening bolts from the sky? (We already have those).
>

A message in pi would be pretty convincing :-). Actually, a Transcendent
Intelligence shouldn't have any problem leaving hard proof of himself around.
We just haven't found any. As a result, there is no reason to believe in a
Transcendent Intelligence. If we ever do find some evidence that the universe
is an artifact, we would have to rethink this. But it hasn't happened yet.

> How did I inherit the responsibility to presenting "evidence" to you anyway?

You made the claims.

--
Alan McGowen

--------------B97911BFB05799715A820D50
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Starbuck wrote:e.
<<< Truth comes in many forms, objective and subjective.  Is the
statement above a "Truth" that can be lived and enjoyed?  Does it
provide hope for tomorrow and help for today?  Is it the way that my
life works?  That other lives work?  What does this say about my life
and about relationships with others? There are many ways to evaluate
whether something is "true".

It seems that Starbuck's definition of "true" is  essentially "whatever
I really, really wish".

--
Alan McGowen

--------------B97911BFB05799715A820D50
Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

<!doctype html public "-//w3c//dtd html 4.0 transitional//en">
<html>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
Starbuck wrote:<font color="#000000"><font size=-1>e.</font></font>
<br><font color="#000000"><font size=-1>&lt;&lt;&lt;</font></font> <font size=-1>Truth
comes in many forms, objective and subjective.&nbsp; Is the statement above
a "Truth" that can be lived and enjoyed?&nbsp; Does it provide hope for
tomorrow and help for today?&nbsp; Is it the way that my life works?&nbsp;
That other lives work?&nbsp; What does this say about my life and about
relationships with others?</font> <font size=-1>There are many ways to
evaluate whether something is "true".</font><font size=-1></font>
<p><font size=-1>It seems that Starbuck's definition of "true" is&nbsp;
essentially "whatever I really, really wish".</font><font size=-1></font>
<p>--&nbsp;<br>
Alan McGowen<br>
<br>
<BR>
</body>
</html>

--------------B97911BFB05799715A820D50--

>>>Nice to know that Hitler may have been a deeply spiritual man, in your
view :-)<<<

Hitler was a lot of things, and given what I know about his consultation of
witches, astgrology, superstitions, and dabbling with what he imagined to be
a revival of Aryan pagan spirituality I sincere believe that he was
"spiritual".  (IMHO) Not all spirituality is of equal "value" to me.

 >>>Do you look both ways before you cross the street? Do you count your
change?
Then you concede that reality is observable and has orderly patterns.<<<

Ah then... why is that?

>>>Which is cut away by Occam's Razor<<<

A lot of things are.     :-)

>>>I understand. You want us to choose strategies for living by whatever
feels
good.  This is why xenophobia is spiritual truth if we are biased that
way.<<<

I consider "feelings" to be one of several indicators for sound strategies
for living.  Other considerations such as tradition, reason, and (in my
case) the Bible might counter any extremist tendancies with appeal to
feelings alone could cause.  One needs balance.  Reason indicates that
Truth, Justice, Courage, and Wisdom are also important values, and these
values can moderate xenophobia.  The Bible teachs a unity of all humankind,
a common ancestor, and a God who loves all persons the same.  Also
moderating extreme xenophobia.

On the other hand perhaps "xenophobia" can be a helpful feeling it we use it
to guide us to other persons who are a part of our own social group... who
have similar interests, feelings, ideas and values.  It can lead us to
people whom we can trust and who feel warmly and helpful toward us, in
return.


>>>This makes perfect sense in terms of natural selection.  But it makes no
sense at all in terms of intelligent Design by a beneficent Transcendental
engineer.  Unless he is constrained to work by natural processes, that is.
In which case, * he* dies by Occam's Razor.<<<

Only if engineering for malaria were "His" only function.   I don't believe
that it is.  I view natural processes as the means by which the
Transcendental Engineer performs his daily work.  I don't believe that He is
necessarily 'constrained' by natural processes.  It's just His normal
operational methodology.

>>>A child dying of sickle cell anemia is automatically a spoiled brat?<<<

No.  What I am saying is that if I refuse to accept the reality that my
child is dying from sickle cell anemia, then I am being what could be termed
a "spoiled brat" in my relationship (or attitude toward) with the Author of
reality.

>>>. If we ever do find some evidence that the universe is an artifact, we
would have to rethink this. But it hasn't happened yet.<<<

Hummm... I guess that I view the entire thing as an artifact.  Everything
that we see, touch, feel, taste, and smell is evidence that the universe is
an "artifact".   Math is orderly, what more evidence do you need?

>>>> How did I inherit the responsibility to presenting "evidence" to you
anyway?  You made the claims.<<<

Oh, I see.  Fair enough.





--
To respond via email remove the "X" from the address.

> >
> > >>>A Transcendent Intelligence responsible for sickle cell anemia and other
> > genetic diseases doesn't seem very benevolent. But I asked for your
> > evidence. You offered none.<<<
> >
> > Oh please. You know as well as I do that genetic mutations carry with them
> > the potential to develop superior adaptive responses.
>
> Why, the sickling gene does confer a heterozygote advantage in malarial
> conditions;
> that is why it is retained in the population, despite the fact that it is
> usually lethal in
> the homozygous state. This makes perfect sense in terms of natural selection.
> But it makes no sense at all in terms of intelligent Design by a beneficent
> Transcendental
> engineer.
>
> Unless he is constrained to work by natural processes, that is. In which case,
> * he*
> dies by Occam's Razor.

What we are talking about here is known as the problem of evil, a famous unsolved
problem for
theists.  In a nutshell, the problem is that an omniscient, omnipotent, benevolent
deity is incompatible
with the existence of evil. [Since he is omniscient, he knows when there is evil.
Since he is benevolent,
he doesn't want the evil, since he is omnipotent, he can stop it. Yet there it
is.]

Two "solutions" are usually offered. One is that we have free will, and God won't
stop us from doing
evil because that would be interference with our free will.

This is why I picked sickle cell anemia. It's not easy to see how any human bears
the responsibility
for this sort of suffering, or how it could have been avoided if we had behaved
better.

The other "solution", due to Leibnitz , is that if you look at the evil from a
sufficiently cosmic
perspective, it isn't really evil. it's really good. Leibnitz even thought  it
would turn always to be
the best thing that was possible, but that part of his idea isn't essential to
this "solution".

Voltaire mocked this "solution" famously in Candide, where Leibnitz appears as Dr.
Pangloss. As a
result, this is known as Panglossianism. Starbuck appears to be offering us some
form of  Panglossianism.

In the Panglossian solution, whatever happens in nature is "good" even if it makes
us suffer. This is a
peculiar notion of "benevolence", not at all what people usually mean by the word.
If "benevolence"
includes letting a child die of a disease, or programming humans genetically in
ways that make it easy
to stir them up into wars and atrocities against each other, then, if such
"benevolence" were a deliberate
act by a human, we would regard it as monstrous.

Of course these things aren't deliberate acts by a human or a god. They are
manifestations of a blind
process -- natural selection. Since Darwin, we don't need "Transcendental
Intelligence" (i.e. God)
to explain such things. The real solution to the problem of evil turns out to be
that nobody willed this
stuff, it just happens --  ultimately because it can.

Here is another problem that theists have never solved: if nature was made by an
intelligent
Designer,  what made the Designer?

If the answer is that nobody made the Designer , or he made himself,  then why
can't nobody
have made nature, or nature made itself?

A non judeo-christian answer might be that a bigger Designer made the Designer,
and there
is an infinite stack of ever smarter Designers that goes all the way up,  each one
requiring a
bigger one to explain it. [A sort of converse of the infinite stack of tortoises
holding up the Earth.]

Natural selection is the only theory known that can explain how complex order
arises in nature
from a simpler starting point.  It breaks out of the infinite regression of ever
more complex
orders needed to explain the base order -- an infinite regression that  logically
results from
Paley's argument.

But most western theists use a different "solution" when you ask them about who
made God.
As Bertrand Russell pointed our, their anwers typically come down to "let's talk
about something
else." :-)

--
Alan McGowen

Starbuck wrote:

>
>  >>>Do you look both ways before you cross the street? Do you count your
> change?
> Then you concede that reality is observable and has orderly patterns.<<<
>
> Ah then... why is that?

Why bother if there is no connection between observation and what
happens to you?


> >>>Which is cut away by Occam's Razor<<<
>
> A lot of things are.     :-)
>

Only things that have no explanatory function.

> >>>I understand. You want us to choose strategies for living by whatever
> feels
> good.  This is why xenophobia is spiritual truth if we are biased that
> way.<<<
>
> I consider "feelings" to be one of several indicators for sound strategies
> for living.

Fair enough, and I'm not suggesting all feelings are automatically bad guides.
But they are basically guides to life in ancestral human habitats -- i.e. the
Pleistocene world.  Our feelings are from the stone age -- and  earlier. That
is
when they evolved.  We don't live in the Pleistocene world, we live in a rather

different world. In our world, with our power, stone age feelings can sometimes

be big trouble.

> Other considerations such as tradition, reason, and (in my
> case) the Bible might counter any extremist tendancies with appeal to
> feelings alone could cause.  One needs balance.  Reason indicates that
> Truth, Justice, Courage, and Wisdom are also important values, and these
> values can moderate xenophobia.  The Bible teachs a unity of all humankind,
> a common ancestor, and a God who loves all persons the same.  Also
> moderating extreme xenophobia.

I would argue that we need to pay a lot of attention to consequences in
the modern world, and not rely on recipies that were perhaps useful
thousands or millions of years ago.


> On the other hand perhaps "xenophobia" can be a helpful feeling it we use it
> to guide us to other persons who are a part of our own social group... who
> have similar interests, feelings, ideas and values.  It can lead us to
> people whom we can trust and who feel warmly and helpful toward us, in
> return.
>

This is increasingly unlikely to be the standard mode of life, given the
demographic
changes afoot on Earth.  I live and work in Silicon Valley. I am the only
native speaker
of English in the building I live in. At many times in my carreer I have been
the only
"American" in my work group.  The world I live in is completely "multicultural"

(except that we are mostly engineers.) Xenophobia would be catastrophic under
such conditions, and could not be tolerated in any form by any employer. In
short,
it's a feeling from a dead world.

Or a dying world -- I understand not every place is the same as Silicon Valley.
I
have even known a person or two who fled to places like Boise essentially
because
they couldn't stand not being among others "like themselves". But increasingly
the
world is looking like those Star Trek episodes with  people from all over the
place,
with all sorts of different cultural backgrounds, working and living together.
It's
inevitable.  Unless you can halt all jet travel.

> >>>This makes perfect sense in terms of natural selection.  But it makes no
> sense at all in terms of intelligent Design by a beneficent Transcendental
> engineer.  Unless he is constrained to work by natural processes, that is.
> In which case, * he* dies by Occam's Razor.<<<
>
> Only if engineering for malaria were "His" only function.

The point is that this is a lousy "design" in engineering terms, a
design with unacceptable side effects.

If human engineers built a refrigerator that usually kept things cold
but some appriaciable percentage of the time exploded and killed people,
that  company would quickly be out of business from the court settlements.
One expects better from Transcendental Intelligence than from human
engineers -- but this is much worse.


> I don't believe
> that it is.  I view natural processes as the means by which the
> Transcendental Engineer performs his daily work.  I don't believe that He is
> necessarily 'constrained' by natural processes.  It's just His normal
> operational methodology.
>

Give us an example of a case --  for which you have concrete evidence, not
just ancient stories -- where "He" was *not* constrained by natural processes.
[No, the big bang is not known to be such an example.]

>
> >>>A child dying of sickle cell anemia is automatically a spoiled brat?<<<
>
> No.  What I am saying is that if I refuse to accept the reality that my
> child is dying from sickle cell anemia, then I am being what could be termed
> a "spoiled brat" in my relationship (or attitude toward) with the Author of
> reality.
>

Who cares what *you* feel? If the Great Designer is a person and is responsible

for such a miserable design, he's not Transcendental, he's an idiot. Or
compeletly
uncaring.

In other words, he's indistinguishable from natural selection, which neither
intelligent
nor caring. If it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it's probably a
duck. Simplest
explanation: no God made sickle cell anemia. Natural selection did.

> >>>. If we ever do find some evidence that the universe is an artifact, we
> would have to rethink this. But it hasn't happened yet.<<<
>
> Hummm... I guess that I view the entire thing as an artifact.  Everything
> that we see, touch, feel, taste, and smell is evidence that the universe is
> an "artifact".

A signature. Something that could not have been produced by blind processes.

> Math is orderly, what more evidence do you need?

Evidence that math is a product of a Transcendental Intelligence. After all,
the only math we know has all been invented by humans.  Well, and a little
by machines.

--
Alan McGowen

>>>, I'm just pointing out that it is a nonreligious value theory, and so
the claim that religion has exclusive authority over matters of value, and
science may not comment on them, is not even how things stand at present,
let alone how they might look in future.<<<

Whatever did I say that implied that religion has exclusive authority over
matters of value? I simply stated that it is one area of religion. Obviously
philosophy and social traditions are two other areas that bear upon
questions of social value. But neither are (to my way of thinking)
"scientific".

One apriori assumption of the physical sciences is that reality is
observable. Another is that the natural world behaves according to orderly
patterns. Both are questions of value which are indispensable to the
physical sciences.

One pertinent question is whether a Supernatural Being has been arbitrarily
meddling with the evidence, in which case even the most confirmed evidence
of "hard" sciences would be suspect. I think rather not... but it's a
hypothetical possibility.

>>>Suppose the way our brains work also predisposes us to be rather easily
rendered xenophobic. Would xenophobia then also be spiritual truth?<<<

Yes, as I understand things.

>>>Then try this version out: I want to be rich. I mean, I really *really*
want to be rich. Therefore, I will win the lottery. This may not be an
empirical truth, but it is certainly just as valid as "Truth"... even if of
a different type.<<<<

When speaking of "Truth" I believe that it's helpful to understand the
methodology by which evidence is weighed and evaluated for "truthness".
Science has such a protocol, and so does most established religion. Your
comment was intended to be facetious, and yet... it is perfectly proper.

>>>A Transcendent Intelligence responsible for sickle cell anemia and other
genetic diseases doesn't seem very benevolent. But I asked for your
evidence. You offered none.<<<

Oh please. You know as well as I do that genetic mutations carry with them
the potential to develop superior adaptive responses. Furthermore, my
closest friend and cousin struggled with a terminal brain tumor for seven
years before succumbing. The heroic faith and trust in God that he exhibited
during that difficult struggle is an inspiration to myself and others to
this day. A Transcendent Intelligence isn't a tool to be used by us for our
own private purposes, we are a tool that we (might) allow Him to use.
Benevolence is one thing... our insistence upon being spoiled brats is
something different.

What qualities would you require to be accepted by you as sufficient
"evidence"? Lightening bolts from the sky? (We already have those).

How did I inherit the responsibility to presenting "evidence" to you anyway?

--
To respond via email remove the "X" from the address.

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

------=_NextPart_000_016A_01BF04F8.9F9054E0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

I understand that the "realms" of religion and science need to =
complement and inform each other.  But saying that geologists use =
mathematics to calculate is not to say that the two fields do not have =
their own identifiable areas of expertise.  Likewise a wise minister =
might inform himself in the latest pschological theory, just as a =
responsible psychiatrist will be cognizant of the spiritual values of =
his patient.  When it comes to earth origins I will be turning to the =
historical geologist for ages and flood evidence, thankyouverymuch.  But =
when looking for hope, answers to "why am I alive?", "what's it all =
about?", "How do I treat my neighbor?" and so forth, I go to church, =
sing songs, read the Bible, pray and seriously study what has been =
working for other members of my species for the past 2,000 years or so =
(that is to say Christianity, in my case).  Some social actions have =
evolutionary survival value based upon their intrinsic merit.

>>> think Steven Wienberg had it right in_ Dreams of a Final Theory_.  =
Religion really=20
always meant to be a cosmological theory, in which humanity was central. =
But everything=20
we have learned through science suggests the universe is fundamentally =
"pointless"=20
in terms of human wishes and fears. We aren't central, our minds don't =
survive death=20
in a spirit realm, prayer is not answered, and the universe doesn't care =
if we make it=20
or  not. Religion finds that view abhorrent because, well, it *is* =
abhorrent  to organisms that=20
work the way we do.  Just more of the universe's pointlessness. =
Unfortunately,  it=20
happens to be true. <<<

Truth comes in many forms, objective and subjective.  Is the statement =
above a "Truth" that can be lived and enjoyed?  Does it provide hope for =
tomorrow and help for today?  Is it the way that my life works?  That =
other lives work?  What does this say about my life and about =
relationships with others?

There are many ways to evaluate whether something is "true".

--=20
To respond via email remove the "X" from the address.

------=_NextPart_000_016A_01BF04F8.9F9054E0
Content-Type: text/html;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD W3 HTML//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>

<META content=3Dtext/html;charset=3Diso-8859-1 =
http-equiv=3DContent-Type>
<META content=3D'"MSHTML 4.72.3612.1706"' name=3DGENERATOR>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=3D#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#000000 size=3D2>I understand that the =
&quot;realms&quot; of=20
religion and science need to complement and inform each other.&nbsp; But =
saying=20
that geologists use mathematics to calculate is not to say that the two =
fields=20
do not have their own identifiable areas of expertise.&nbsp; Likewise a =
wise=20
minister might inform himself in the latest pschological theory, just as =
a=20
responsible psychiatrist will be cognizant of the spiritual values of =
his=20
patient.&nbsp; When it comes to earth origins I will be turning to the=20
historical geologist for ages and flood evidence, =
thankyouverymuch.&nbsp; But=20
when looking for hope, answers to &quot;why am I alive?&quot;, =
&quot;what's it=20
all about?&quot;, &quot;How do I treat my neighbor?&quot; and so forth, =
I go to=20
church, sing songs, read the Bible, pray and seriously study what has =
been=20
working for other members of my species for the past 2,000 years or so =
(that is=20
to say Christianity, in my case).&nbsp; Some social actions have =
evolutionary=20
survival value based upon their intrinsic merit.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#000000 size=3D2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#000000 size=3D2>&gt;&gt;&gt; think Steven Wienberg =
had it right=20
in_ Dreams of a Final Theory_.&nbsp; Religion really <BR>always meant to =
be a=20
cosmological theory, in which humanity was central. But everything =
<BR>we have=20
learned through science suggests the universe is fundamentally=20
&quot;pointless&quot; <BR>in terms of human wishes and fears. We aren't =
central,=20
our minds don't survive death <BR>in a spirit realm, prayer is not =
answered, and=20
the universe doesn't care if we make it <BR>or&nbsp; not. Religion finds =
that=20
view abhorrent because, well, it *is* abhorrent&nbsp; to organisms that =
<BR>work=20
the way we do.&nbsp; Just more of the universe's pointlessness.=20
Unfortunately,&nbsp; it <BR>happens to be true. =
&lt;&lt;&lt;</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#000000 size=3D2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2>Truth comes in many forms, objective and =
subjective.&nbsp; Is=20
the statement above a &quot;Truth&quot; that can be lived and =
enjoyed?&nbsp;=20
Does it provide hope for tomorrow and help for today?&nbsp; Is it the =
way that=20
my life works?&nbsp; That other lives work?&nbsp; What does this say =
about my=20
life and about relationships with others?</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2>There are many ways to evaluate whether something is =

&quot;true&quot;.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#000000 size=3D2><BR>-- <BR>To respond via email =
remove the=20
&quot;X&quot; from the address.</FONT></DIV></BODY></HTML>

------=_NextPart_000_016A_01BF04F8.9F9054E0--

>>>I would argue that we need to pay a lot of attention to consequences in
the modern world, and not rely on recipies that were perhaps useful
thousands or millions of years ago.<<<

That is something worthwhile to keep in mind.

On the other hand, Cromagnon man is Cromagnon man.  Despite our
technological progress (and our pride), we really aren't significantly
differant beings from our ancestors 150,000 years ago.


--
To respond via email remove the "X" from the address.

>>>Here is another problem that theists have never solved: if nature was
made by an intelligent Designer,  what made the Designer?<<<

In regard to the statement above, and also your comments on the problem if
evil... I believe that it's fair to say that there are many unsolved
problems with Theism, just as there are many unresolved problems with all
other philisophical viewpoints.  Part of living as a Theist is the admission
of our own limitations, and limitations in our comprehension of the world
around us.

Two pertinent tenents of Theism to keep in mind:

1.  Only God has all the answers.

2.  I'm not God.


--
To respond via email remove the "X" from the address.

"Starbuck" <pmdlandarch@earthlink.net> writes:

> >>>I would argue that we need to pay a lot of attention to consequences in
> the modern world, and not rely on recipies that were perhaps useful
> thousands or millions of years ago.<<<
> 
> That is something worthwhile to keep in mind.
> 
> On the other hand, Cromagnon man is Cromagnon man.  Despite our
> technological progress (and our pride), we really aren't significantly
> differant beings from our ancestors 150,000 years ago.

The difference may not be significant to you, but they are important
to me.  I would not have done well in a Cro-Magnon world.

-- 
John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/progress/
He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.

John McCarthy wrote:

> "Starbuck" <pmdlandarch@earthlink.net> writes:
>
> > >>>I would argue that we need to pay a lot of attention to consequences in
> > the modern world, and not rely on recipies that were perhaps useful
> > thousands or millions of years ago.<<<
> >
> > That is something worthwhile to keep in mind.
> >
> > On the other hand, Cromagnon man is Cromagnon man.  Despite our
> > technological progress (and our pride), we really aren't significantly
> > differant beings from our ancestors 150,000 years ago.
>
> The difference may not be significant to you, but they are important
> to me.  I would not have done well in a Cro-Magnon world.

Like many people, I had appendicitis as a child, so I would not have
survived before modern medicine.

The key point here is that we have "old" neural circuitry in our heads,
circuitry that mostly evolved long before agriculture.

Take xenophobia, for example. There's a good likelihood that it is quite
a bit older than the Pleistocene. Jane Goodall's chimps patrol the borders
of their territories and often have bloody conflicts with neighboring groups;
they exhibit behavior that could be homologous to human xenophobia.
If it is, that puts the origin of our xenophobia back something like 5-7
million
years, in the Miocene. It could of course be even older.

Why does xenophobia exist at all? Probably as a behavioral mechanism
supporting territoriality: these resources belong to *our* (related!) genes.
You aliens, with your (relatively) unrelated genes, are not welcome to our
resources,  and we will eject you or kill you if try take them.

There are more recondite possibilities, such as tuning gene-flow rates,
but the territoriality aspect is probably at least  part of the reason.

So it is not too much of a mystery why we would have this trait. But how
well does this emotional bias work in a global economy based (increasingly)
on information? It gives us Kosovos, not  Silicon Valleys.

Xenophobia is not the handiwork of a God, any more than is sickle cell anemia.
It is a product of natural selection, adaptive under the conditions that made
it.
If the conditions change - as they have for us -- a trait may no longer be
adaptive. It may even be very maladaptive, as xenophobia is for us today.

--
Alan McGowen

Starbuck wrote:

> >>>Here is another problem that theists have never solved: if nature was
> made by an intelligent Designer,  what made the Designer?<<<
>
> In regard to the statement above, and also your comments on the problem if
> evil... I believe that it's fair to say that there are many unsolved
> problems with Theism, just as there are many unresolved problems with all
> other philisophical viewpoints.  Part of living as a Theist is the admission
> of our own limitations, and limitations in our comprehension of the world
> around us.
>
> Two pertinent tenents of Theism to keep in mind:
>
> 1.  Only God has all the answers.
>
> 2.  I'm not God.
>

A circular argument.  God exists because only he could explain how God exists
given all the
problems with that idea.

One might tell a little child: "Only Santa Claus knows how can he come down
chimneys, my
dear. I'm not Santa Claus." :-)

--
Alan McGowen

In article <37E97654.DE6DC1FD@cup.hp.com>,
 on Wed, 22 Sep 1999 17:37:41 -0700,
 Alan McGowen <amcgowen@cup.hp.com> writes:
         <deletions>
>This is increasingly unlikely to be the standard mode of life, given the
>demographic
>changes afoot on Earth.  I live and work in Silicon Valley. I am the only
>native speaker
>of English in the building I live in. At many times in my carreer I have been
>the only
>"American" in my work group.  The world I live in is completely "multicultural"
>
>(except that we are mostly engineers.) Xenophobia would be catastrophic under
>such conditions, and could not be tolerated in any form by any employer. In
>short,
>it's a feeling from a dead world.

         This is exaggerated.  There are no perfect employees.
Employers will tolerate all sorts of undesirable behavior from
employees as long as it is counterbalanced by sufficient desirable
behavior.  Mild forms of xenophobia can and will be tolerated by
employers without catastrophe.  Most workplaces contain pairs of
people who don't particularly like each other (for whatever reason)
and work gets done anyway.
         Also some forms of xenophobia are not undesirable from an
employer's point of view.  For example if xenophobia makes it harder
for employees to form unions or to look for other employment employers
(even Silicon Valley employers) will not consider this a catastrophe.
         More generally while humans are undoubtedly not designed
for modern society, you can design (or attempt to design) modern
society to function satisfactorily with humans as they are (with
their stone age heritage).  I think this makes more sense then
declaring some human traits obsolete and pretending this will
cause them to vanish.
         Humans as they are, are not necessarily so ill-suited to
the modern world as you might think.  Humans have the capacity to
cooperate as this was adaptive in stone age society as it is today.
Also stone age society was not so simple with different behaviors
being appropriate for different circumstances.  So humans have
evolved a capacity to select from a variety of behaviors.  Society
can be set up to encourage the selection of desirable behaviors
and discourage the selection of undesirable behaviors.
                        James B. Shearer

jbs@yktvmv.watson.ibm.com wrote:

> In article <37E97654.DE6DC1FD@cup.hp.com>,
>  on Wed, 22 Sep 1999 17:37:41 -0700,
>  Alan McGowen <amcgowen@cup.hp.com> writes:
>          <deletions>
> >This is increasingly unlikely to be the standard mode of life, given the
> >demographic
> >changes afoot on Earth.  I live and work in Silicon Valley. I am the only
> >native speaker
> >of English in the building I live in. At many times in my carreer I have been
> >the only
> >"American" in my work group.  The world I live in is completely "multicultural"
> >
> >(except that we are mostly engineers.) Xenophobia would be catastrophic under
> >such conditions, and could not be tolerated in any form by any employer. In
> >short,
> >it's a feeling from a dead world.
>
>          This is exaggerated.  There are no perfect employees.
> Employers will tolerate all sorts of undesirable behavior from
> employees as long as it is counterbalanced by sufficient desirable
> behavior.  Mild forms of xenophobia can and will be tolerated by
> employers without catastrophe.  Most workplaces contain pairs of
> people who don't particularly like each other (for whatever reason)
> and work gets done anyway.

Simple dislike of one person by another isn't necessarily xenophobia.
Xenophobia is fear/hatred of people who are different (often "racially")
from oneself, and refusal to cooperate with them. An employee who
refused to work with another person because of their race, creed etc.
could not be tolerated.

A xenophobia which is "mild" enough, or controlled enough,
not to result in unacceptable behavior would be tolerated, this
is true. It would bother only the person who felt it.

>          Also some forms of xenophobia are not undesirable from an
> employer's point of view.  For example if xenophobia makes it harder
> for employees to form unions or to look for other employment employers
> (even Silicon Valley employers) will not consider this a catastrophe.

Most people change jobs out here every 2 or 3 years. Shearer apparently
works at IBM and I work at HP. Employees at these companies tend to
stay in the same company for their whole careers. There are many reasons
for this, but think I xenophobia against competitors is not really high on the
list.
People often do go to competitors. There is of course sometimes a sense of
rivalry, and this is encouraged for obvious reasons. But I've also worked with
IBM people in cases where HP and IBM had some common goal. I've found
that (surprise, surprise) IBMers are just like HP engineers. It wouldn' t be
unthinkable for me to work there, by any means. [That one is *definitely*
"not my employer's opinion"  ;-)]

>          More generally while humans are undoubtedly not designed
> for modern society, you can design (or attempt to design) modern
> society to function satisfactorily with humans as they are (with
> their stone age heritage).  I think this makes more sense then
> declaring some human traits obsolete and pretending this will
> cause them to vanish.
>

I agree. I 'm not suggesting that xenophobia is vanishing; I'm suggesting
that it is no longer optimal for our situation.

>          Humans as they are, are not necessarily so ill-suited to
> the modern world as you might think.  Humans have the capacity to
> cooperate as this was adaptive in stone age society as it is today.
> Also stone age society was not so simple with different behaviors
> being appropriate for different circumstances.  So humans have
> evolved a capacity to select from a variety of behaviors.  Society
> can be set up to encourage the selection of desirable behaviors
> and discourage the selection of undesirable behaviors.
>                         James B. Shearer

Obviously we are not so ill-suited to the modern world as to prevent it
from being here.  That wasn't my point.  My point was that human nature
was not *optimized* for modern conditions. This is understandable in terms
of natural selection. It is a mystery in terms of benevolent  Design.

--
Alan McGowen

>>>A circular argument.  God exists because only he could explain how God
exists
given all the
problems with that idea.<<<<

I didn't put that forward as a rational argument FOR theism, only as an
admission of the limitations of theism as a rational world view.

Granted, it's a circular argument.

But then, even scientific materialism can be used circularly.  It begins
with the apriori assumption of the laws on uniformity, and lack of
supernatural intervention, and then argues itself back to the apriori
assumption that it began with.  We all learn something along the way... but
it isn't an air-tight argument, just a useful one.

The human brain can be examined in reference to it's two hemispheres.. left
side rational and sequential, and the right side being intuitive and
creative.  I suggest that exclusive application of rational thought to
understanding (but not actually experiencing) our human spiritual nature is
using only "half a mind".


--
To respond via email remove the "X" from the address.

Starbuck wrote:

> >>>A circular argument.  God exists because only he could explain how God
> exists
> given all the
> problems with that idea.<<<<
>
> I didn't put that forward as a rational argument FOR theism, only as an
> admission of the limitations of theism as a rational world view.
>
> Granted, it's a circular argument.
>
> But then, even scientific materialism can be used circularly.  It begins
> with the apriori assumption of the laws on uniformity, and lack of
> supernatural intervention, and then argues itself back to the apriori
> assumption that it began with.  We all learn something along the way... but
> it isn't an air-tight argument, just a useful one.
>

Sorry, but "laws of uniformity and lack of supernatural intervention" are
*not*
an a priori assumption of science.  They can be disproved: e.g. if evidence
mounts up that some nonuniformitarian process (such as an asteroid collision)
has made a difference in geology and the history of life, then uniformitarian
expectations have to give way.

Likewise, if you could produce a similar body of hard evidence for
supernatural
intervention,  atheistic expectations would have to give way. But you can't.

You are still trying to evade the burdern of proof.

--
Alan McGowen

Uniformitarianism arose in opposition to the doctrine that the
biblical flood caused the strata observed by the geologists.  The
uniformitarians claimed that nature's laws were the same in the past
as today.  I doubt that 19th century uniformitarians would have been
shocked the Alvarez hypothesis that the K-T extinction was caused by
an asteroid.
-- 
John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/progress/
He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.

I'm not trying to "avoid" anything.

>>>Sorry, but "laws of uniformity and lack of supernatural intervention" are
*not*
an a priori assumption of science.  They can be disproved: e.g. if evidence
mounts up that some nonuniformitarian process (such as an asteroid
collision)
has made a difference in geology and the history of life, then
uniformitarian
expectations have to give way.<<<

Hello?  If I recall my astronomy course correctly asteroids are a normal
part of the natural processes forming the earth.

My understanding is that the "Doctine of Uniformity" was developed by
Charles Lyell (it's been twenty years, so correct me if I'm wrong) and says
essentially that scientific inquiry takes place with the assumption that the
natural processes currently observable at work have always been at work in
the same manner, and have always produced the same evidence.  It IS indeed a
foundational apriori assumption that is made by all scientists.


>>>Likewise, if you could produce a similar body of hard evidence for
supernatural intervention,  atheistic expectations would have to give way.
But you can't.  You are still trying to evade the burdern of proof.<<<

Likewise, modern scientific endeavor precludes (using Occum's Razor) any
possibility of direct supernatural intervention with the evidence.  Again as
an apriori assumption.  Allowing for Divine intervention automatically takes
the argument out of the realm of modern "Natural Science".  Mind you, I'm
not trying to move the argument beyond the scope of natural processes.  As
far as I'm concerned, the current model works very well.  I'm simply saying
that scientific examination plays according to certain ground rules, and it
behooves any knowledgable person to be aware of what those ground rules are.

One can make a philosophical argument that all matter is an illusion (such
as Christian Science), can you proof that it isn't?  or that I am simpy a
butterfly who is dreaming that we are human.  Can you really proove that we
aren't?  That isn't my perspective... but those sorts of philosophical
arguments are made.

Materialism is merely one philosophical argument among many.  I like to feel
think that I can trust my senses....but there is not a sound philosophical
argument that my view is inherently superior because it's been "proven" to
be, in some way.  It happens to be a function of my upbringing in western
culture, and a pragmatic view of life.

The nature of "proof" depends upon the nature of the evidence, the context
in which it is weighed, and the criteria by which it is evaluated.  "Proof"
exists only within the context of philosophical assumptions.

With all respect, I think that is what YOU are trying to avoid.
--
To respond via email remove the "X" from the address.

Science may be wrong, but I offer the metaphor

"The race is not always to the swift, nor the battle to the strong",
but that's the way to bet.

I bet on science over superstition.

-- 
John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/progress/
He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.