Kevin's Watch

Some of "Linah's" Truth
Is not really hers to claim.
The rest might be lies.

As for the other,
Is it not a digression?
Another place*, though...

I saw a short documentary film last night called appropriately enough The Unbelievers [wonder if they consulted [SRD] about that], which chronicled [ ] a tour of the USA and Australia by biologist Richard Dawkins and physicist Lawrence Krauss championing the cause of atheism in the 21st C. Dawkins at one point spoke of the question of 'purpouse in the universe' which has been mentioned above. He dismissed the question as nonsense. It is no more rational a question than to ask 'what is the colour of jealosy' he said. Well, I'm sorry - for me this dismissive and patronising approach will not do. To label every question that cannot be answered because it sits outside the framework of the 'scientific method' as irrelevent and meaninless is to my mind evidence of a mind already closed to the possibility that anything in existence may be beyond the boarders of this method; it is evidence of a fundamentalism of thought, a denial of the very sort that Dawkins and Krauss were ridiculing 'religion' for indulging in itself.

The very little Dawkins I read gave me the same impression of him. I just happen to share his view about there being no purpose or God.

peter wrote:I saw a short documentary film last night called appropriately enough The Unbelievers [wonder if they consulted [SRD] about that], which chronicled [ ] a tour of the USA and Australia by biologist Richard Dawkins and physicist Lawrence Krauss championing the cause of atheism in the 21st C. Dawkins at one point spoke of the question of 'purpouse in the universe' which has been mentioned above. He dismissed the question as nonsense. It is no more rational a question than to ask 'what is the colour of jealosy' he said. Well, I'm sorry - for me this dismissive and patronising approach will not do. To label every question that cannot be answered because it sits outside the framework of the 'scientific method' as irrelevent and meaninless is to my mind evidence of a mind already closed to the possibility that anything in existence may be beyond the boarders of this method; it is evidence of a fundamentalism of thought, a denial of the very sort that Dawkins and Krauss were ridiculing 'religion' for indulging in itself.

I'd like to read the actual quote to see the context, but my gut reaction is that he's right. I know his personality can rub people the wrong way (heh, so can mine ), but I agree that it's not a rational question. It's like asking if the universe loves us.

Perhaps you could provide the counter-argument, why you think it's a rational question.

Would it make sense to ask if there is Purpose in a particular physical process? Like, photosynthesis? Or plate tectonics? If it's silly to think of these serving some kind of purpose, then why is it not silly to think of the sum total of all physical processes (i.e. the universe) having a purpose?

The universe has no purpose. It doesn't love us. It doesn't know we exist because it doesn't know anything. It's not even a "thing" to be able to know, it's just a word for the container of every random bit of matter that there is.

But Z, photosynthesis does have a purpose in one sense. Or at least, it has a function which could be be interchangeable with the concept of purpose. There is a reason that the activity of photosynthesis occurs. So perhaps in that sense, the purpose of the universe is to contain all matter.

The difference of course, (to us anyway, or at least, I assume you share my problem with the word), is that purpose seems to imply intent. A desired outcome. But disregard that connotation and it is no different from function.

--A

We know we exist, and we are part of the universe. Therefore, the universe knows we exist.

The purpose of photosynthesis is to provide the plant with the plant with a supply of ATP [and other 'energy' storing molecules] with which it may execute the biochemical and physical functions necessary for the maintenence of life......or something. Plate tectonics - well, that one might be a bit harder [ ] but as to why 'is there purpose in the universe ' [or our existence] is [to me] a reasonable question to ask - the answer is that I don't know that it is. But on the strength of Dawkins reasoning I don't believe that he does either. It's just that to me, the observation that the scientific method has nothing to say, one way or the other on the purposefulness or otherwise of the universe seems valid - and must be answered or refuted if we are going to allow ourselves to believe otherwise.

Another thing that occurs to me here is that I struggle to see how the survival of the fitest [and by extension natural selection] model for the process whereby evolution of species occurs accounts for the human conscience, which can only ever be a hinderence in terms of survival chances. [Sorry for the quick subject change but it came out of the same film, hearing Dawwkins sayin that Darwins theory [or the neo- version of it] is the final story on evolution and the final nail in Gods coffin. As I understand it there are some pretty serious rumblings in the far reaches of science implying that the current theory may not actually be all it is cracked up to be. {not that this will strengthen the 'God' position in the slightest, athough 'they' will co-opt it as if it does anyway}].

Final jump - in the same program they showed Dawkins et al at various rallys of 'atheists, humanists and etc, etc. I've noticed the atheist fundamentalists trying to co-opt the humanist movement in the past, but I'm not aware of anything in the humanist position that demands atheism be part of it. Les Miserables is regarded as the greatest humanist novel ever written, bu there was certainly nothing atheistic about it and neither [as far as I'm aware] was Hugo an atheist.

Maybe atheists are co-opting the "humanist" title because atheist has developed a negative connotation.

When I think of humanism, I think of secular humanism -- which I think can cover agnostics as well as atheists.

peter wrote:
Another thing that occurs to me here is that I struggle to see how the survival of the fitest [and by extension natural selection] model for the process whereby evolution of species occurs accounts for the human conscience, which can only ever be a hinderence in terms of survival chances.

Are you kidding me? Without our conscience, there wouldn't be any human civilization---or, at least, a lot fewer people, and a lot more radioactive wastelands. [though I doubt without conscience we'd have been able to develop the tech we have...and we'd be a whole lot more advanced if more peeps had more conscience.].

peter wrote:The purpose of photosynthesis is to provide the plant with the plant with a supply of ATP [and other 'energy' storing molecules] with which it may execute the biochemical and physical functions necessary for the maintenence of life......or something.

That's the function of photosynthesis. Function is different from Purpose. Nature is not teleological. It's a wonderful accident that plants can do photosynthesis. They take advantage of a complex set of accidents, but in no way do they strive to provide themselves with ATP. It just happens.

I'm sure you realize that all life (and all its traits/functions/processes) is the product of random mutations that have been shaped by natural selection, right? Claiming that something like photosynthesis has a purpose seems to belie this fact. Purpose would necessitate someone or something creating the plant with this function in mind, for a reason, with an end goal in the plant's mere existence. It's like saying the purpose of the atmosphere is to provide humans air to breath. No, it's just a collection of gas that happened to coalesce due to the earth's gravity. And then living organisms took advantage of certain gasses in it.

peter wrote:Another thing that occurs to me here is that I struggle to see how the survival of the fitest [and by extension natural selection] model for the process whereby evolution of species occurs accounts for the human conscience, which can only ever be a hinderence in terms of survival chances.

I suggest you read some books on the issue. [Edit: sorry, didn't mean to sound condescending here. I need to read some more books on this issue, too. Maybe another group read is in order. ] All these questions have been answered. It's not even controversial or mysterious.

Humans have evolved to survive in groups. We're social animals. Traits that help us get along with our group convey survival advantages. Conscience is a way to balance mutually beneficial relationships with a self-enforced reciprocity. If you feel bad about treating others in ways that hinders their survival, then you will behave in a way that fosters survival for the whole group. Humans don't reproduce by themselves. They need others. Traits which helps groups get along increases reproductive success.

Pete's questions have got me thinking (as they usually do).

"Is the universe purposeful?" is a different question from whether purpose can exist or arise in the universe. Obviously, we have our own purposes, and the things we create are done purposely. Doesn't this introduce Purpose into reality? Well, it's tempting to say yes, of course, this brings some limited amount of purpose into being, because our inventions are tangible objects. But their value and worth are still subjective concepts, only relevant to humans. Isn't that true of their purpose, too? Wouldn't a cell phone cease to have purpose if humans no longer existed? If it doesn't have a purpose to someone, wouldn't it be empty of purpose? Even if it still has function?

But on the other hand, I'm still kind of in awe of the fact that purpose can be introduced into reality in the first place, even if only subjective. It comes about from entirely purposeless events, in a universe without purpose. That's kind of amazing. And then there's a feedback loop in reality when we use our purpose to alter the world, spreading our purposes out into space, eventually (or potentially) transforming the galaxy or the universe itself. So it's like a physical phenomenon in its effects, infused with intelligence. So given the endless potential for objective results, its subjective nature becomes less and less important, doesn't it? After all, we're the universe coming to life, coming to know itself. Why aren't we also Purpose 'coming to life' or at least coming into being?

I'm not even slightly convinced that conscience is universal. There are more people in the world acting against what anyone defines as a conscience than we'll ever know. Higher than the number we do know, which is pretty high itself. People horrifically abuse and kill their children. People rape their children. Anybody see this charmer? www.foxnews.com/us/2015/01/16/alabama-w ... -sex-ring/ (It's 219 years, as the headline says, not 21, as this link says.)

On a far less horrifying level, many people make a living by stealing. Muggers, burglars, and shoplifters. People embezzling from bosses who trust them and are friends with them. Politicians who take government funds and property. People who do all they can to stay on welfare.

Even insignificant things. Talking to Loremaster and his brother, Montresor, about a boardgame called Diplomacy. It's played online these days. Some people will register more than one account, so they can play as more than one nation, giving themselves a huge advantage, since the game requires alliances and coordination of your armed forces. I can't imagine what bit of self-delusion makes them think they're accomplishing anything. What kind of pride did the USSR get when they rigged their rapiers (whatever) during the Olympic fencing matches, so they could get points they shouldn't have?

Racism. Killing others because they believe a different religion. On and on and on.

Don't talk to me about conscience!

Zarathustra wrote:Pete's questions have got me thinking (as they usually do).

"Is the universe purposeful?" is a different question from whether purpose can exist or arise in the universe. Obviously, we have our own purposes, and the things we create are done purposely. Doesn't this introduce Purpose into reality? Well, it's tempting to say yes, of course, this brings some limited amount of purpose into being, because our inventions are tangible objects. But their value and worth are still subjective concepts, only relevant to humans. Isn't that true of their purpose, too? Wouldn't a cell phone cease to have purpose if humans no longer existed? If it doesn't have a purpose to someone, wouldn't it be empty of purpose? Even if it still has function?

But on the other hand, I'm still kind of in awe of the fact that purpose can be introduced into reality in the first place, even if only subjective. It comes about from entirely purposeless events, in a universe without purpose. That's kind of amazing. And then there's a feedback loop in reality when we use our purpose to alter the world, spreading our purposes out into space, eventually (or potentially) transforming the galaxy or the universe itself. So it's like a physical phenomenon in its effects, infused with intelligence. So given the endless potential for objective results, its subjective nature becomes less and less important, doesn't it? After all, we're the universe coming to life, coming to know itself. Why aren't we also Purpose 'coming to life' or at least coming into being?

Your last sentence is da bomb.

I answer the sentence I put in red the same way I answered Av above. We are part of the universe. If we find value and worth in something, then the universe finds value and worth in it.

My answer to what I put in blue is that the universe is not only one moment in time. If humans cease to exist, the universe is still defined as "a plane of existence that existed for X years (assuming it ends), that, for a span of Y years, contained humans." Purpose, value, worth... They're all still there. [And since we know that time is an extremely tricky thing, it's difficult to know if anything can truly cease to exist in the universe. Is everything that ever happened still happening, somewhere out there?]

Fist and Faith wrote:We know we exist, and we are part of the universe. Therefore, the universe knows we exist.

Only the part of the universe that is us knows. The rest doesn't know or care.

--A

I love Bach. Would you tell me, "But that's only the part of you that understands such things. Your foot doesn't know or care."

Vraith wrote:

peter wrote:
Another thing that occurs to me here is that I struggle to see how the survival of the fitest [and by extension natural selection] model for the process whereby evolution of species occurs accounts for the human conscience, which can only ever be a hinderence in terms of survival chances.

Are you kidding me? Without our conscience, there wouldn't be any human civilization---or, at least, a lot fewer people, and a lot more radioactive wastelands. [though I doubt without conscience we'd have been able to develop the tech we have...and we'd be a whole lot more advanced if more peeps had more conscience.].

C'mon V. - you can do better than that! [ ] Dawkins [as you know] does not deal at the level of civilisation, he deals at the level of gene, as does the suggested mechanism behind evolution that we currently adopt [ie neo-darwinism]. You have to explain to me how how the [beautifully elegant] idea of a struggle for survival working on differences that occur as a result of random gene mutation in a greater than necessary number of individuals and resulting in the 'survival of the fittest' finds a place to accomodate the 'gene' or 'genes' that code for human concience. If human concience has no genetic basis, then from whene did it spring. In a harsh and brutal struggle to survive not to steal the bread from a sleeping child because it makes you feel guilty ain't going to improve your survival chances. [Yeah - your certainly right Z, that these questions will have been adressed and that I need to read more to be able to fully grasp what it is that I'm asking; trouble is I waste so much time in this damn place I never get time for it! ]

re The 'purpose' question can I turn on my own original premise that 'the scientific method has no remit in respect to purposness' and examine that. I'm not sure it's as true as we [or I at least] think it is. I'm not sure where the idea stems from, but I've heard cosmologists and theoretical physicists on a number of occasions [not least our friend Deutsch] theorise that there is no reason why the Universe should not be a 'simulation' being carried out by some super-advanced race living in a different dimension of the multiverse [or even in the far reaches of the 'non-visible' parts of our own]. What are these ideas if not super-abundantly shot through with the idea of purpose. What - these super-beings do this simulation to 'no purpose'? Where, by the way, do these [on the face of it] wild ideas come from; are they born of the 'math' of quantum or string [or even m] theory. Have they a background within the 'scientific method' I keep on harping on about, or are they just some random ideas that theoretical physicists come up with when they've had a few to many jars together in the pub [ ]with no actual math behind them.

One more intersting thing [perhaps not pertinant to this thread but good never the less] was that in the film Lawrence Krauss said that if you take a piece of space and take out all the particulate matter in it [including I think all the 'frothing stuff' down at the quantum level] the piece of space still has weight! [he used the word weight rather than mass so I've stuck with it]. Like Krauss I love that!

peter wrote:You have to explain to me how how the [beautifully elegant] idea of a struggle for survival working on differences that occur as a result of random gene mutation in a greater than necessary number of individuals and resulting in the 'survival of the fittest' finds a place to accomodate the 'gene' or 'genes' that code for human concience. If human concience has no genetic basis, then from whene did it spring.

I'm going to keep saying this... And I'm not speaking for Vraith, since I don't suspect he agrees with me. Until you give me reason to believe there is such a thing as human conscience - as opposed to some people feel one way, and some feel another - I don't have to show how it came to be. I don't suspect anyone here agrees with me, since I've never heard anyone say they did in my many times posting about this. OTOH, nobody has ever explained why, despite huge numbers of people acting against it every day, they think there is such a thing. The most anyone has done is, citing C.S. Lewis' Mere Christianity, tell why some of those who do feel that way act after acting against it. Which is a world away from giving evidence that all who act in certain ways are acting against their feelings. Until there's reason to believe otherwise, the default position is that those who act a certain way feel that way.

peter wrote: C'mon V. - you can do better than that! [ ]

and resulting in the 'survival of the fittest'

finds a place to accomodate the 'gene' or 'genes' that code for human concience. If human concience has no genetic basis, then from whene did it spring.

In a harsh and brutal struggle to survive not to steal the bread from a sleeping child because it makes you feel guilty ain't going to improve your survival chances.

On the first, maybe I could. I don't know if I will.

On the second "fittest" does not, in any way, necessitate "meanest, feelings-less, psychopath." Or even "most selfish."

I'm sure there ARE gene's that code for conscience...or more accurately for the brain structures that enable conscience to happen, and then---conscience proved to be a survival trait. It was selected for. It won.
And not just for people.
Before people, too.
Lot's of the recent [and mostly much smarter] critters to evolve have some level of conscience.

There are a LOT of people who will starve before taking a crust from a baby. How'd they survive if they weren't more fit in some way?
And I'd bet they far outnumber the peeps who WILL steal the crust.

And, BTW, I don't think survival---especially for people---is as harsh and brutal as peeps like to say. And I think the competitive situation is far more complicated than "S/he who fucks the most and kills the most wins."

[double post]

Fist and Faith wrote:

peter wrote:You have to explain to me how how the [beautifully elegant] idea of a struggle for survival working on differences that occur as a result of random gene mutation in a greater than necessary number of individuals and resulting in the 'survival of the fittest' finds a place to accomodate the 'gene' or 'genes' that code for human concience. If human concience has no genetic basis, then from whene did it spring.

I'm going to keep saying this... And I'm not speaking for Vraith, since I don't suspect he agrees with me. Until you give me reason to believe there is such a thing as human conscience - as opposed to some people feel one way, and some feel another - I don't have to show how it came to be. I don't suspect anyone here agrees with me, since I've never heard anyone say they did in my many times posting about this. OTOH, nobody has ever explained why, despite huge numbers of people acting against it every day, they think there is such a thing. The most anyone has done is, citing C.S. Lewis' Mere Christianity, tell why some of those who do feel that way act after acting against it. Which is a world away from giving evidence that all who act in certain ways are acting against their feelings. Until there's reason to believe otherwise, the default position is that those who act a certain way feel that way.

Conscience might simply be taught. At the most, perhaps we merely have the potential to develop conscience (as V points out), like we have the potential to develop speech. Such a potential certainly increases our survival chances, and the ones who take advantage of this potential reap the benefits. But not everyone takes advantage.

In this sense, both language and conscience are merely memes, and they evolve on their own in a way that's loosely connected to our genetic evolution and survival. Once the idea of guilt was invented, it became a useful tool that humans passed to each other through things like social shaming and moral codes. Humans have always been very good at keeping score in terms of whether others are helpful or opportunistic. Lazy cavemen who didn't help bring down the mammoth got no meat, I'm sure. Conscience appears in a social context, not necessarily from the inside-out, up through your genes into your behavior ... no more than language occurs spontaneously in babies in the absence of external sources of communication (e.g. parents, siblings, society). But in either case, conscience or language, these are potentials that are in our genes, waiting to be expressed and developed.