It's evolution, baby!

[danbaron]

[font=courier new][size=8pt]I read a quote in a book. According to it, physicists John Barrow and Frank Tipler estimated that global human civilization could not last more than 41,000
years. (John D. Barrow and Frank J. Tipler, "The Anthropic Cosmological Principle", New York, Oxford University Press, 1986, pages 556-570).

I did a Yahoo search on, "Barrow Tipler 41000 years". The article below was the first link.

If you look at the article, apparently, many great scientists think that evolution does not adequately explain what we observe.

The article mostly consists of quotes by famous scientists.

If you are interested in learning why these scientists are not evolution "cultists", then, you might want to look at the article.

(Would, EVOLUTION = FALSE, be equivalent to, GOD = TRUE? I don't think anyone can prove it.)

:oops: :x :twisted:
Dan

http://english.sdaglobal.org/research/qotcratn.htm#_Toc68181284

[Charles Pegge]

These quotes go back a long way. We have far more information at our fingertips now than any of these veteran scientists had in their lifetimes.

The sequencing of the human genome has reveal some fascinating details of the course of evolution. Apparently about 90% of the human genome does not appear to do anything, and only about 1.5% encodes for proteins (about 20,000 genes are encoded from this tiny percentage). The remaining DNA is thought to be the result of accumulated replication errors and possibly the remnants of harmless viruses. The puffer fish has 1/8 the amount of 'junk' DNA as humans but most of the same protein-encoding and regulatory genes.

You can fit the entire human genome onto a CD - but only 75 Megs of this appears to be useful. That makes it a lot smaller then MS Windows or Linux :)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_genome

Charles

[kryton9]

I guess perhaps one day we can use our unused genes as our own onboard personal data storage area :)

[danbaron]

[font=courier new][size=8pt]Quote from article:

"But what kind of mutations could bring about the major changes I have described? Could cause a tube to roll up into a helix? Could cause other tubes to form semi-circular canals accurately set at right angles to each other. Could grade sensory hairs according to length? Could cause the convenient deposit of a crystal in the one place it will register gravity? ...It just doesn't make sense."

Gordon Rattray Taylor,
Former Chief Science Adviser, BBC Television. Commenting about the ear in, "The Great Evolution Mystery," Abacus: London, 1983, p106

[JosephE]

That's interesting. That only makes me more convinced not to believe in evolution...

[Charles Pegge]

This is probably best answered by Richard Dawkins.

Climbing Mount Improbable

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climbing_Mount_Improbable

Lecture for children at the Royal Institution 1991

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YT1vXXMsYak

[danbaron]

[font=courier new][size=8pt]I don't have any of Dawkins' books. He could be correct. Mindless probability and evolution may be responsible for all life. But, I hope he is wrong. I much
prefer, if we are here for something, rather than nothing. I will say that, apparently, Dawkins is the new Newton. Seemingly, he knows just about everything.
Maybe, only future generations will recognize the true magnitude of his intellect. Anyway, I will try to raise some questions, by listing more quotes from the
article. (But, I don't think we are going to come to a consensus.)

:oops: :unguee: :(
Dan


"People are misled into believing that since microevolution is a reality, that therefore macroevolution is such a reality also. Evolutionists maintain that over
long periods of time small-scale changes accumulate in such a way as to generate new and more complex organisms ... This is sheer illusion, for there is no
scientific evidence whatever to support the occurrence of biological change on such a grand scale. In spite of all the artificial breeding which has been done,
and all the controlled efforts to modify fruit flies, the bacillus escherichia (E-coli), and other organisms, fruit flies remain fruit flies, E-coli bacteria
remain E-coli bacteria, roses remain roses, corn remains corn, and human beings remain human beings."

Darrel Kautz, The Origin of Living Things, p. 6

"Despite the bright promise that paleontology provides a means of seeing evolution, it has presented some nasty difficulties for the evolutionists the most
notorious of which is the presence of ‘gaps’ in the fossil record. Evolution requires intermediate forms between species and paleontology does not provide them.
The gaps must therefore be a contingent feature of the record. Darwin was concerned enough about this problem to devote a chapter of the ‘Origin’ to it. He
accounts for the ‘imperfections of the geological record’ largely on the basis of the lack of continuous deposition of sediments and by erosion. Darwin also
holds out the hope that some of the gaps would be filled as the result of subsequent collecting. But most of the gaps were still there a century later and some
paleontologists were no longer willing to explain them away geologically."

David B. Kitts, Evolution (Sept, 1974), p. 458.

"Now we know that the cell itself is far more complex than we had imagined. It includes thousands of functioning enzymes, each one of them a complex machine in
itself. Furthermore, each enzyme comes into being in response to a gene, a strand of DNA. The information content of the gene (it's complexity) must be as great
as that of the enzyme it controls. A medium protein might include about 300 amino acids. The DNA gene controlling this would have about 1,000 nucleotides in its
chain, one consisting of a 1,000 links could exist in 4^1000 different forms. Using a little algebra (logarithms) we can see that 4^1000 = 10^600. Ten multiplied
by itself 600 times gives us the figure '1' followed by 600 zeros! This number is completely beyond our comprehension."

Frank Salisbury, Evolutionary biologist

"To the skeptic, the proposition that the genetic programmes of higher organisms, consisting of something close to a thousand million bits of information,
equivalent to the sequence of letters in a small library of one thousand volumes, containing in encoded form countless thousands of intricate algorithms
controlling, specifying, and ordering the growth and development of billions and billions of cells into the form of a complex organism, were composed by a
purely random process is simply an affront to reason. But to the Darwinist, the idea is accepted without a ripple of doubt - the paradigm takes
precedence!"

Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis. London: Burnett Books, 1985, p. 351.

"In a certain sense, the debate transcends the confrontation between evolutionists and creationists. We now have a debate within the scientific community
itself; it is a confrontation between scientific objectivity and ingrained prejudice - between logic and emotion - between fact and fiction. In the final
analysis, objective scientific logic has to prevail - no matter what the final result is - no matter how many time-honoured idols have to be discarded in the
process. After all, it is not the duty of science to defend the theory of evolution, and stick by it to the bitter end - no matter what illogical and
unsupported conclusions it offers.... if in the process of impartial scientific logic, they find that creation by outside superintelligence is the solution to
our quandary, then let's cut the umbilical cord that tied us down to Darwin for such a long time. It is choking us and holding us back. Every single concept
advanced by the theory of evolution (and amended thereafter) is imaginary as it is not supported by the scientifically established facts of microbiology,
fossils, and mathematical probability concepts. Darwin was wrong. The theory of evolution may be the worst mistake made in science."

I. L. Cohen, Mathematician, Researcher, Author, Member New York Academy of Sciences. Officer of the Archaeological Institute of America

"Science is not so much concerned with truth as it is with consensus. What counts as truth is what scientists can agree to count as truth at any particular
moment in time. [Scientists] are not really receptive or not really open-minded to any sorts of criticisms or any sorts of claims that actually are attacking
some of the established parts of the research (traditional) paradigm, in this case neo-Darwinism. So it is very difficult for people who are pushing claims that
contradict that paradigm to get a hearing. They find it hard to [get] research grants; they find it hard to get their research published; they find it very
hard."

Prof. Evelleen Richards, Historian of Science at the University of NSW, Australia

"But what if the vast majority of scientists all have faith in the one unverified idea? The modern 'standard' scientific version of the origin of life on earth
is one such idea, and we would be wise to check its real merit with great care. Has the cold blade of reason been applied with sufficient vigour in this case?
Most scientists want to believe that life could have emerged spontaneously from the primeval waters, because it would confirm their belief in the explicability
of Nature the belief that all could be explained in terms of particles and energy and forces if only we had the time and the necessary intellect. They also want
to believe because their arch opponents - religious fundamentalists such as creationists - do not believe in life's spontaneous origin. It is this combative
atmosphere which sometimes encourages scientists writing and speaking about the origin of life to become as dogmatic and bigoted as the creationist opponents
they so despise."

A. Scott, 'The Creation of Life: Past, Future, Alien', Basil Blackwell: Oxford UK, 1986, p.111-112

"Don't let the cosmologists try to kid you on this one. They have not got a clue either–despite the fact that they are doing a pretty good job of convincing
themselves and others that this is really not a problem. 'In the beginning,' they will say, 'there was nothing–no time, space, matter or energy. Then there was
a quantum fluctuation from which...'Whoa! Stop right there. You see what I mean? First there is nothing, then there is something. And the cosmologists try to
bridge the two with a quantum flutter, a tremor of uncertainty that sparks it all off. Then they are off and away and before you know it, they have pulled a
hundred billion galaxies out of their quantum hats."

Dr. D. Darling, "On creating something from nothing," New Scientist, Vol 151, No. 2047, 14 September 1996, p.49

"Today, a hundred and twenty-eight years after it was first promulgated, the Darwinian theory of evolution stands under attack as never before. ... The fact is
that in recent times there has been increasing dissent on the issue within academic and professional ranks, and that a growing number of respectable scientists
are defecting from the evolutionist camp. It is interesting, moreover, that for the most part these 'experts' have abandoned Darwinism, not on the basis of
religious faith or biblical persuasions, but on strictly scientific grounds, and in some instances regretfully, as one could say. We are told dogmatically that
Evolution is an established fact; but we are never told who has established it, and by what means. We are told, often enough, that the doctrine is founded upon
evidence, and that indeed this evidence 'is henceforward above all verification, as well as being immune from any subsequent contradiction by experience'; but
we are left entirely in the dark on the crucial question wherein, precisely, this evidence consists."

Wolfgang Smith, Mathematician and Physicist. Prof. of Mathematics, Oregon State University. Former math instructor at MIT. Teilhardism and the New Religion: A
Thorough Analysis of the Teachings of de Chardin. Tan Books & Publishers, pp. 1-2

[Charles Pegge]

In the classical theory evolution comes about by minute changes to the genome which may be beneficial, neutral or deleterious to an organisms ability to reproduce. It is algorithmically very simple, involving trillions of little 'experiments' over millions of years. We can see evolution at work in pathogenic bacteria and viruses which quickly adapt and resist our drug treatments and immune systems.

Large chunks of gene bearing DNA may also be transposed from one organism to another. This is often seen with bacteria and viruses, and is an additional mechanism at work in evolution.( This phenomenon is exploited in genetic engineering.)

The evidence for evolution is truly vast and though intermediate fossil forms of organism types are not so abundant they are widespread. For instance there have been recent discoveries of feathered dinosaurs with claws suitable for climbing trees. And what about the marsupials of Australia which depart from the typical mammalian or reptilian forms - for instance the egg laying Duck Billed Platypus.

Now that we can sequence entire genomes, a huge amount of detail emerges - The Neanderthal genome - from bone tissue around 40000 years old - was sequenced very recently, enabling close comparison with H. Sapiens and trace of cross-breeding even shows up in modern humans.

But the "why are we here" question is not really addressed by evolutionary theory, though we could say that we are part of the reflective nature of the universe.

Charles

[JosephE]

If that were so, it makes me wonder why humans are so unique. We can tell we are not animals. It is difficult to live in the wild with no clothes, without thick fur (very vulnerable!), fingernails hardly double as claws, etc. We have to rely on intellect and working together to create shelters, food, clothing, and other necessities of life.

We're also the only thing that can speak. We have advanced civilizations, and we dominate over most all other creatures, and eat whatever animals we want.

I would think there would be more animals with civilizations and linguistic coexisting with us if evolution were true.

We are definitely much weaker compared to many animals, so why have we survived? We didn't adapt physically, we just used our brain. That's cheating evolution ;).

[LanceGary]

If that were so, it makes me wonder why humans are so unique. We can tell we are not animals. It is difficult to live in the wild with no clothes, without thick fur (very vulnerable!), fingernails hardly double as claws, etc. We have to rely on intellect and working together to create shelters, food, clothing, and other necessities of life.


In The Voyage of the Beagle Darwin reported on a people (Yaghan) living in Tierra del Fuego (an extremely cold place) who wore no clothes at all.




We're also the only thing that can speak. We have advanced civilizations, and we dominate over most all other creatures, and eat whatever animals we want.



Absolutely true, I think. But we still don't really understand how language works (how it is represented in the brain, how it comes to mean, etc) so we can't really answer the question of how close or how far other animals are from us in terms of language. But we do share most of our genes with Chimpanzees...



I would think there would be more animals with civilizations and linguistic coexisting with us if evolution were true.



Neanderthals may well have been able to speak. Other human like species (Homo Florensis, for example) have also been found that may have been able to speak.

There is some reason to think that intelligence is costly in evolutionary terms. Intelligent animals (humans, crows, etc) tend to be omnivores that live in multiple environments, and also tend to be social living creatures. But studying these species and others show again and again that evolution tends to select against high intelligence. Brains consume more energy than any other organ in your body. They need a constant supply of oxygen. Cut off circulation to your leg and it will survive for several hours. Cut off circulation to your brain for four minutes and you are dead. Speech is also costly. One reason Chimpanzees can't speak is that they have a different throat structure to us (see the book on this topic by Philip Lieberman). The human throat allows us to make all sorts of sounds but also allows the possibility of choking to death. So if a species finds an environmental niche where it can specialise then evolution will work to reduce brain size and overall intelligence. Only omnivores, social living creatures and creatures that need to adapt to constantly changing environments need large brains.

If you look at the destructiveness of human beings - and now nuclear weapons and environmental problems, etc - then it is clear that natures experiment with highly intelligent humans may not work out after all. And that would simply confirm the conjecture that intelligence may not be good for evolutionary success in the long term. Humans haven't been around very long, after all.



We are definitely much weaker compared to many animals, so why have we survived? We didn't adapt physically, we just used our brain. That's cheating evolution ;).


One study of muscle fibers puts Chimpanzees as about four times stronger than humans. But when examined by a physiologist the only difference that could be found in the sets of human and Chimp muscles was the number of nerve fibers connected to the muscles. There were three to four times as many in humans as in Chimps. Conclusion: Humans may have traded strength for fine muscle control.

There is evidence of human adaptation - physical human adaptation. For example in two separate places some humans have learned changed to be able to drink milk. Both Tibetans and Andean Indians show changes in physiology (and genes) to enable them to live at high altitudes. Sickle cell anaemia arises from a recent adaptation to resist Malaria. And so on.

The use of intelligence to enhance survival is not cheating. Birds build nests, beavers build dams, crows and chimps learn to use tools, etc. Humans, more than anything else, rely on their group for survival. Dawkins calls these kinds of adptations the "extended phenotype.

Lance

[danbaron]

[font=courier new][size=8pt]The older I get, the harder it is for me to not be troubled by the thought that we exist for a period of time, and then, we cease to exist. When I was younger,
I was absolutely convinced that was the truth, and, it didn't seem to bother me (for instance, I read books by Ernest Becker, e.g., "The Denial of Death"). It
still does seem to me that the simplest explanation which satisfies the available data, is that, there is no God. In that case, my opinion is, that the idea of
God is a biological adaptation, for the purpose of reinforcing the desire to survive. It seems to me, that humans are so smart, that they are able to override
the survival instinct - generally they need to think that their lives have meaning, and that the future will be better. So, from that perspective, God would be
a biologically rooted psychological trick, written into the code for constructing human beings. And, in that case, as a group, humans, generally being
religious, are deluded by biology to hope for something that does not exist, so that they will be willing to have offspring and continue their genes into the
future. For people who do not believe in God, it is difficult for me to understand their logical thinking in having offspring. Maybe they are dedicated to the
ultimate perfectibility of the human race, sometime in the hazy distant future. They reassure themselves by imagining that their genes will contribute to an
abstraction that they and their offspring will never see. However, I view that as a rationalization. In other words, I think they are biologically driven not to
be satisfied unless they have children, and they resort to idealisms, in an attempt to deny the fact. It seems to me, the alternative is to admit to themselves
that they want children for self-gratification; or to plead that they couldn't help themselves, that, they are like robots, controlled by the "demands" of their
genes. Especially, in the Western world today, when, as time passes, it appears, that, on average, children will have more difficulty surviving than their
parents did.

(No time to improve this now, I have to get the train.)

Dan

[JosephE]

Those are some good observations.

As far as whether or or not God exists, Dan, that's a whole different story. Let's take God, as in the God believed in by Jews and Christians (the only god ever known to die for his creation [believed by Christians], by far the most popular throughout history, and the one I'm most familiar with).

According to the Christian Bible, you can't please God without faith. So if you could prove God exists, it wouldn't matter to him. That defeats the purpose, according to the Christian Bible. I don't think anyone would believe you if you did prove the existence of any God...:roll:

Now, I am a Christian. But I try not to be biased, as I can understand where everybody is coming from.

Most people believe what they want to, even if it has less supporting evidence. But if you are already biased to Creationism or Evolution (or some other belief/theory) then you will probably twist the evidence around in your favor. Thankfully, a smarter Christian told me not to ever try to prove God's existence a long time ago. Anyone trying to prove God's existence has already lost touch with God, or is ignorant with good intentions.

Now, some people mention things completely unrelated as a logical red-herring fallacy to try to avoid having to prove their point. And I get frustrated when people do that. But we seem to have our heads on straight at this programming forum. ;) Programmers do seem to have more logic than the average person...I wonder why. :roll:

Even if I wasn't a Christian, I would still have a heard time believing in evolution, just because of the reasons I mentioned above, and some of the concepts in the article Dan posted.

Creationism and Evolution does make for a good debate. You might be able to prove the evidence favors Creationism, but I don't think it's worth a person's time to prove the existence of God.

Anyways, that's just my little rabbit trail about God, Creationism, and Evolution haha.

[Michael Clease]

So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.

So does the God concept only work if it is a shape shifter or are we an aliens experiment in a petri dish.

[LanceGary]

[font=courier new][size=8pt]
In that case, my opinion is, that the idea of
God is a biological adaptation, for the purpose of reinforcing the desire to survive. It seems to me, that humans are so smart, that they are able to override
the survival instinct - generally they need to think that their lives have meaning, and that the future will be better. So, from that perspective, God would be
a biologically rooted psychological trick, written into the code for constructing human beings.



You might be interested in the following book:

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Supersense-Superstition-Religion-Science-Belief/dp/1849010307/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1278924243&sr=1-1

Lance

[danbaron]

[font=courier new][size=8pt]"trillions of little 'experiments' over millions of years"

Sounds good, makes sense.

"we are part of the reflective nature of the universe"

I can go along with that. Now we could start down the long road of, what "consciousness" is.

-------------------------------------------------

From what I've read, "in the image of God", means, that, like God, we are fundamentally spiritual beings.

We in America learned on Coast-To-Coast (radio) from your David Icke, that the Royal Family is actually composed of reptilian shape-shifters.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Dstripbooks&field-keywords=david+icke&x=0&y=0&ih=7_1_1_0_1_0_0_0_0_1.159_169&fsc=-1

If we are the science experiment of some higher species, then, I'd give anything to get my hands around their throats.

-------------------------------------------------

I read all of the reviews for the book, Lance. Once again, you are right on target. The only problem is, that in this case, I would prefer if my conjectures are
disproved, not verified.

I like beavers. I love crows.

I have wondered before about why chimps are so strong.

That's a good point about intelligence and self-destruction. As you probably know, Michio Kaku has speculated that is one of the reasons our galaxy does not
seem to be teeming with advanced life, most civilizations destroy themselves.

-------------------------------------------------

I like Joe's view. He expresses what I want to believe. I'm not saying that he is correct. I'm saying that unless I commit suicide, then, like everyone else, I
have to find a way to make it to the end of this life. If a belief in religion helps me to do so, then, so be it. On the other hand, I'm not saying that I would
attempt to believe in something (God) that I know to be untrue. I don't think that God can be either proved or disproved - at least, no one has done it so far.
And, probably even if God could be disproved, it would not matter much. Apparently, humans are "wired" to believe in God, so they will as a whole, ignore any
disproof. To me, my life seems hard. That makes the question of God more important. When things are going good, the fundamental questions are easy to repress. When
things are hard (or, as you get old), they demand to be examined (at least they do for me). I don't have any "faith" in God. I only have hope. And the scale is
so evenly balanced, that the slightest "breeze", puts me under a "black cloud". I know people who have what I would call a "simple" faith. You could bombard
them all day every day with scientific facts that contradict their belief, and they remain unaffected. I am not like them.

I see the Christian point that if people knew for certain that God exists, and is judging their actions, then, many would alter their behaviors, but, only in
order to maximize their ultimate "profit".

I absolutely agree with Joe, that people believe what they want to believe. In almost every case, the feeling comes first, then, the logic to support the
feeling, follows. I think that is the case with Richard Dawkins. I don't know, but my guess is that from a very young age, he disbelieved in God. As time
passed, he used evidence of evolution to strengthen his arguments. Finally, he plainly revealed his "hand", by writing, "The God Delusion".

Even if evolution accounts for all life in the universe, I don't think it disproves God. If you read the quote from David Darling (a very smart English guy, by
the way - you can find his books at Amazon), in my post from yesterday, you will see that no physicist has the slightest idea where the universe came from. They
say, "Nothing existed, and then there was a quantum fluctuation, and the universe began.". But, if nothing existed, then how could there be a quantum
fluctuation? A quantum fluctuation of, or in, what? Or, you could look at it this way. If nothing existed, and then, a quantum fluctuation occurred, wouldn't
that be an apparent miracle? A quantum fluctuation is "something", right? So, saying that, "Nothing existed, and then a quantum fluctuation occurred.", would
be the same as saying, "Nothing existed, and then, something existed.", yes? Additionally, I think there is something else wrong with the statement, "Nothing
existed, and then, something existed." - besides the fact that it doesn't explain anything. Maybe here, human logic breaks down. If nothing existed, there can
be no, "then". There can only be a "then", if time exists, and "time", is "something". In other words, there can be no "previous" to the existence of
"something".

I've said this before. To me, almost everyone has a "religion". For some, it is God. For some, it is sports. Other religions include, gambling, drugs, sex,
music, money, power, acquisition, science, technology, evolution, and atheism. For those whose religion is atheism, they have zero chance of ever verifying
their core belief.

One more thing about evolution. I guess, the Earth is approximately 4.5 billion years old. Assuming evolution is true, I wonder if anyone has calculated how long
it should take. In other words, starting with nothing but chemicals 4.5 billion years ago, should there be life as advanced as humans are, now? (Maybe that
calculation remains in the future.)

-------------------------------------------------

(This is my hypothesis.)

Atheists use their intelligence to realize that belief in God is a genetic adaptation designed to strengthen the survival instinct, and therefore, to increase
the likelihood that people will transmit their genes into the future. In this case, they refuse to cooperate with their "programming", they refuse to believe in
God.

But, if I am correct, atheists, as a group, have children, they procreate. It seems to me that in this case too, they should use their intelligence to realize
that the desire to have children, is also a genetic adaptation with the purpose of transmitting their genes into the future. However, in this case, they do
cooperate with their programming, and, either, they don't see their inconsistency, or, they use all kinds of reasons to justify it.

Therefore, my conclusion is that, no matter what they say, the primary reason that atheists (as a group) do not believe in God, is not because of science or
logic, but rather, is because of feeling. They get no emotional gratification from believing in God, they get emotional gratification from disbelieving; so,
they disbelieve. They also get emotional gratification from having children, and so, they do that.

My speculation is that, Richard Dawkins gets a lot of emotional gratification from disbelieving in God, and much more from writing books which covertly attempt
to demonstrate that believers are primitive and stupid (and that he knows, just about everything).

-------------------------------------------------

One thing that is once again obvious to me, is that, humans are social animals. Otherwise, we would not be using our time to communicate with each other about
these topics. Also, humans are fundamentally similar. Otherwise, all of us, from different parts of the world, would not be interested in the same basic
questions.

:oops: :x :P :twisted:
Dan

[zak]

of course when a biologist or biochemists focuses only on the molecules and that our origin is from crocodiles or whatever the situation will lead to the absurdity of existence, no reason to continue living in this case.
in my opinion an indirect proof that a super entity is behind the existence is simply in front of us all like a miracle, it is simply the consciousness phenomena, somehow the neurons or microtubules or whatever in the brain form exactly a kind of key teeth which pluged in correctly to the cupboard of mysteries, then a big surprise: an undescribable, unreachable, can't be described something appears : the people call it consciousness ;(awareness); (feeling of existence),
suppose a robot have consciousness someday, it is not the scientist who endow it the consciousness, it appears because the circuits inside it trigger something in nowhere so a gift (the consciousness) appears.
if our feeling of existence can't be described by formulas,
just make this experiment: try to teach a blind man how the orange color looks like; can he feel that color by knowing that its wave lenght is x angestrom, never, it is impossible to convey your awareness of the orange color to anyone else. so then we have the miracles all around us, but because it is attached to us from our childhood we forgot it.
there is some research that a consciousness appears due to quantum correlation in the brain especially the microtubules; look at an excellent site by anesthesia doctor (Hameroff) and a physicist (Penrose) here: www.quantumconsciousness.org
anyway if it is correct it is describing just the key teeth configuration and not the bizzare entity wich appears when that key open the mystery door.
i swear that 90% of the biologists while they are talking do not know that they have consciousness at all ; else they will focus more contemplation on this important subject which without there is no value to the human.

[danbaron]

[font=courier new][size=8pt]zak always has very smart ideas, expressed very imaginatively - "cupboard of mysteries", "it triggers something in nowhere", "90% of the biologists while they are talking do not know that they have consciousness at all" <-- :P, "mystery door". He puts a lot of perceptive information, in a little space. He cuts right through the bullcrap, to the heart of the matter.

I have a book by a pretty famous philosopher, Colin McGinn, who I think exactly agrees with zak. I admit that I haven't read it all. The title is, "The Mysterious Flame - Conscious Minds in a Material World". If I remember correctly, his proposition is that we can study the brain everyday until the end of time, and we will never understand the mechanism of consciousness. We can start at the tiniest scale in the brain, and then work up to the biggest scale, and, its location will elude us. We can study all of the voltages, the currents, everything, and we won't be able to find it.

Maybe, part of what he is saying, is that our inability is due to the fact that we are on the inside looking out, not on the outside looking in. Or, the observer and the observed, are the same things; humans, using human brains, attempting to understand the functioning of human brains. There seems to be sort of a circular logic.

I've thought about it like this: would it be possible for a microscope to study another microscope, and determine the functioning of microscopes?

Or, here is a conjecture - "No mechanism can fully understand the functioning of itself".

[zak]

thanks dan

Or, here is a conjecture - "No mechanism can fully understand the functioning of itself"
i guess this is a valuable big subject which can be extended to mathematics and computer science.

[LanceGary]

thanks dan

Or, here is a conjecture - "No mechanism can fully understand the functioning of itself"
i guess this is a valuable big subject which can be extended to mathematics and computer science.
i want only to say something about an idea plagued me always:
after death what prevents our feeling of entity to be reappear in other new born creature like (the worst Rat) or a cockroach or a fish or a child of bill gates!!, nothing can prevent this, and no clue that i was x man before. why not we will not reappear again , we are already making this feat after sleep
more bizzare possibilty: a man which his entity feeling transfered to his dog, and his dog entity transfered to him, in a sudden quantum flush so in the morning the daughter called her dad to solve an algebra equation for her, and the (dogy father) will solve that equation because his experience is printed in the molecules of the brain and the previously dog will not suspect there is something wrong, same same for the dog now will not remember he was the true father before. and the happy daughter will not suspect anything wrong, and every one are happy, as if nothing happened. indeed this is a dreaded idea.
if the super entity wants to punish someone i think this is one of the possibilities. so my hope is that good persons whatever their religion may not subjected to this top secret fate.




You might be interested in this article:

http://www.naturalism.org/death.htm

[danbaron]

[font=courier new][size=8pt]I looked at the article. Maybe, I didn't read it closely enough. Here is my crude summary, maybe too crude. It reminds me of the theory of reincarnation. I
guess his basic idea is that consciousnesses jump from one body to another into the future. There is no memory of previous existences. And, all existences, are
exactly subject to the laws of this universe. In that case, there is no guarantee that succeeding existences will be better than preceding ones. But, it won't
make any difference, because, a consciousness will have no notion of previous existences. So, my consciousness may have existed for billions of years, maybe
initially in the underdeveloped form of an amoeba.

Therefore, for a person, there is no functional difference between a consciousness which ceases forever at death, and one which continues as long as the
universe continues. Either way, when you die, everyone and everything you know, will be gone forever. Similarly, when a loved one dies, that person is irrevocably
gone.

I guess, if you follow the "path" of what he is saying to the end, then, as long as there is at least one consciousness in the universe, somehow, all previous
consciousnesses will be forced into it, or some will be waiting in the "aether", for the appearances of new brains to inhabit. When the universe ends, so will
all consciousness. It seems like his idea is that the universe has a law of "consciousness conservation". Why make new consciousnesses, when you already have
perfectly good ones available?

There is no happy destination as the major religions say there is. I don't see anything profound in his outlook. To me, he is saying that when you die, others
will still exist, and when they die, still others will still exist, ad infinitum. So, somehow, we should find that abstraction, comforting.

I agree with his point that there is no "positive nothingness". If we are only our bodies, then, the "we", we perceive, is only the functioning of our brains.
When our brains stop functioning, we will then have the same consciousness as a rock. However, we won't feel bad about what we have lost. But, apparently, we
surely are able to feel bad, in anticipation.

My suspicions are raised when authors don't plainly and clearly state their points. Instead, they meander back and forth, and, too and fro, because, it seems to
me, that they have no clear or new points to make. They quote others, and recount what famous people have thought about the subject. They use big words. They use
a lot of space telling what they are going to show. The result is something large in size, which could be reduced to a few sentences. (Incidentally, many books
do that.)

Many people have previously made the point that if atom by atom, the brain of Person A, was changed into the brain of Person B, then Person A would have no
indication of the change while it was occurring. At the end of the process, Person A would be Person B. But, then, he would think that he always had been. And,
he would not regret the fact that he was no longer Person A.

Many people have also said, that on the starship, Enterprise, a person using the transporter would cease to exist, and, a new copy of him would begin to exist.
Of course, the copy would have no indication that just previously, he did not exist.

(Maybe, I'm too harsh.)

:oops: :(
Dan

[LanceGary]

You missed out a major point he is making - that the discontinuity in consciousness you and he describes is happening to you anyway. You do go to sleep and when you wake up you don't notice that gap in your experience. (Anaesthesia would be the same). So if your experience is so full of gaps right now which you don't notice why should the gap of death be any different?

I think his point is rather Buddhist. The self is an illusion...

Memory across selves. I wonder. Dostoevsky (in The Brothers Karamazov) gets one of the characters to ask how he could ever be happy in heaven after experiencing such unhappiness in this life. He says that no matter how great heaven might be the memory of his suffering would cast a gray pall over heaven. His companion cheerily replies that there is no problem - God would wipe his memory clean. This reply doesn't please however, for the suffering character then asks indignantly, Why should I have had to live through this if all memory of it is simply to be wiped away?

Lucretius once asked why people worry about dying (coming to an end) but not about the fact that their consciousness had a beginning? How do you react to that question?

Lance

[danbaron]

[font=courier new][size=8pt]I know that when I go to sleep or if I undergo anesthesia, there is a discontinuity in my experience. The difference, I think, is, I also know that the
discontinuity is only temporary. When I awake or recover consciousness, everything, is approximately the same.

If, someone was going to flip a switch, and, I would be "turned off" for five hundred years, I would be more hesitant to do it, than I would be to go to sleep
at night. In that case, when I awoke, everyone and everything that I previously knew, would be long gone. Generally, people are also afraid of anesthesia,
because, they know there is the possibility that they will never regain consciousness.

I cannot argue against the idea that the self is an illusion. I cannot argue against the idea that the memories I have of childhood, are actually those of
someone else, which have been "forwarded" to me, through the (illusional?) continuity of brain functioning. Certainly, most of the cells in my body are not the
same as when I was a boy. I cannot argue with the idea that the "self" is not actually a thing, but rather is a process, which is constantly changing.

For a long time, when I had no hope in the possibility of God, I consoled myself by thinking that I already was previously dead, and, apparently it did not
bother me. If death means not existing, then, it seemed to me that, for instance, I was dead in the year, 1850. I guessed it didn't bother me, then. So,
similarly, I guessed it wouldn't bother me when I became dead again in the future.

Most of my worry about death, and, I think most people's worries, are involuntary. I guess I would say to Lucretius that humans are wired to worry about the
future, and not to worry about the past. Before we were conceived, we had nothing to lose. Once we struggle day by day through life, and form relationships, it
seems, we have a lot to lose, and we develop the wish that the reason we struggle today is not only so that we will again be able to struggle tomorrow. I guess,
the strongest human instinct, is for survival, and that instinct, that wish to survive, extends beyond the boundaries of this life.

If God is only imaginary, then, some force has produced the elaborate religions which exist today. The Christian religion seems to me to be based on the idea
that we continue in a better form and in a better place after death, and that, so do those who we know in this life. I guess that idea appeals to many people,
because, there are so many Christians. I know that I would choose that alternative for after my death, to, simply ceasing to exist. And, I know that my wish is
at least as strong for those I care (have cared) about, as it is for myself.

Apparently, humans have the ability to imagine an existence infinitely better than this one. That ability seems to give rise to the hope that such an existence
is a future possibility. It absolutely could be that the ability, and the resulting hope, are just parts of our genetic programming, designed only to trick us
into having offspring and raising them until they are able to function independently. However, the conviction causes many people to become depressed,
dysfunctional. Generally, humans want to believe that there will be, "a happy ending". Many humans, maybe most, do not accept the alternative idea of a hard
life, and then the cessation of existence, well. Of course, I think, how well a person accepts the alternative idea, also usually depends on how difficult
survival is for the particular person. Most likely, on average, a billionaire will be able to accept the alternative idea, much more easily, than someone
struggling each and every day not to starve to death.

Here is a "thought experiment". Assume that, Buddhists believe that the self is only an illusion. What percentage of them do you think would be willing to drink
poison? You can't harm an illusion, correct? (Maybe, all human fears are irrational. But, in practice, it doesn't matter. They still are there. Not much can be
done about them, short of undergoing a lobotomy (in my opinion).)

Anyway, it does provide me with some comfort, some feeling of community, to think that we all have the same basic fears, the same basic feelings, and the same
ultimate fate. Why else would the thoughts of Dostoevsky still have meaning for us today?

(Incidentally, if I remember correctly, Dostoevsky was a Christian.)

:oops: :( :twisted:
Dan