Common Descent

[tosca1]

See post #129. I don’t have the patience to give the explanation every single time. I’m sorry that you can’t understand it and what science really is.

See posts #9 and 10. You can't refute that. You and I are done.....until you give something credible.


Btw, where is Shewolf?

 

[Cordelier]

I read and watch way too much SF. I like the ideas in "Contact". Has the religious zealotry as well.

I don't think there's any such thing as too much SF, Hari. I've got an ongoing obsession with Solaris (the 1972 version - not the 2002 one) that I can't seem to shake.

Speaking of Contact, though... what did you think of the parallels between McConaughey's and Foster's characters in their respective spiritual journeys?

 

[Manc Skipper]

Can someone point me to the grain of truth in Genesis?

"Gene" What's the prize?

 

[Manc Skipper]

You got nothing else to say........ we done here?

You are toasted to charcoal, yes, you're well and truly done.

 

[Hari Seldon]

I don't think there's any such thing as too much SF, Hari. I've got an ongoing obsession with Solaris (the 1972 version - not the 2002 one) that I can't seem to shake.

Speaking of Contact, though... what did you think of the parallels between McConaughey's and Foster's characters in their respective spiritual journeys?

To be honest I am not familiar with either of their journeys. I saw McConaughey briefly on an interview but changed channels.

 

[Cordelier]

To be honest I am not familiar with either of their journeys. I saw McConaughey briefly on an interview but changed channels.

Well, think about it the next time you watch the movie... McConaughey's character - a spiritualist - talks about seeing God earlier in the movie and Foster's character suggests that he "needed" to have the experience - like it was all in his head. Then she goes through the machine, meets the aliens in the guise of her deceased father and comes back, but can't prove any of it... and yet we're supposed to accept that she didn't "need" to have the experience?

 

[Hari Seldon]

Well, think about it the next time you watch the movie... McConaughey's character - a spiritualist - talks about seeing God earlier in the movie and Foster's character suggests that he "needed" to have the experience - like it was all in his head. Then she goes through the machine, meets the aliens in the guise of her deceased father and comes back, but can't prove any of it... and yet we're supposed to accept that she didn't "need" to have the experience?

I thought you were talking about real life spiritual journey. Although I had forgotten some of that part of the story. I do remember David Morse as her father and nothing on the video recording except the nothing lasted hours instead of the perceived time of seconds.

 

[Cordelier]

I thought you were talking about real life spiritual journey. Although I had forgotten some of that part of the story. I do remember David Morse as her father and nothing on the video recording except the nothing lasted hours instead of the perceived time of seconds.

Essentially, though, doesn't Foster's character, in fact, take a spiritual journey? She doesn't physically travel to the alien planet, but her consciousness appears to do so. There's no rational scientific explanation for her journey. There's no concrete proof that it actually occurred. All that we have is her word for it.

We could even take a further step back... we only have John Hurt's word for it that the signal was decoded in the first place. There he is, a dying billionaire living on a Space Station.... and he's the only person who can decode the message?!? His life's ambition, miraculously fulfilled in his last days. Sounds a bit too coincidental to me. How do we know the whole thing wasn't a hoax in the first place?

 

[ataraxia]

Really? What human cultures have had no concept of spirituality? I'm not aware of a single one.

The word "spirituality" is defined so broadly and vaguely and differently by so many different people. In some cases, it just means something like being in a deep meditative state- like with Buddhist monks. In others, it may mean being in a rapturous state, even including after taking some mind-altering drugs, like the American Indians with the peyote. It may even refer to the feeling we have when experiencing a particularly beautiful, powerful, or sublime piece of music, art, or poetry/literature. In others yet, it means having a sense of higher purpose. Others yet think it necessarily refers to something outside our mind with an independent existence from our minds, like souls, heaven, God, or the after-life.

It just seems that some people jump on one definition of the word used by someone else to try to prove that everyone has had some kind of conception of THEIR particular kind of spirituality. That is not correct. People across different cultures, and even in the same culture across time, have used the word in all sorts of different ways- many of them directly contradictory. It is a very slippery and tricky word and you have to be careful what people mean by it when they use it.

I think the need for one's grasp to exceed their reach is a characteristic of sentience.

See, this is a good example of using the word "spirituality" as defined by reaching for goals and purposes transcending one's current condition- of reaching and striving for lofty ideals. And that's a perfectly fine way to use the word. But it is very different from the "otherworldly" nature of another world of existence, where such ideals have an external existence outside of just being ideas in our heads like souls and the after-life.

Again, anytime someone starts talking about spirituality, it takes me a while to try to figure out what exactly they mean by it. It seems like there are as many definitions to that word as there are people. It's vague and broad and overused enough as to not mean anything to me personally. I think there are much more precise words to try to use to express ourselves so as to avoid misunderstanding, confusion, and spending countless useless hours talking past each other.

 

[Hari Seldon]

Essentially, though, doesn't Foster's character, in fact, take a spiritual journey? She doesn't physically travel to the alien planet, but her consciousness appears to do so. There's no rational scientific explanation for her journey. There's no concrete proof that it actually occurred. All that we have is her word for it.

We could even take a further step back... we only have John Hurt's word for it that the signal was decoded in the first place. There he is, a dying billionaire living on a Space Station.... and he's the only person who can decode the message?!? His life's ambition, miraculously fulfilled in his last days. Sounds a bit too coincidental to me. How do we know the whole thing wasn't a hoax in the first place?

Didn't they get sent blueprints to build the time/space travel machine? 3 hours of static instead of 3 minutes on the video recorder. Did we really land on the moon? LOL!

 

[Cordelier]

Didn't they get sent blueprints to build the time/space travel machine? 3 hours of static instead of 3 minutes on the video recorder. Did we really land on the moon? LOL!

Yeah... and who decoded the blueprints? Coincidentally enough, it was the same guy who also built his own machine from them... the same machine that was the only alternative when the Government's device was blown up. That's pretty handy of him.

So Foster's character drops through these spinning rings, doesn't go anywhere, and we're all supposed to accept her story of interstellar travel?? Uh huh, yeah.... sure.

If Apollo 11 had just lurched on the launch pad and didn't go anywhere... and the capsule ejected but Neil Armstrong bashed his head into the console in front of him and while he was unconscious, imagined he traveled to the Moon and back... would that count as the first trip to the Moon?

 

[Cordelier]

The word "spirituality" is defined so broadly and vaguely and differently by so many different people. In some cases, it just means something like being in a deep meditative state- like with Buddhist monks. In others, it may mean being in a rapturous state, even including after taking some mind-altering drugs, like the American Indians with the peyote. It may even refer to the feeling we have when experiencing a particularly beautiful, powerful, or sublime piece of music, art, or poetry/literature. In others yet, it means having a sense of higher purpose. Others yet think it necessarily refers to something outside our mind with an independent existence from our minds, like souls, heaven, God, or the after-life.

It just seems that some people jump on one definition of the word used by someone else to try to prove that everyone has had some kind of conception of THEIR particular kind of spirituality. That is not correct. People across different cultures, and even in the same culture across time, have used the word in all sorts of different ways- many of them directly contradictory. It is a very slippery and tricky word and you have to be careful what people mean by it when they use it.



See, this is a good example of using the word "spirituality" as defined by reaching for goals and purposes transcending one's current condition- of reaching and striving for lofty ideals. And that's a perfectly fine way to use the word. But it is very different from the "otherworldly" nature of another world of existence, where such ideals have an external existence outside of just being ideas in our heads like souls and the after-life.

Again, anytime someone starts talking about spirituality, it takes me a while to try to figure out what exactly they mean by it. It seems like there are as many definitions to that word as there are people. It's vague and broad and overused enough as to not mean anything to me personally. I think there are much more precise words to try to use to express ourselves so as to avoid misunderstanding, confusion, and spending countless useless hours talking past each other.

But now we're back to the whole mind-body problem. Is it possible for our consciousness - on some level - to exist outside the construct of our physical bodies? That's the essence of spirituality, is it not? I think that possibility has been embraced in one degree or another by every human culture, has it not?

 

[SheWolf]

:roll:

You know folks - posturing will eventually reveal itself. Easy to spot "posturers."




....and, you do? You understand "basic science?" I say, no way!
Lol.....if you don't get why I said "SPECULATION" - there's no way you can understand basic science! :lamo




Is that all you have to say? No explanation as to why? :lol:


Put your money where your mouth is:

Explain what was wrong with what I said?



I'll be surprised if we hear from you again.

If you understand basic science, you would know that speculation is not a scientific judgement.

Do you think people and dinosaurs existed at the same time?

 

[watsup]

But now we're back to the whole mind-body problem. Is it possible for our consciousness - on some level - to exist outside the construct of our physical bodies? That's the essence of spirituality, is it not? I think that possibility has been embraced in one degree or another by every human culture, has it not?

Culture is not science. There is no scientific evidence to support the proposition that thought is anything other than the internal workings of the human brain.

 

[Cordelier]

Culture is not science. There is no scientific evidence to support the proposition that thought is anything other than the internal workings of the human brain.

Culture isn't science? *L* Try telling that to an Anthropologist!

I don't know, Watsup... maybe we're looking at this issue from two entirely different perspectives? But it seems to me when you compare the near-death experience across different cultures and different times, all the different accounts seem startlingly similar. Our consciousness seems to possess a unique and innate ability to exist on it's own terms - independent from our physical circumstances. Maybe, as you say, these are all tied to the internal workings of the brain... but even if they are, it makes me question why our brains would have evolved such a mechanism? Think about it - what exactly is the evolutionary advantage of abstract thought? Mother Nature may be a lot of things, but it seems to me that she's nothing if not eminently practical. If you don't live in trees anymore, then you don't need a tail anymore... and so natural selection will do away with that tail for you. Practical.

So why do our brains need to be more advanced than what it takes to pick up a bone and bash some other creature's head in? Why did we as a species develop to have the capability of inducing mass extinctions on a global basis? Is there an evolutionary advantage to be gained from our sentience? Why - from an evolutionary standpoint - did we need to advance farther than what it took to get to the top of the food chain?

 

[Triton]

Culture isn't science? *L* Try telling that to an Anthropologist!

I don't know, Watsup... maybe we're looking at this issue from two entirely different perspectives? But it seems to me when you compare the near-death experience across different cultures and different times, all the different accounts seem startlingly similar. Our consciousness seems to possess a unique and innate ability to exist on it's own terms - independent from our physical circumstances. Maybe, as you say, these are all tied to the internal workings of the brain... but even if they are, it makes me question why our brains would have evolved such a mechanism? Think about it - what exactly is the evolutionary advantage of abstract thought? Mother Nature may be a lot of things, but it seems to me that she's nothing if not eminently practical. If you don't live in trees anymore, then you don't need a tail anymore... and so natural selection will do away with that tail for you. Practical.

So why do our brains need to be more advanced than what it takes to pick up a bone and bash some other creature's head in? Why did we as a species develop to have the capability of inducing mass extinctions on a global basis? Is there an evolutionary advantage to be gained from our sentience? Why - from an evolutionary standpoint - did we need to advance farther than what it took to get to the top of the food chain?

Dawkins touched on this quite eloquently in his book The Selfish Gene. He postulated that perhaps consciousness is simply something which arises once an organism's simulation of the world is so complex that it must entail a model of itself. The fact that consciousness is a byproduct of some other evolutionary purpose is not a comfortable thought at all, but not all functions of an organism can be assigned to an evolutionary advantage. Rather, some attributes are a necessary extensions of an actual evolutionary advantage. Evolutionary biologists called these "spandrels", which in layman terms can very well be seen as a byproduct.

 

[zyzygy]

Culture isn't science? *L* Try telling that to an Anthropologist!

I don't know, Watsup... maybe we're looking at this issue from two entirely different perspectives? But it seems to me when you compare the near-death experience across different cultures and different times, all the different accounts seem startlingly similar. Our consciousness seems to possess a unique and innate ability to exist on it's own terms - independent from our physical circumstances. Maybe, as you say, these are all tied to the internal workings of the brain... but even if they are, it makes me question why our brains would have evolved such a mechanism? Think about it - what exactly is the evolutionary advantage of abstract thought? Mother Nature may be a lot of things, but it seems to me that she's nothing if not eminently practical. If you don't live in trees anymore, then you don't need a tail anymore... and so natural selection will do away with that tail for you. Practical.

So why do our brains need to be more advanced than what it takes to pick up a bone and bash some other creature's head in? Why did we as a species develop to have the capability of inducing mass extinctions on a global basis? Is there an evolutionary advantage to be gained from our sentience? Why - from an evolutionary standpoint - did we need to advance farther than what it took to get to the top of the food chain?

DMT Models the Near-Death Experience

 

[Cordelier]

Dawkins touched on this quite eloquently in his book The Selfish Gene. He postulated that perhaps consciousness is simply something which arises once an organism's simulation of the world is so complex that it must entail a model of itself. The fact that consciousness is a byproduct of some other evolutionary purpose is not a comfortable thought at all, but not all functions of an organism can be assigned to an evolutionary advantage. Rather, some attributes are a necessary extensions of an actual evolutionary advantage. Evolutionary biologists called these "spandrels", which in layman terms can very well be seen as a byproduct.

I've got admit, I'm not all that familiar with Dawkins' works... but it seems to me that if our capacity for abstract thought were such a "spandrel", then given what our minds are capable of compared to our physical bodies, wouldn't that be akin to evolving a 42-ft. long index finger?

 

[Cordelier]

DMT Models the Near-Death Experience

I haven't got the time to read the paper, Zyz... but let me guess the conclusion - it's all in your head?

 

[Triton]

I've got admit, I'm not all that familiar with Dawkins' works... but it seems to me that if our capacity for abstract thought were such a "spandrel", then given what our minds are capable of compared to our physical bodies, wouldn't that be akin to evolving a 42-ft. long index finger?

My point is that complex problem solving (in reference to beating sticks against stones) might be possible as an unconscious process, but as the complexity of such problems increases, consciousness must naturally emerge as a byproduct of being able to solve them, which makes sense in regards to what Dawkins proposed. But it is largely speculation. The big question of consciousness is so far away from being answered by science.

 

[Cordelier]

My point is that complex problem solving (in reference to beating sticks against stones) might be possible as an unconscious process, but as the complexity of such problems increases, consciousness must naturally emerge as a byproduct of being able to solve them, which makes sense in regards to what Dawkins proposed. But it is largely speculation. The big question of consciousness is so far away from being answered by science.

So, essentially, we're talking about the first scene of 2001: A Space Odyssey? Apes get ejected from cave by another group of apes... apes need food, use a bone to kill food.... realize bone works good against other apes as well. Apes get cave back. Other apes learn valuable lesson about big bones. Rinse, repeat, throw bone into the air and eventually it's an orbiting thermonuclear missile battlestation?

One question though, assuming I understand you correctly, if there is an evolutionary turning point - that, once hit, initiates problem/solution cycles of ever-growing complexity and demanding ever more applications of brainpower... how is it that we are the only species that seems to have hit it? Why us and not the ants?

 

[Triton]

So, essentially, we're talking about the first scene of 2001: A Space Odyssey? Apes get ejected from cave by another group of apes... apes need food, use a bone to kill food.... realize bone works good against other apes as well. Apes get cave back. Other apes learn valuable lesson about big bones. Rinse, repeat, throw bone into the air and eventually it's an orbiting thermonuclear missile battlestation?

One question though, assuming I understand you correctly, if there is an evolutionary turning point - that, once hit, initiates problem/solution cycles of ever-growing complexity and demanding ever more applications of brainpower... how is it that we are the only species that seems to have hit it? Why us and not the ants?

Who knows. Either way, in order to ask such a question, you must be a part of species which can cognize. It is not so much a "why us" question but rather a situation of necessity.

 

[Cordelier]

Who knows. Either way, in order to ask such a question, you must be a part of species which can cognize. It is not so much a "why us" question but rather a situation of necessity.

I think it's more aptly a chicken and the eggs question, Triton. Alright, I can buy into Dawkins' argument of ever greater complexities.... but what I'm curious about is wherein lies the root of the evil? It seems to me that some form of cognition would be required to see that bone as a weapon - in advance of it ever being used as such - would it not?

 

[Triton]

I think it's more aptly a chicken and the eggs question, Triton. Alright, I can buy into Dawkins' argument of ever greater complexities.... but what I'm curious about is wherein lies the root of the evil? It seems to me that some form of cognition would be required to see that bone as a weapon - in advance of it ever being used as such - would it not?

For the record, Dawkins only postulated that consciousness could be a consequence of an organism's increasingly complex simulation of the world. The other part is my own speculation.

Instincts are powerful and they are probably developed as a consequence of natural selection. It is the predominating theory that eating cooked meat is responsible for the development of the modern human brain. I'm not even sure if humans used tools in any manner before this point. You have to remember that 2001 is fiction and you can't really be sure that apes used sticks either.

 

[ataraxia]

But now we're back to the whole mind-body problem. Is it possible for our consciousness - on some level - to exist outside the construct of our physical bodies? That's the essence of spirituality, is it not? I think that possibility has been embraced in one degree or another by every human culture, has it not?

So has the idea of magic. So has the idea of an unmoving Earth fixed in the sky with all the other stars and planets going around it. Doesn’t make those things real.

Almost every phenomenon which has traditionally been ascribed to souls or otherworldly entities has been found eventually to be reducible to physics one way or the other. And by reducing it that way, we have found we have gained much deeper understanding of things and all their complex interrelationships with everything else. And it has been a much more fruitful approach- This type of understanding has allowed us to do everything from engineering highly complex equipment to fixing previously recalcitrant physical ailments. However, I will grant you that mind-body dualism could still work out. It has not been definitively disproven. However, I would be very surprised, as it would be the first time in the history of science that we would have a phenomenon ultimately not reducible to basic physics. It would be very odd and improbable. But I guess we will see.