Creationism - an example

[Birdjaguar]

How are love mysicism and despair ways of understanding the universe?

They don't provide the same understanding you get through empiricism, but they certainly provide insight into how the world works. They can be thought about and generalizations made without any need for the application of reason. We are at this moment trying to apply reasoned thought to explain things that are not "reasonable". The path can be pointed at, but not explained. To talk about the joy of standing in a warm summer rain with some one you care about can be described, but the experience cannot be shared. The science of a thunderstorm can be replicated and reviewed.

 

[Birdjaguar]

The religious answer to creationists was given by St. Augustine some 1600 years ago. He wrote a book called De Genisi Ad Litteram (On the Literal Meaning of Genesis):

Aw he was just a catholic, what do they know.

Great post Intellegence isn't a product of modern man.

 

[Perfection]

They don't provide the same understanding you get through empiricism, but they certainly provide insight into how the world works. They can be thought about and generalizations made without any need for the application of reason.

How so?

We are at this moment trying to apply reasoned thought to explain things that are not "reasonable". The path can be pointed at, but not explained. To talk about the joy of standing in a warm summer rain with some one you care about can be described, but the experience cannot be shared. The science of a thunderstorm can be replicated and reviewed.

Are these feelings truely understanding?

 

[Birdjaguar]

How so?

Science explains the mechanics of how the world works. Nothing more. Experience points out all the other landmarks along the way. Some you may care for others you may ignore.

Are these feelings truely understanding?

So we finally get down to language and definitions. Young children "understand" the world without using all the higher levels of reason that adults are prone to apply. Is their "understanding" different than yours? Yes. Do they "know" enough to function most of the time? Pretty much. Who has the "true" understanding?

Children, mystics, dogs and lovers may not see their world with a scientific "understanding", but their experiences do organize how they interact with it.

I have a "date" with my wife for an hour or so, then I will be back.

 

[warpus]

^ The brain is a pattern recognition machine - the longer you leave it running and interacting with the world - the better it's going to get at picking up on patterns and making sense of the world.

You learn things even if you're not consciously trying to form some abstract "big picture" diagram of what is going on - your subconscious picks up on patterns and stores them as neural pathways.

A child of 7 might "know" enough to get by in the world on a very basic level, but most of that knowledge is subconscious - it has been picked up by the brain as patterns - and memorized subconsciously.

Adults, on the other hand, are able to look at the world and reason about it - forming a conscious understanding of the world - to complement their already-existing subconscious understanding of it.

I'm kinda cutting mid-way into a conversation, but I wanted to comment on this.

 

[punkbass2000]

Are these feelings truely understanding?

I guess it depends what you are referring to when you speak of "understanding". It is certainly an understanding of what it is like to be in the situation for yourself at that time.

 

[Birdjaguar]

^ The brain is a pattern recognition machine - the longer you leave it running and interacting with the world - the better it's going to get at picking up on patterns and making sense of the world.

You learn things even if you're not consciously trying to form some abstract "big picture" diagram of what is going on - your subconscious picks up on patterns and stores them as neural pathways.

A child of 7 might "know" enough to get by in the world on a very basic level, but most of that knowledge is subconscious - it has been picked up by the brain as patterns - and memorized subconsciously.

Adults, on the other hand, are able to look at the world and reason about it - forming a conscious understanding of the world - to complement their already-existing subconscious understanding of it.

I'm kinda cutting mid-way into a conversation, but I wanted to comment on this.

Welcome Warpus. The following is my first response to your post:

Yes, the humans as machines pov. Life as a biomechanical process that in time will be revealed for all to see. Empiricism as the key to understanding all that is worth knowing. Your position is the very one that I am arguing that is restricting and incomplete.

Then I thought about what you had written and decided that maybe not. Perhaps you are just adding some brain science to the discussion and not advocating any particular position. Care to elaborate?

 

[Fifty]

If I may interject myself back into the conversation, I thought I'd go more or less on birdjaguar's side.

I contend here that we have no reason to believe that scientific reasoning tells us any more (or any less) about our world than any other form of reasoning (emotional, spiritual, etc.)

I challenge Perfection (or anybody else) to give me a firm foundation for the legitimacy of scientific (inductive) reasoning. Specifically, I'm talking about The Problem of Induction. Without a solution to this problem, we have no reason whatsoever (that isn't rested on fallacious reasoning or unfounded assumptions) to beleive that scientific reasoning is any more accurate or applicable or reasonable than any other form of reasoning.

EDIT: While I'm attacking scientific reasoning, why not add mathematical!?!?!?!?!?

Deductive mathematical reasoning, even with preselected axioms, is just as arbitrary as Inductive scientific reasoning, because Deductive reasoning rests on the consistency and legitimacy of deductive logic at each use of it, which is itself an application of inductive reasoning, which is undermined by the Problem of Induction. So even math isn't safe!!


EDIT2: I should add the caveat that, for me at least, this is a foundational discussion. On a superficial level, logic is simply the study of what is good reasoning and what is bad reasoning. Hence, any form of thinking that leads to a desired result IS a logical process of reasoning, even if it seems superficially to be emotional or spiritual reasoning. The only time that an illogical decision can prove correct is when we win at against the odds, which is luck rather than any form of reasoning. Using one of BJ's earlier examples, the charasmatic leader is indeed more logical than the "spock" character, because a charasmatic leader will use inductive logic to realize that utilizing certain personality traits tends to lead to better results than a monotonous and mechanistic method. So just because something is charismatic, emotional, spiritual, etc., does NOT mean that it is not logical at its core.

My point above is that on a foundational level, all reasoning is equally arbitrary.

 

[The Last Conformist]

On a superficial level, logic is simply the study of what is good reasoning and what is bad reasoning. Hence, any form of thinking that leads to a desired result IS a logical process of reasoning, even if it seems superficially to be emotional or spiritual reasoning.

Not for any sense of "logic" I've come across before. In the normal uses of the term, the truth of a conclusion is uncoupled to the validity of the argument for it.

This kind of discussion, BTW, is why I smile when I'm told that exotic people X really think and feel just like "us". I long side gave up any hope of ever understanding BJ's worldview, and he's an American, from a culture closely allied to mine. Why should I then think that people from widely different cultures are incapable of similarly alien thought?

 

[Abaddon]

haha, i do like reading sci-fic, even if its coming from a preacher!

 

[punkbass2000]

Not for any sense of "logic" I've come across before. In the normal uses of the term, the truth of a conclusion is uncoupled to the validity of the argument for it.

This kind of discussion, BTW, is why I smile when I'm told that exotic people X really think and feel just like "us". I long side gave up any hope of ever understanding BJ's worldview, and he's an American, from a culture closely allied to mine. Why should I then think that people from widely different cultures are incapable of similarly alien thought?

What makes you think his worldview has anything to do with his American citizenship? Also, at least in some senses, I think it's fair to say people think and feel similarly.

 

[Fifty]

Not for any sense of "logic" I've come across before. In the normal uses of the term, the truth of a conclusion is uncoupled to the validity of the argument for it.

It's true that the truth or falsity of the conclusion is irrelevent. I think I worded myself incorrectly. My point is that being charismatic, being emotionally connected to your children, writing poetry, etc., are all logical modes of thought. For example, say that your goal is to write a good poem. This is generally considered an act where strict adherence to logic will result in crappy poem. However, one need only turn to inductive logic to realize that the best poems are logical. It is logical to create a poem that is ripe with originality, emotion, poetic devices, etc., because we can look at what poems have been successful in the past and note that poems that exhibit these traits tend to be more successful and/or deemed more beautiful than poems that do not. Hence, writing a beautiful poem that is full of all the things that make poems beautiful (including originality, emotion, etc.) is a logical course of action for the poet.

NOTE that I'm talking about a general superficial level here. When we get foundational about things, I contend that all forms of reasoning (inductive, deductive, random, emotional, etc.) are equally arbitrary and unfounded.

My general contention (to try and put it shortly) is that on a superficial level, all forms of good reasoning are logical. On a foundational level, all forms of reasoning are equally arbitrary and unfounded.

 

[betazed]

If you are limiting the scenario to Spock in his role on Star Trek (which is really nothing more than an amiable living computer), then adding emotions will not help him.

Good. We are agreeing on something.

But as a citizen of the 21st C, then the obvious answer is: raising a family. Especially teenagers. Others would be:

1. Being a charasmatic leader
2. Empathizing with the distraught
3. Writing poetry
4. Painting a picture that is more than mere representation
5. Explaining anything that not logical
6. Teaching elementary school

But in each of these all you are doing is that you are saying "when dealing with an emotional subject you are better off using emotions". (Arguably maybe. I am not convinced. But lets say you are right. ) That's circular in a way. The point is we remove all emotions from the scenario and then analyze it.

In any case:

• Instead of a charismatic leader wouldn't you rather have a leader who understands the issues and wants the betterment of his people? WHo cares about charisma then? Forego the charisma and give him logic and reason and then lets see if he is not a better leader. In fact if everyone was logical we may take the next logical step. We will not need leaders.
• Empathy is not necessary when someone is distraught. All we need to know is if there is a rational reason for helping them then we help. My empathy does not help the distraught. My actions on the other hand do. Does it matter whether the action was the result of empathy or reason?
• As for poetry and paintings, I have to say, that although I enjoy your poetry enormously (and have penned a few of mine in remote antiquity - and not too bad i might add), on the whole, if we removed/lost all poetry and art from the world, IMHO, mankind would not lose much. Considering the rate at which modern poetry and art is churned out I can write computer programs quite unemotionally to churn them out in gigabytes at a time at about the same quality (a little tounge in cheek about the last part but not entirely incorrect - have you been to the NY Guggenheim to see their paitings and sculptures. All I can say is ). In any case, if we did not have Shakespeare what would you and I lose? OTOH, can you image if there was no Newton?
• If you have not explained logically, what have you explained?
• Only because your subjects are emotional.

If everyone was coldly logical as you seem to want, The world would certainly be a dreary place.

Maybe, maybe not. but would you care if you were unemotional?

At least now we can laugh at our silly destructive ways.

Sure we laugh. But for how long?

Are transient emotions better than an eternel equanimity?

 

[betazed]

I contend here that we have no reason to believe that scientific reasoning tells us any more (or any less) about our world than any other form of reasoning (emotional, spiritual, etc.)

really?

What other kind of reasoning would have led to the wonderful life that you are leading now (with its modern amenities) that allow you to philosophize on non-scientific reasoning with almost no care in teh world?

 

[Fifty]

really?

What other kind of reasoning would have led to the wonderful life that you are leading now (with its modern amenities) that allow you to philosophize on non-scientific reasoning with almost no care in teh world?

Nobody said I had to practice what I preach!!!!!

As I said, on a superficial (everyday life) level, logical/scientific reasoning is indeed the best.

My point was that if we were going to get into an indepth conversation about foundationals, science has absolutely no basis, and nor does math, and nor does any other process of reasoning or way of "knowing". So when we get down to the nitty-gritty of it all, all our forms of reasoning are equally crappy!


To get more specific to your point: Indeed, logical and scientific reasoning seems to have served us well thus far (I'll set aside the issue of the legitimacy of reason, memory, and sensory perception for a moment). However, what justification do you have that scientific reasoning will continue to help us?

 

[Japher]

or equally "best"

whatever that means

I was once told my line of logic wasn't reasonable
I laughed

 

[warpus]

Welcome Warpus. The following is my first response to your post:

Then I thought about what you had written and decided that maybe not. Perhaps you are just adding some brain science to the discussion and not advocating any particular position. Care to elaborate?

I was just comparing the way that adults "know" and the way kids "know". Some things we know consciously - but most of the stuff we "know" is hidden deep inside our subconscious and the neural net that our brain forms.

I contend here that we have no reason to believe that scientific reasoning tells us any more (or any less) about our world than any other form of reasoning (emotional, spiritual, etc.)

Scientific reasoning has taught us enough about the world/universe to construct things like computers, airplanes, nuclear power plants, plastic, spacecraft, etc.

If we had abandoned scientific reason altogether and relied on all other forms (ie. emotional, spiritual, religious), do you think we would have really learned how to build all these things?

I don't understand how you can sit there typing away on a computer - a device that directly relies on hundreds of years of scientific reason - and claim that there's no proof that scientific reason tells us more about the world than other types of reasoning - the proof is right in front of you!!

My point was that if we were going to get into an indepth conversation about foundationals, science has absolutely no basis, and nor does math, and nor does any other process of reasoning or way of "knowing". So when we get down to the nitty-gritty of it all, all our forms of reasoning are equally crappy!

Yes, but at least scientific reason has given us Civilization 4.

All hail science!!

 

[Fifty]

Scientific reasoning has taught us enough about the world/universe to construct things like computers, airplanes, nuclear power plants, plastic, spacecraft, etc.

1. Prove that all that is true, and that it was scientific reasoning that brought them about.

2. Once you've done that, prove that scientific reasoning will be applicable in the future.

If we had abandoned scientific reason altogether and relied on all other forms (ie. emotional, spiritual, religious), do you think we would have really learned how to build all these things?

Impossible to say.

I don't understand how you can sit there typing away on a computer - a device that directly relies on hundreds of years of scientific reason - and claim that there's no proof that scientific reason tells us more about the world than other types of reasoning - the proof is right in front of you!!

I have no reason to believe that the proof is right in front of me. I do not have proof that my senses aren't deceiving me, I do not have proof that reason is to be trusted, and most importantly I don't have any justification for the believe that inductive reasoning is a valid form of reasoning at all. And without valid inductive reasoning, even deductive reasoning becomes arbitrary and baseless.

Yes, but at least scientific reason has given us Civilization 4.

Prove it!!!

All hail science!!

All hail uncertainty!!!!

 

[Japher]

1. Prove that all that is true, and that it was scientific reasoning that brought them about.

2. Once you've done that, prove that scientific reasoning will be applicable in the future.

1. Prove that it is NOT ture
2. Prove that it WON'T be

Proof to the contrary is much more convincing - FACT!

 

[Fifty]

1. Prove that it is NOT ture
2. Prove that it WON'T be

Proof to the contrary is much more convincing - FACT!

Never said I could, and I don't think it matters or diminishes the validity of my contentions that I can't.