Life, The Universe and Everything Else

[Dyer'ere]

This is a dialectic right, evo san? That's why I'm giving you forewarning of the next questions. So you can see where I'm headed. I set em up, you knock em down. (It's like comedy except... well why bother to say it?)

But I haven't set those ones up yet. (Dialectic is best one point at a time IMO. That okay with you?)

And nor is my insatiable curiosity appeased by the fascinating if incomplete information you've provided in answer to my first, and as yet only expressed question.

So tell me, evo san, is it possible that something may appear to appear to me? Or is that logically impossible? Or is it the case that something appears to appear to me is not meaningful?

And is it possible that I think therefore I am is an illusion? Or is that logically impossible?

What about the idea that 1+1=2. Is it possible that that is an illusion, in a way that is not possible with either of the previously mentioned propositions?

 

[evo]

This is a dialectic right, evo san? That's why I'm giving you forewarning of the next questions. So you can see where I'm headed. I set em up, you knock em down. (It's like comedy except... well why bother to say it?)

But I haven't set those ones up yet. (Dialectic is best one point at a time IMO. That okay with you?)

Yes,thats great.I wasn't sure if they were questions.But thought i'd have a stab anyway.

So tell me, evo san, is it possible that something may appear to appear to me? Or is that logically impossible? Or is it the case that something appears to appear to me is not meaningful?

These questions are tricky to answer.Because of the 3 'stages' so I'm always struggling to decide from which stage I should try and give the best answer.Bear in mind I'm not fully a 'stage 3er' myself,I'm a long way from getting to the bottom of it all too.Not trying to be mystical here.Just trying to answer to best of my ability.

be at that as it may:


1.So tell me, evo san, is it possible that something may appear to appear to me? Or is that logically impossible?

Yes,there are quite often illusions,a mirage for example.An appearance of an opitical illusion from time to time is completely logical,and to be expected.The mind is fallable.

2.Or is it the case that something appears to appear to me is not meaningful?

You are the one that always gives it meaning,it can't be any other way.All the prior prior 'events' in your life allow you to search through your memory and then discriminate."is the mirage I'm seeing real,or is it an illusion?"/"What happened last time I was in a similar situation?"

In this way we can say we have no free will(this may be a bridge to far at the moment, but thought i'd mention it anyway)

And is it possible that I think therefore I am is an illusion? Or is that logically impossible?

It seems to me logically impossble.The fact that you are thinking,questioning that thought,means that you must've existed to have thunk it. 8) Even if life is but a dream,it still requires a dreamer.

keep bearing in mind that you create "your 'world',the only 'world' possible (to you) "
'
You are just stuck trying to work it all out for yourself (ultimately)

What about the idea that 1+1=2. Is it possible that that is an illusion, in a way that is not possible with either of the previously mentioned propositions?

Maths equations are like philosophy,but with numbers.The equals sign gives it the logical truth.

It is true by definition.Like a tautology is.A tautology can be trivial at times,but if the definitions are sound then it is logically correct.It proves itself(so to speak)

what you know as 1 when added to another must make it what you know as 2.The logic is sound.

One mirage plus another mirage makes two mirages.It has to be true(to you), assuming your maths skills are up to scratch.

 

[Curtiger]

I wonder, evo, if my thoughts and feelings are then trivial by definition - or at least to you.

For instance, I remember when i was 6 or 7 years old, my older brother and I would 'play' wrestling on the trampoline, which really meant that he'd kick the *smile* out of me while I bounced around. I can't say I particularly enjoyed this, and when we'd go back inside, (me to dob on him, him to clear things up) he'd hold that we were just playing a game that I was enjoying until just a moment ago.

Is the truth, then, to Gypsy Jazz --and to Dyer'ere who he has convinced of his perspective, that I love wrestling on the trampoline and then trying to get my brother into trouble for no good reason?

 

[evo]

I wonder, evo, if my thoughts and feelings are then trivial by definition - or at least to you.

Your thoughts and feelings are the opposite of trivial,to you.They are everything.They are what constitute,your 'world'

They may or may not be trivial to others.

From an ultimate perspective,your thoughts are trivial(the way kierkegaard would use the word),to others.

Is the truth, then, to Gypsy Jazz --and to Dyer'ere who he has convinced of his perspective, that I love wrestling on the trampoline and then trying to get my brother into trouble for no good reason?

The truth to say Dyer'ere in this example,will be his thoughts and feelings after he hears the evidence.It will be like an empirical truth that he has decided upon.An opinion to others(if he were to express it),a truth to him.

It's like a "Richo is better than Fev" type truth.It's a personal truth,not an absolute one.

"Curtis is a tell-tale sook", to him.You 'know' you are not.

At the time,you probably where thinking:ah the bloody injustice of it all,I know what was really going,now not only did i get beat up,Dyer'ere thinks i'm a sook.Meanwhile Gyspy Jazz has gone away smug.He thinks he's the 'winner'

But if stuff like this happens as an adult,you can reason through it.Dyer'ere could only judge on the evidence presented,it's not his fault.You have no reason to be frustrated with him.

Furthermore,although GyspyJazz seemed to have a 'win',he hasn't really;he's accumulated some bad 'karma.'

If he reads your post now,it may well haunt him,the circle is complete. ;D

 

[Curtiger]

Furthermore,although GyspyJazz seemed to have a 'win',he hasn't really;he's accumulated some bad 'karma.'

If he reads your post now,it may well haunt him,the circle is complete. ;D

The real version of the story is me kicking the *smile* out of Mr Haynes. But he really thought it was fun. ;D

 

[evo]

The real version of the story is me kicking the sh!t out of Mr Haynes. But he really thought it was fun. ;D

"Hell is other people"

If you decide to go back to school,you should take some philosophy subjects-even if you plan on getting a real job.I reckon you're a natural for it.

Besides who needs drugs when sh!t like this can sound plausable when ya straight ;D

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fg5us8isW7M&feature=related

 

[Panthera tigris FC]

So, intelligence had nothing to do with how these 'synthetic' cells were produced?

Again what is this to do with Christianity?

As it is not directly related to Christianity I have moved the conversation to the 'one size fits all thread'.

Yes, these cells were produced synthetically by intelligent designers, using a genome architecture that has been honed through evolution for billions of years.

The Intelligent Design movement is a political movement that tries to crowbar creationism into the US education system by providing a 'scientific' basis for creation. It does this by attempting to point out how evolution is impossible (ie. irreducible complexity arguments). That 'scientific' basis has been held up for ridicule in both the scientific arena (where these arguments have been shown to be ill-founded) and in the legal arena (where it was clearly shown that the goal of the ID movement was to permit creationism to be taught alongside evolution in science classrooms).

Remind me again how Venter's breakthrough has anything to do with the ID movement?

 

[Djevv]

As it is not directly related to Christianity I have moved the conversation to the 'one size fits all thread'.

Yes, these cells were produced synthetically by intelligent designers, using a genome architecture that has been honed through evolution for billions of years.

The Intelligent Design movement is a political movement that tries to crowbar creationism into the US education system by providing a 'scientific' basis for creation. It does this by attempting to point out how evolution is impossible (ie. irreducible complexity arguments). That 'scientific' basis has been held up for ridicule in both the scientific arena (where these arguments have been shown to be ill-founded) and in the legal arena (where it was clearly shown that the goal of the ID movement was to permit creationism to be taught alongside evolution in science classrooms).

Remind me again how Venter's breakthrough has anything to do with the ID movement?

Actually I thought the whole thing was pretty interesting - I was only having a dig with the ID comment - Christianity thread style - surely you can work out where I was coming from? Designer life though is a bit of a worry though. Here in Darwin we have the cane toad brought to us by the (lack of) foresight of scientists in the 1930's who thought it might help the cane crop .

Where do you imagine this technology is heading? Is it easier or cheaper than current GM methods? Would it work with multi-cellular life (I presume so given Dolly)?

Thanks for moving it BTW

 

[Panthera tigris FC]

Actually I thought the whole thing was pretty interesting - I was only having a dig with the ID comment - Christianity thread style - surely you can work out where I was coming from? Designer life though is a bit of a worry though. Here in Darwin we have the cane toad brought to us by the (lack of) foresight of scientists in the 1930's who thought it might help the cane crop .

Where do you imagine this technology is heading? Is it easier or cheaper than current GM methods? Would it work with multi-cellular life (I presume so given Dolly)?

Thanks for moving it BTW

I thought we were back in the old-school Christianity thread :hihi

Is it cheaper than current GM methods? Not at the moment. Those methods are pretty well established and routine....this is cutting edge.

The benefits over GM? GM methods allow you to alter an organism's genome through the addition or silencing of genes. This new synthetic genomics allows you to design a genome on a computer, synthesise the genome and then 'boot up' your new organism. The design control is far greater with this technology as well as permitting far more flexibility in the end genome (ie. you could, if you wanted, synthesise the genome of an extinct organism and 'resurrect' it). Plenty of hurdles to clear before we reach that point. All that has been done to date is the synthesis of a very basic genome and proving that such a genome can function in a 'new' organism. An important first step though.

Using somatic cloning techniques (ie the Dolly method and its refinements) I don't see why you wouldn't be able to use the technology to generate multicellular organisms.

Your fears about cane toads and the like seem ill founded....any organism that is designed for human needs will certainly not be as fit, in evolutionary terms, as its wild competitors. It will be fit for our needs, but not adapted to 'life in the wild', so to speak. The cane toad, on the other hand, was perfectly adapted to exploit an ecological niche in Australian ecology. The concern is healthy, but unlikely to be a real problem.

 

[evo]

Pantera, I reckon this new book will become a great source for creationist quote miners.

http://au.news.yahoo.com/queensland/a/-/entertainment/7873659/god-did-not-create-the-universe-says-hawking/

 

[Panthera tigris FC]

Pantera, I reckon this new book will become a great source for creationist quote miners.

http://au.news.yahoo.com/queensland/a/-/entertainment/7873659/god-did-not-create-the-universe-says-hawking/

But of course.

Hawking just stating that our current understanding of the origin of the universe makes a God superfluous to explain it. If you want to invoke a God, feel free, but it isn't necessary. What would Occam think?

 

[Djevv]

But of course.

Hawking just stating that our current understanding of the origin of the universe makes a God superfluous to explain it. If you want to invoke a God, feel free, but it isn't necessary. What would Occam think?

I must be missing something in this argument: "Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist," Hawking writes. Is there some scientific law of spontaneous creation I haven't heard of? The law of gravity implies creation out of nothing ???

Our present understanding of the universe which is experimentally verified says nothing about the existance of God, but equally doesn't account for why the universe began in the first place. For a universe to be here rather than nothing with no real explanation does leave room for God, in my mind anyway.

 

[Panthera tigris FC]

I must be missing something in this argument: "Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist," Hawking writes. Is there some scientific law of spontaneous creation I haven't heard of? The law of gravity implies creation out of nothing ???

Our present understanding of the universe which is experimentally verified says nothing about the existance of God, but equally doesn't account for why the universe began in the first place. For a universe to be here rather than nothing with no real explanation does leave room for God, in my mind anyway.

Perhaps we should wait until the book is released before we go debunking a single quote?

 

[Djevv]

Perhaps we should wait until the book is released before we go debunking a single quote?

Fair enough, the quote is mighty strange though! Obviously he will fill the gaps in in the book I suppose.

My understanding (very incomplete admittedly) is that what Hawkings believes about physics is all theoretical and has, at present, little or no experimental verification.

 

[evo]

Perhaps we should wait until the book is released before we go debunking a single quote?

Yeah, fair call. Hopefully I can find time to read this once it comes out, but i must say prima facie I'm inclined to agree with djevv. Hawking should really stick to his specific fields of expertise: the empirical and mathematical. Leave the 'first cause' and ontological stuff to philosophers, both secular and religious.

 

[Djevv]

Yeah, fair call. Hopefully I can find time to read this once it comes out, but i must say prima facie I'm inclined to agree with djevv. Hawking should really stick to his specific fields of expertise: the empirical and mathematical. Leave the 'first cause' and ontological stuff to philosophers, both secular and religious.

I'd say it is highly unlikely that Hawkings is interested in what philosophers think either.

Originally posted by The Times, Friday September 03
In his new book Hawking also asserts that "Philosophy is dead".

 

[evo]

I'd say it is highly unlikely that Hawkings is interested in what philosophers think either.

Originally posted by The Times, Friday September 03
In his new book Hawking also asserts that "Philosophy is dead".

I'd like to see him prove it empirically. For an encore he could demonstrate using only science how science is 'true'. ;D

 

[mld]

 

[mld]

Wrong place!

 

[dukeos]

I was listening to Ricy Nixon, not a fan, but, he did say something that was interesting. Most internet posts, blogs ect are critical. Not a lot of

are positive. I thought this thread, with some of our more philosophical pasters would be a lot more popular. Perhaps Nixon is right, hard to be

critical of Life, The Universe and Everything Else, lot easier to take pot shots over on the Christianity page ;D