Pharyngula

Posted by: Kobra | June 25, 2009 11:34 PM

Next thread title: Shawn of the Thread.

Posted by: ProudCynic | June 25, 2009 11:39 PM

Holy shit. This makes, what, five months? A single thread going on five months? That's got to be some sort of record, at least here on SB.

Posted by: Von Krieger | June 25, 2009 11:43 PM

The Dawn of the Revenge of the Return of the Son of the Bride of The Thread That Will Not Die.

Posted by: Owlmirror | June 25, 2009 11:48 PM

Responding to #1021 of the old thread...

I am well aware that ToE does not teach that exactly, but my understanding (and it could be wrong as I am not as knowledgeable as most, if not all, of you) is that ToE teaches that one “kind” (and I hate to have to use that word—don’t mean any annoyance by it) of animal evolved into another “kind” of animal.

Sigh. What's wrong with "species"?

All descendants differ from their parents; there are a few hundred genetic mutations with each generation. Many are neutral, some will be negative, some will be positive -- but keep in mind that "positive" and "negative" can depend on environmental conditions.

Environmental conditions often change gradually, or exist as a gradient. It is rare that evolutionary changes are radical and sudden (there are exceptions, but that's a complicating factor). Rapid environmental changes usually lead to extinction rather than evolution, though.

When one single population of the same species separates from another population such that they no longer breed with each other, they can, over time, give birth to descendants that differ from their parents sufficiently that if they were to meet up again with their long-separated cousins, they have experienced enough changes in their respective reproductive systems or genetic codes that they can no longer breed. They are now two separate species.

But there's nothing that stops each population from continuing to change, descendant by descendant, trait by trait, mutation by mutation. There's nothing that stops the same sort of isolation of two populations from each other from happening again.

Getting back to environmental gradients: Contrary to popular cartoons, it is not the case that a fish like a trout or a salmon suddenly sprouted legs and walked up onto a beach. Rather, it is hypothesized that population of fish with rather flat bodies swam into estuaries -- places where salt water and fresh water mix gradually -- and populations of these fish became acclimated to more fresh water and less salt water, eventually swimming up the rivers leading into the estuaries.

This is what they looked like, more or less (this page is a bit old, and there have been more fossils discovered since it was written):

  http://www.csicop.org/intelligentdesignwatch/fishibian.html

Posted by: Britomart | June 25, 2009 11:52 PM

Christopher Lee?!!?

He's in one of my all time favorite movies: The Crimson Pirate.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0044517/

Burt Lancaster, as chief pirate: swinging from the rigging, buckling a swash, and even dancing in drag.

We do do pirates here, along with the bacon and other stuff, don't we ?

Netflix has it, I just sent a copy of it back last week, it was actually the reason I joined. Haven't seen that movie in years! Give it a try :)

Posted by: Ragutis | June 26, 2009 12:01 AM

Heh. Heh heh. Britomart said "do do".

Sorry

Posted by: Arlo | June 26, 2009 12:08 AM

Never posted a comment here. Just wanted to be part of the permanent historical record.

Posted by: Sven DiMilo | June 26, 2009 12:18 AM

Here's the history of this record-shattering Thread Everlasting:
http://terrapinprocrastination.blogspot.com/2009/06/everlasting-thread-update.html

5915

Posted by: dreikin | June 26, 2009 12:27 AM

Holy shit. This makes, what, five months? A single thread going on five months? That's got to be some sort of record, at least here on SB.

Posted by: Mystyk | June 26, 2009 12:28 AM

You could always just put out a warning that when this thread is closed it won't be re-opened elsewhere. Ban those who try to hijack an unaffiliated thread into a new undying thread.

Posted by: dreikin | June 26, 2009 12:35 AM

GAH! TORCHES! PITCHFORKS! BURN THE HERETIC!!!

Posted by: Asemodeus | June 26, 2009 12:49 AM

How many DnD inspired webcomics are out there anyway?

Off the top of my head:

-The order of the stick.
-Looking for group.
-8 Bit Theater (well at leas the red mage part)
-Goblins.

Posted by: Ken | June 26, 2009 12:53 AM

no choice is required Lorkas ... sex with bacon

Posted by: Arlo | June 26, 2009 1:08 AM

Why choose? Combine bacon AND sex. Bacon fat makes a wonderful massage oil.

Posted by: Wowbagger, OM | June 26, 2009 1:20 AM

Bacon fat makes a wonderful massage oil.

Maybe we should invent a (slightly less icky-sounding) bacon-flavoured massage oil; I've even got a catch-phrase: 'Make him/her squeal like a pig'...

Posted by: Jared | June 26, 2009 1:26 AM

'Make him/her squeal like a pig'
Banjo music: GO!

Posted by: Arlo | June 26, 2009 1:29 AM

'Make him/her squeal like a pig' Banjo music: GO!

Great, now I'm compelled to watch a hypothetical commercial in my head.

Posted by: Kel | June 26, 2009 1:33 AM

Kel, do your rooms have padded walls too?

Posted by: mayhempix | June 26, 2009 1:38 AM

In a bizarre twist of irony
PZ is now the captive host of
"The Eternal God Thread".

Posted by: blf | June 26, 2009 1:42 AM

Kel, here's a hint: Curtains generally hang down from, uh, well, curtain rods, in front of windows and sometimes other openings in the room. (And some arty-fairy types also like to hang curtains in the middle of the room.) The thing that you are keeping closed, mostly because you are strapped into it, is a straightjacket. It is not a curtain.

Posted by: Wowbagger, OM | June 26, 2009 1:53 AM

Nope, but I do keep the curtains closed at all times.

Yeah, me too. Natural light sucks ass. I only open mine at night in summer to cool the house down on a warm day.

Posted by: Arlo | June 26, 2009 1:58 AM

If I'm in a straightjacket, then how can I be typing?

Who said anything about typing. Voice recognition software.

Posted by: CRS | June 26, 2009 2:01 AM

You guys have been talking about bacon sex for 5 months?

Posted by: Kel using VRS | June 26, 2009 2:02 AM

Arlo @43

Who said anything about typing. Voice recognition software.

My hovercraft is full of eels.

(really Peter McKellar)

Posted by: CRS | June 26, 2009 2:04 AM

I just tried to submit a comment, but it said "Your comment has been submitted!"

I've never seen that message before. Should I try again?

Posted by: Kobra | June 26, 2009 2:05 AM

@46: Thank you. To correct you, Alan Clarke HAD fantasies about prepubescent girls. He's dead now.

Posted by: Jared | June 26, 2009 2:18 AM

"God is dead. God remains dead. And we have killed him. How shall we comfort ourselves, the murderers of all murderers? What was holiest and mightiest of all that the world has yet owned has bled to death under our knives: who will wipe this blood off us? What water is there for us to clean ourselves? What festivals of atonement, what sacred games shall we have to invent? Is not the greatness of this deed too great for us? Must we ourselves not become gods simply to appear worthy of it?" Nietzsche 1882

How's that for bible quoting?

Posted by: Jadehawk, OM | June 26, 2009 2:43 AM

* Localised flooding structures show global flood 4000 years ago * The theory of evolution is that God doesn't exist * Radiometric dating demonstrates a young earth, as shown by coal * Alan Clarke has fantasies about pre-pubescent girls * lots of bible quoting

well, that was the on-topic part of it. the off-topic part included music videos from the 80's, reminiscing from the 70's, foreskins, and busted nuts. among other fascinating topics.

Posted by: MattB | June 26, 2009 2:48 AM

I'm so bored with pz. Yet, I cannot disconnect...

Posted by: MattB | June 26, 2009 2:51 AM

SO F@#^ing bored.

Posted by: Arlo | June 26, 2009 3:05 AM

MattB @ 59. If you are so bored, then why are you here? Read a good book, fiction or non-fiction. Find some new music. Find a new movie. Download boxee and find some interesting new media. Learn an instrument. Take a walk in the night air. Ponder life, the universe and everything. Or perhaps, SLEEP! :)

Posted by: Jared | June 26, 2009 3:24 AM

Arlo: what is this mysterious activity called "sleep" to which you speak of?

Posted by: Arlo | June 26, 2009 3:32 AM

Jared @ #63: I think... CLINICALLY, it's defined as the time where a man lies motionless in the dark with an erection.

Posted by: Alan Kellogg | June 26, 2009 3:40 AM

On the topic of science and religion you have this article at the Online Wall Street Journal. Just thought you'd like to know.

Posted by: Ryan Egesdahl | June 26, 2009 3:59 AM

Hey! I just received word from Dr. Manhattan that when this consecutive series of threads reaches 6000 posts, he will come and slay all the creationist cretins with his enormous blue dong!

What the Hell - it makes about as much sense as this thread does. Add that to the weirdo creationists that turned it into something it wasn't, and we get a case of the truly bizarre that can make anything happen.

Here's one more to 6000!

Posted by: Feynmaniac | June 26, 2009 4:22 AM

Vincent Fleury (remember him?) doesn't think very highly of us:

Myers' blog is constructed in a certain way. He writes reviews that are not that bad but then he opens it up to his hounds, half of whom are mad. Crazed! They finish the job.

Freedom of speech is one thing, but it is extremely insane to open the microphone to crazy people.

I was wondering why the interviewer, Susan Mazur, was so critical of PZ. I then searched the archives and found out why.

I say we burn both of them at the stake!

(Under four links as commendeth by the Holy Text Files. Suck it you two-link heretics!)

Posted by: Ultima Thule | June 26, 2009 5:03 AM

Backwards God is Dog, does it mean that dogs might be gods?

:P

Posted by: Brian | June 26, 2009 5:24 AM

Here's my contribution to reach 6000, but boy I'm glad I never tried to get embroiled in this thread....

Posted by: Josh | June 26, 2009 5:33 AM

And it continues.

From comment #907 on Bride:

Are lurkers welcome on the geology field trip?

But of course.

Posted by: Rorschach | June 26, 2009 6:04 AM

BoSOM !!

*waves*

but boy I'm glad I never tried to get embroiled in this thread....

Why? You missed out on a lot of fun,geology,and foreskins.Make that ex-foreskins,if I read the census so far correctly.

Posted by: John Morales | June 26, 2009 6:47 AM

The thing that always had me wondering is (and I'm sure this has been covered ad nauseam )what happened to all the water after the flood ?

Isn't it obvious? Some seeps into the ground, becoming groundwater; some becomes watercouse water, with rivulets becoming streams becoming rivers and eventually flowing to sea. Theremainder is accounted for by evapotranspiration.

</Style="Clever Creo"; mode="Misdirection">

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | June 26, 2009 7:06 AM

(*using James Earl Jones voice*) And so it continues...

Posted by: David | June 26, 2009 7:38 AM

That's Sir. Christopher Lee!

Posted by: Adrian Burd | June 26, 2009 7:47 AM

That's Sir Christopher Lee!!!!

Posted by: Rolan le Gargéac | June 26, 2009 8:34 AM

Lorkas #22

Which is better, bacon or sex?

In feery, with long pig you could have both ?

Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | June 26, 2009 8:36 AM

Sigh. What's wrong with "species"?

That it isn't actually any better defined than "kind".

Or rather, it is, in 146 different fashions that all contradict each other at least half of the time (never mind the fact that many can't even be applied to all living beings). For instance, depending on the definition, there are between 101 and 249 endemic bird species in Mexico.

The tree is real. The boxes into which most of us want to stuff the parts of that tree after we've sawn it apart are not real.

Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | June 26, 2009 8:38 AM

I guess it's a consultation

Are you using a spellchecker?

Posted by: chancelikely | June 26, 2009 8:48 AM

Actually, that's a pretty good idea - a dialogue á la Socrates and Glaucon between a real biologist and a Hovindian disciple asking all the stupid questions.

Questions like "If we came from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?" are in pretty common currency in the wider culture, among people who don't have the education or inclination to join the reality-based community.

Posted by: chancelikely | June 26, 2009 8:53 AM

Whoops, sub an accent grave for the accent aigu in my above comment.

Posted by: Dianne | June 26, 2009 8:59 AM

Which is better, bacon or sex?

Duh. Chocolate. Combining with either or both of the above is also acceptable.

Posted by: Apeman | June 26, 2009 9:00 AM

100

Posted by: Dahan | June 26, 2009 9:24 AM

I really have been studiously avoiding this endless thread as much as possible. Still, sometimes I have to take a peek. It's like driving by a car wreck, you can't help but look.

With that said. BACON FOR ALL!

Posted by: Ken Shipe | June 26, 2009 9:26 AM

I have a few questions I hope someone here can answer. I understand that once a population geographically separates there can be enough subsequent genetic change to prevent breeding between the two populations.

Why has that not happened in humans between Africans and South Americans, which seem to be at the ends of human expansion on Earth?

Or has that inability to breed happened between some disparate world populations and globalization has brought us back together somewhat?

Has it happened and continues?

Thanks in advance for any replies.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | June 26, 2009 9:44 AM

Why has that not happened in humans between Africans and South Americans, which seem to be at the ends of human expansion on Earth?

Posted by: Abs42 | June 26, 2009 9:50 AM

Argh - the stupid - it burns!
Thought I would just post this here from FSTDT for Josh, Alan B and all the other geologists on here....
"Mt? Sinai has been located in Saudi Arabia which, in that local, properly called Median. It's the largest Mt in the area. It is topped by obsidian, a melted rock. Apparently external heat was applied to the top of this mountain. It's called Jebel Al Lawz. It's proof that God's presence was on top of that mountain and melted it."
MyOpinionV , YouTube
http://www.fstdt.net/QuoteComment.aspx?QID=63415
Hope your heads didn't just implode :D

Posted by: SEBC | June 26, 2009 9:55 AM

I was thinking about something at work that's similiar to the question Ken Shipe asked.

I was wondering if it is likely that humans will branch off to form different species, since geographical restrictions aren't really there anymore.

Any thoughts?

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | June 26, 2009 9:56 AM

Hope your heads didn't just implode :D

Posted by: Kel | June 26, 2009 10:02 AM

Why has that not happened in humans between Africans and South Americans, which seem to be at the ends of human expansion on Earth?

Posted by: John Morales | June 26, 2009 10:22 AM

SEBC,

I was wondering if it is likely that humans will branch off to form different species, since geographical restrictions aren't really there anymore.

Any thoughts?

Yeah (you did ask).

Humankind, unless we lose our technology somehow, have passed the point of natural selection and have every capability for self-selection, not to mention self-modification (cf. transhumanism).

If you consider the progress made in biotechnology over just the last couple of hundred years, it's quite plausible that genomic manipulation will be very powerful and (ethical/political considerations aside) available in the next hundred years or so.

As to 'different species', see above for issues regarding species. I can certainly imagine radically variant phenotypes that are yet genotypically compatible with such technology. I can't recall the name, but I read some SF once where a group of people deliberately altered their genome (including their gametes so that it was heritable) to use different bases) to deliberately form a new 'species' which was phenotypically similar to ordinary humans for ideological purposes.

Posted by: Will E. | June 26, 2009 10:29 AM

I'm trapped in an old Hammer film with Christopher Lee!

Not so bad if you were trapped in one with Ingrid Pitt there too.

Posted by: Feynmaniac | June 26, 2009 10:49 AM

Hey, what happens when you type 'dammit', which is the more common form? Just curious.

I'm not on my home computer at the moment. IIRC the first time I wrote "damnit" the spellchecker didn't recongize it. I just added it to the dictionary. It's not rational, but I prefer that form better. Then again, irrationality is perfectly acceptable in English orthography (but I don't have to tell you that).

Posted by: Joffan | June 26, 2009 11:40 AM

Owlmirror:

All descendants differ from their parents; there are a few hundred genetic mutations with each generation. Many are neutral, some will be negative, some will be positive -- but keep in mind that "positive" and "negative" can depend on environmental conditions.

While your statements are true, they are not the central driving force of evolution as I understand it. More important is not that descendants differ from their parents; it's that they are similar to their parents, within a population that shows some variability. Individual animals are slightly different from each other, and more similar to their parents than to most of the rest of the population. Then the interaction between the group and envirnoment will determine which aspects of that population variability are more likely to produce the subsequent generations. Mutations are just a gentle "topping-up" of the variation within the population.

Posted by: Joffan | June 26, 2009 12:00 PM

I'm no Lamarckian, Nerd. By "central driving force" I just mean "what makes it happen". I think "mutations that survive" is a deficient explanation for evolution, because it tends to put the focus on individuals rather than populations.

Posted by: Joffan | June 26, 2009 12:21 PM

Watchman: we seem to agree, unless you think "deficient" means something other than I do.

Posted by: Sven DiMilo | June 26, 2009 12:24 PM

Posted by: Apeman | June 26, 2009 9:00 AM [kill]​[hide comment] 100

No, 101, but more importantly, 6002!!!

1381 + 1452 + 1014 + 1023 + 1031 + 128 = 6029

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | June 26, 2009 12:25 PM

Well, for mutations to survive, they must be passed on. That is a given. Otherwise, they die with the individual. Maybe we are all on the same page, just expressing it differently. My background is chemistry, not biology.

Posted by: Watchman | June 26, 2009 12:43 PM

I think Nerd is right - same page, different typeface. ;-)

"Mutations that survive" meaning "Mutations that survive in the population"

Posted by: (((Billy))) The Atheist | June 26, 2009 12:47 PM

This damn thread (threads?) have now garnered more coherent comments (I'm not including the incoherent drivel) in five months than my entire blog has recieved in a year and a half. When will the horror end?

(I have to add at least one comment to each of these. Obsessive on my part. Sorry.)

On a reality note, can someone explain to me the fundogelical fascination with kinds/types/species and macro/micro evolution? They seem to throw these terms around and, when anyone tries to actually get a definition (at least the fundogelical IDiot's definition), the thread goes into chaos. Or am I wrong, and all fundogelical IDiocy is fueled by fuzzy and changeable definitions?

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | June 26, 2009 12:52 PM

Or am I wrong, and all fundogelical IDiocy is fueled by fuzzy and changeable definitions?

Posted by: chancelikely | June 26, 2009 1:07 PM

"Kind", for example, shows up in Genesis, means something different from any scientifically useful term (and it has a mobile definition - I've seen it mean anything from "species" to "kingdom" depending on the user's rhetorical needs), and it takes advantage of the average American's fuzziness about what evolution means.

Posted by: Owlmirror | June 26, 2009 1:18 PM

Sigh. What's wrong with "species"?

That it isn't actually any better defined than "kind".

At least "species" has some indication of phylogenetic relationship.

However, as I understand it, "kind" means "a specially created organismal group which has no relatedness to any another organismal group". The word itself of course comes from Genesis 1:21,24-25: "God created X after their/its kind(s)". It's almost a Platonic form. The very idea of one "kind" becoming another "kind" is practically definitionally impossible.

Or rather, it is, in 146 different fashions that all contradict each other at least half of the time (never mind the fact that many can't even be applied to all living beings). For instance, depending on the definition, there are between 101 and 249 endemic bird species in Mexico.

I think you mentioned a reference that gave different species definitions -- do you recall what it was?

Posted by: Owlmirror | June 26, 2009 1:27 PM

"Baraminology"

And, again (of course), this is from the Hebrew: "Bara" = created; "min"=kind

Posted by: dogmeatIB | June 26, 2009 1:39 PM

The next thread should be the father's brother's nephew's cousin's former roommate of the thread that would not die.

Posted by: Owlmirror | June 26, 2009 2:03 PM

Speaking of the basics of evolution -- for consideration and analysis and possible further utility, this is a (slightly edited) list that was originally posted by abb3w here:

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/11/entropy_and_evolution.php#comment-1222005

VARIATION:
1. Variation exists in all populations.
2. Some of that variation is heritable.
3. Base pair sequences are encoded in a set of self-replicating molecules that form templates for making proteins.
4. Combinations of genes that did not previously exist may arise via "Crossing over" during meiosis, which alters the sequence of base pairs on a chromosome.
5. Copying errors (mutations) can also arise, because the self-replication process is of imperfect (although high) fidelity; these mutations also increase the range of combinations of alleles in a gene pool.
6. These recombinations and errors produce a tendency for successively increasing genetic divergence radiating outward from the initial state of the population.


SELECTION:
7. Some of that heritable variation has an influence on the number of offspring able to reproduce in turn, including traits that affect mating opportunities, or survival prospects for either individuals or close relatives.
8. Characteristics which tend to increase the number of an organism's offspring that are able to reproduce in turn, tend to become more common over generations and diffuse through a population; those that tend to decrease such prospects tend to become rarer.
9. Unrepresentative sampling can occur in populations which alters the relative frequency of the various alleles for reasons other than survival/reproduction advantages, a process known as "genetic drift".
10. Migration of individuals from one population to another can lead to changes in the relative frequencies of alleles in the "recipient" population.


SPECIATION:
11. Populations of a single species that live in different environments are exposed to different conditions that can "favor" different traits. These environmental differences can cause two populations to accumulate divergent suites of characteristics.
12. A new species develops (often initiated by temporary environmental factors such as a period of geographic isolation) when a sub-population acquires characteristics which promote or guarantee reproductive isolation from the alternate population, limiting the diffusion of variations thereafter.


SUFFICIENCY:
13. The combination of these effects tends to increase diversity of initially similar life forms over time.
14. Over the time frame from the late Hadean to the present, this becomes sufficient to explain both the diversity within and similarities between the forms of life observed on Earth, including both living forms directly observed in the present, and extinct forms indirectly observed from the fossil record.

That's what Evolution IS. If you have a problem with Evolution, you have a problem with one or more of these fourteen points. Which one is it? Provide evidence that any of the points are incorrect.

While the origins of life are a question of interest to evolutionary biologists and frequently studied in conjunction with researchers from other fields such as geochemistry and organic chemistry, the core of evolutionary theory itself does not rest on a foundation that requires any knowledge about the origins of life on earth. It is primarily concerned with the change and diversification of life after the origins of the earliest living things - although there is not yet a consensus as to how to distinguish "living" from "non-living".

Evolution does NOT indicate that all variations are explained this way; that there are no other mechanisms by which variation may arise, be passed, or become prevalent; or that there is no other way life diversifies. Any and all of these may be valid topics for conjecture... but without evidence, they aren't science.

Posted by: Alan B | June 26, 2009 2:16 PM

#109 Abs42

I owed you one for the loan of the frying pan but you have just cancelled that out!

No. I did not have my BS detector in action - I'm waiting for a replacement following the heavy use in the last thread.

Posted by: Dania | June 26, 2009 2:22 PM

Hey - where the hell did RogerS go? I still want him to:

1) Provide empirical evidence that fresh, brackish and salt water won't mix when put together;

2) Provide empirical evidence that Pinus spp. can survive immersion in water for several days;

3) Say if he stands by his claim that granite is not an igneous rock;

4) Show us the genetic evidence suggesting a population bottleneck in all species ~4000 years ago;

5) Explain how the flood affected the proportion of radioactive isotopes both on Earth rocks and on moon rocks;

Roger, will you ever answer these questions?

Posted by: Watchman | June 26, 2009 2:44 PM

Yeah, something like that. The rate of expansion of the universe isn't limited to the speed of light - the maximum velocity with which an object (or particle, or wave) can move within (or along) the space-time continuum - because the universe IS the continuum.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | June 26, 2009 2:55 PM

Here's what appear to be some lecture notes on inflation. And, of course, some of Stephen Hawkings books.

Posted by: Tigana | June 26, 2009 4:18 PM

oh look, reading what people say *before* posting works!

waits 15 seconds, then repost or was refresh dammit?

*waves*

Posted by: Sven DiMilo | June 26, 2009 4:49 PM

I participated in multiple 6000+-post threads, including on 10,000-post thread.

I do not claim an Intertubular Record. Just a Pharyngular one.

Posted by: Tigana | June 26, 2009 5:43 PM

*shuffle*
mumble....one of my favourite books....mumble.... hommage....mumble... used as handle for years

though looking at the 3,000 odd books stacked up around me in my flat, I guess I had a lot of choice before deciding ;-)

Posted by: 'Tis Himself | June 26, 2009 9:44 PM

162 posts and nobody linked to a song. I must remedy the situation:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zydAs5bRW1U

Posted by: Sven DiMilo | June 26, 2009 10:13 PM

let's see...
ah...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n2xODjbfYw8

Posted by: John Morales | June 26, 2009 10:19 PM

dogmeatIB @162, quite so. cf. Asimov's SF novels The Caves of Steel, The Naked Sun and The Robots of Dawn, for example.

Posted by: Rorschach | June 26, 2009 10:33 PM

Oh hey,John M,

thanks for the assistance with the punctuation nazis last night,appreciated..:-)

Off for a walk !

Posted by: bastion of sass | June 27, 2009 12:57 AM

Thanks to all who offered best wishes and support.

I so appreciate your kind thoughts. Thoughts that didn't include, "I'm praying for you." Or suggestions about woo treatments.

I also appreciate that you've taken the time to notice my comments. I am humbled by the fact that are so many incredibly bright, well-educated, insightful, articulate, and rational posters here, who write so many brilliant and worthwhile comments, yet you've found the time to read my pitiful and paltry contributions and care about me.

Oh, geez, now I'm getting all misty eyed and mushy-- because of comments from a bunch of immoral, unethical, and unprincipled atheists, no less.

Posted by: Sven DiMilo | June 27, 2009 3:06 AM

?
How are you testing a killfile by posting comments?

Posted by: AnthonyK | June 27, 2009 5:50 AM

So...earth...6000 years old?
And bacon, a good, or a bad thing?
And why oh why does God hate foreskins so?
I felt I just had to come in on the last part - or the first, depnding on your direction of motion.
I mean I would have thought that it there were a flap of skin repugnant to His view H could have chosen one less..intimate. Ear lobes, I say. Centres of lavisciousness, rebellion in the young, and a suspicious repository of three important letters in the word "love".
(As in "Jesus loves me" = "Jesus is fucking with my head").
Actually, I have good reason to resent circumcision as an elective procedure as I had to have it done a few years ago. It appears that one of my more useful holes was closing up. Why anyone should chose to have it done is a complete mystery, and no, the benefits of not having to wash behind the foreskin, while totally awesome, are scant recompense for days of baggy trousers and a cowboy gait. It may taste better but I have, alas, no way of knowing.
Anyway, I just knew that you'd want me to share.
But for anyone thinking of getting circumcized here's my tip....
And no returns.

Posted by: uksceptic | June 27, 2009 7:56 AM

Hello fellow pharyngulites.

I am in a debate with a serious troll on Richard Wiseman's blog regarding psychic healing, Simon Singh and the remote viewing twitter experiment. I would very much appreciate some help since I am relatively new to skeptisim and you guys do this much better than me!

I know crazy is crazy but I'm hoping some of you guys might fancy some fun and a good laugh at some of his comments. His name is Richard King, maybe he’s familiar on here I don’t know?

http://richardwiseman.wordpress.com/2009/06/16/twitter-psychic-expts-more-results/#comments

Posted by: John Morales | June 27, 2009 8:34 AM

uksceptic, you're young, I think. And I think you've been snowed by an appeal to authority.

King Dick:

Firstly, I am a scientist, actually somewhat more than a scientist. Science constitutes less than 20% of engineering, arts constitute more than 40% of engineering. We are scientists and considerably more besides that. Note that applies to real engineers, not just someone who has appropriated the title. In my case “A” Level mathematics and physics, at early 1960s standards, was my school leaving level, then onwards and upwards; mechanical, electrical and production engineering, creativity, design, technical drawing, psychology, mathematics, advanced physics, organic chemistry, materials, economics, social studies, etc. So, I take lessons in science, the scientific method, the ways of science in general from no-one.

Secondly, I am a member of the Scientific and Medical Network. I know many scientists of a sufficiently high standard with whom to discuss such matters and have contributed to their research when I have been able. For example, Dr Peter Fenwick has been researching the process of physical death at a higher level than mainstream science for several years; I have known Peter and Elizabeth Fenwick for well over a decade and met many other capable people; a Professor of Cosmology who is involved in psychic research, on the board of a significant organisation in the field, numerous medical people, Members and Fellows of the Royal College of Psychiatrists, other engineers, physicists, biologists, et al.
[... later ...]
[*] Your question also seems to assume that energy is needed to carry information. It goes back to the question of what consciousness is. [*] In my experience consciousness is material independent, while material is consciousness dependent. [*] Materialist science is predicated on false assumptions and premises, hence its problems in getting to grips with certain matters.

It reads high on my BS-meter. Attack those [*] points, they're not scientifically sustainable.

Don't get sucked when woomeisters say they're experts — real experts show you their expertise, they don't need to tell you about it! ;)

Stick to your guns, be rational, ask for justification for any claims (or citations).

But no, I'm not going there to hold your hand.
Maybe someone else will... :)

Posted by: Abs42 | June 27, 2009 11:13 AM

@ Anthony K - pro'lly WAY back up there by now, who knows :)
Totally agree with you on the foreskin thing - I look after people who have HAD to have theirs off, and it sucks. :(
I CERTAINLY won't be having our boys (2 of them) done unless absolutely necessary. But I believe, despite the fundies best endeavours, much fun can be had without them too :D So my advice is to take precautions, but go to it! And definitely add bacon if at all possible :D

Posted by: Janine, OMnivore | June 27, 2009 12:11 PM

I'll Keep It With Mine

When I started listening to Richard Thompson, I ran across Unhalfbricking and What We Did On Our Holidays. What a weird and wonderful band.

Posted by: Sven DiMilo | June 27, 2009 1:24 PM

Firstly, I am a scientist, actually somewhat more than a scientist...We [ENGINEERS!!] are scientists and considerably more besides that. Note that applies to real engineers, not just someone who has appropriated the title....[BLAH BLAH BLAH]... So, I take lessons in science, the scientific method, the ways of science in general from no-one.

And you want to engage in debate with this asshole?
He's another engineer with delusions of omniscience. He doesn't have any idea what he's talking about but will never admit that. It's like they take Dunning-Kruger courses.

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | June 27, 2009 1:41 PM

Posted by: 'Tis Himself Author Profile Page | June 27, 2009 8:40 AM

Time to go sailing. Ketch yawl schooner or later.

'Tis, look what's all over our harbor right now.

Posted by: a_ray_in_dilbert_space | June 27, 2009 1:55 PM

ukskeptic,

When somebody says something like:

"Firstly, I am a scientist, actually somewhat more than a scientist..."

You can be pretty sure they are 1)an idiot, 2)clueless and 3)an asshole.

Show me one way you can transmit information without transfer of energy (I'm guessing this "engineer" never took communication theory!).

Show me one substance that can act on another without in turn being influenced by it (Newton's 2nd law anyone?)

Materialist science is the noly science that works.

I'm reminded of the scene in "The Right Stuff," when the two hot-shit rookie pilots walk into the bar claiming to be pilots.

Bartender: "Two types of men walk through that door--pilots and pudknockers. Now, what do you two pudknockers want to drink."

This guy's a pudknocker.

Posted by: uksceptic | June 27, 2009 3:49 PM

John Morales/a_ray_in_dilbert_space thanks for your comments. I am fairly young although by no means a teenager. As I said I am relatively new to sceptism and although I appreciate it is somewhat of a lost cause debating with people like King Dick I still like to try and pit my wits against them.

I am not over awed by his self proclaimed authority in, well everything according to him, but I will confess to going in a little naively and being overwhelmed by his seemingly limitless amount of bollocks. Not wanting to be drawn into an ad hominem and simply call him an idiot and walk away I came for a little advice and support here!
I feel I have the ability to sniff out the crap just not the knowledge base to back it up yet, although I am trying to amend that. I read what I can when I can but have limited science training.

I guess I was looking for a crutch to use your metaphor; I don't want you to hold my hand. Although I'm sure it is a lovely hand!

Posted by: bastion of sass | June 27, 2009 5:22 PM

'Tis @ 180

Ketch yawl schooner or later.

Finally! Puns. That's showing us dhow, 'Tis.

I can't conceive of a proper segment of The Thread Which Will Not End without puns. Canoe?

Posted by: Alan B | June 27, 2009 6:25 PM

#156 Tigana

We have already done that field trip to Siccar point at
#621 0n "I have no idea what this thread ..." thread.

http://www.geos.ed.ac.uk/undergraduate/field/siccarpoint/

Also , for more detailed info.:

http://www.thegcr.org.uk/Sites/GCR_v31_C03_Site1811.htm

The GGCR or Geoconservation Review identifies all the geo sites in Great Britain considered to be important enough to record and to take efforts to conserve. Above is the Site Report for Siccar Point which summarises and describes the location.

Posted by: 'Tis Himself | June 27, 2009 6:48 PM

Here's a Stan Rogers song about the fishing industry.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BRUSqO8fObU&feature=related

What kind of fisherman can't eat his catch
Or call what he's taken his own?
But the plant works three shifts now. There's plenty of pay.
We ship seventeen tons of this garbage each day.
If we want to eat fish, then we'll open a can,
And catch tiny fish for Japan.

In the Norfolk Hotel over far too much beer,
The old guys remember when the water ran clear.
No poisons with names that we can't understand
And no tiny fish for Japan.
So the days run together. Each one is the same.
And it's good that the smelt have no lovelier name.
It's all just a job now, we'll work while we can,
To catch tiny fish for Japan.

The smelt is one of the last fish species to succumb to pollution.

Posted by: Owlmirror | June 27, 2009 7:13 PM

Actually, I scow at you boat.

I cat win. I must do pinnace for my sins.

Posted by: John Morales | June 27, 2009 7:17 PM

Funny how this thread changes tack...

--

uksceptic, David @184 provided good suggestions, too.

Posted by: AnthonyK | June 27, 2009 7:28 PM

Ketch yawl schooner or later.

Posted by: Rey Fox | June 27, 2009 8:03 PM

POOP DECK!

Posted by: Asa | June 27, 2009 9:24 PM

Hey Everyone,

I'm watching Jesus Camp. It is very scary.

Posted by: Jadehawk, OM | June 27, 2009 9:32 PM

ugh... I haven't watched that thing yet, and I don't think I could do that to myself.

Posted by: John Morales | June 27, 2009 9:56 PM

MadPanda, yeah, Christopher Lee is a living legend and a hell of a villain.

But for me, Vincent Price takes the cake.

The abominable Dr. Phibes is my favourite — and he's not even a villain, per se. :)

PS I watched it as a kid; got into Bach through it (fugue in D minor, IIRC). Still one of my very favourites pieces of music!.

I find rhythmic (dance music) kind of uninteresting in general.

Posted by: Rorschach | June 27, 2009 11:32 PM

Actually, having Christopher Lee around here would probably be fairly enjoyable, all things considered. The man plays a decent villain. :-)

And managed to get himself reborn as villain in the Star Wars movies !

Posted by: Janine, OMnivore | June 28, 2009 1:37 AM

I go a way for a while and when I come back, I see you are all still engaging in nautical puns. It is time for me to drop the big one now!

Posted by: 'Tis Himself | June 28, 2009 6:18 AM

Rev BDC,

In two weeks we have Sailfest here. It must be the season.

Posted by: 'Tis Himself | June 28, 2009 6:39 AM

And [Christopher Lee] managed to get himself reborn as villain in the Star Wars movies !

He also did an excellent job as Saruman.

Posted by: Rorschach | June 28, 2009 7:04 AM

Oldest Musical Instrument, A 35,000-Year-Old Flute, Found In Germany

Im sorry,but that can not be correct,sources tell me there was a huge flood at some point under 10000 years ago that killed every possible flutemaker on the planet.

Posted by: Carlie | June 28, 2009 7:40 AM

For whatever reason, I didn't find it as scary as I had predicted before watching it.

I think the scariness quotient depends on how closely the movie mirrors one's own life.

Posted by: Rorschach | June 28, 2009 7:55 AM

WB, AnthonyK, long time no see !

(Oh,clinteas here,I morphed a while ago, since all the trolls do too..:-) )

(Hey,I inserted whitespaces,take that punctuation nazis !)

Playing with Windows 7 atm, and Im not totally opposed yet,seems to work, I like the preview windows and the slideshow desktop backgrounds so far.

Posted by: Britomart | June 28, 2009 9:03 PM

So where did RogerS and Logan go ??

Posted by: Rorschach | June 29, 2009 4:18 AM

As for Roger... I think the foreskin conversation scared him away

Well,he got his ass spanked by knowledgeable people here for the last 4 months,you can only be so much masochistic.
As to Logan,who's that?

Posted by: Rorschach | June 29, 2009 5:50 AM

Rorschach, Logan appeared on the Hovind summary at WorldNutDaily thread, replying to you and the Rev here.

Oh,interesting,thank you !
Another punctuation nazi too,lol.

I/we post in too many threads,I find it hard at times to chase every single comment up to check for responses.

Posted by: Rorschach | June 29, 2009 8:20 AM

Since im drunk and not used to being in love anymore,here's some random love song:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JMkFjYRWM4M&NR=1

Posted by: Kel | June 29, 2009 8:58 AM

I only had one beer tonight, it's probably too late to kick on and have more. Got to get up for work in 8 hours.

Posted by: Rorschach | June 29, 2009 10:53 AM

Hmmmm,Muppets....

Octopus's Garden !

Posted by: 'Tis Himself | June 29, 2009 10:27 PM

Oh noes! My pseudonymity is treif!

Mine is as kosher as ever.

Posted by: Jadehawk, OM | June 29, 2009 11:59 PM

*reads Rorschach's posts*

awwwww, how adorable

*runs*

Posted by: Janine, OMnivore | June 30, 2009 1:04 AM

Temporary?

Posted by: Evolution SWAT | June 30, 2009 1:34 AM

@Alan
“Who ever thought that a bird leg would turn a man into a monkey?”

Well, I'll have to say, that's probably the stupidest creationist quote I've ever heard. Oh dear, my head is going to explode!

Posted by: Sphere Coupler | June 30, 2009 2:01 AM

eeeeeeeewwww, sucks to be him then.

aaaaaaaahhhh, good to hear.

So I take it that a god hasn't been proved by Rodgers yet, or are we waiting for a revelation?

Posted by: Sili | June 30, 2009 4:18 AM

Yeah, I'm pretty embarrassed I had to look up the antonym for "kosher" - I should try to learn some Yiddish proper.

But it seemed appropriate since I claimed my domains of interest to be milchish und fleischig in the past.

So what's being love feel like? Just for reference.

Posted by: Feynmaniac | June 30, 2009 6:01 AM

So what's being love feel like? Just for reference.

I read Love in the Time of Cholera in my teens and had no clue why García Márquez compared love to cholera, a gastroenteritis which causes exhaustive diarrhea. As I got older and more experienced the metaphor began to make sense.

Posted by: John Morales | June 30, 2009 6:34 AM

Here's one for Josh & Alan B:
Scientists' Drill Hits Magma: Only Third Time on Record.

(PhysOrg.com) -- Scientists drilling a borehole deep into Iceland’s rocky crust to explore new methods of using geothermal energy hit a major roadblock on Thursday: Their drill ran into molten rock at a depth of 6,900 feet.

Posted by: John Morales | June 30, 2009 9:24 AM

Ads? What ads?

I see a blank box labelled "Advertisement" on the side, and another blank box at the top of the page.

Hint: Hosts file.

Posted by: Josh | June 30, 2009 1:52 PM

Scientists' Drill Hits Magma: Only Third Time on Record.

Thanks, John! I hadn't seen that one. That's awesome. Somewhere back in this pile of comments, I seem to recall one of our delusionists asserting that no one had ever directly found magma in the subsurface.

Posted by: 'Tis Himself | June 30, 2009 5:21 PM

Alan, I can appreciate having to slow down because of age. This was the first year since 1976 that I didn't participate in the Newport to Bermuda race.

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | June 30, 2009 5:30 PM

'Tis, if you've got a second can you email me? My address is listed on my blog.

Posted by: 'Tis Himself | June 30, 2009 5:59 PM

Rev, I'd be happy to send you an email but I can't find your email address on your blog. Incidentally, for some reason gmail won't let me sign in nor will it let me create a new account.

Send me an email at mikey.18@gmx.com

Posted by: Carlie | June 30, 2009 6:22 PM

****is now transfixed by Rev.'s dancing Darwin****

Posted by: Sven DiMilo | June 30, 2009 9:03 PM

if you want to see what an alligator can do to a big melon:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9xVwIuB-Xm4

Posted by: Rorschach | July 1, 2009 11:45 AM

Alan B @ 258,

And I still have to decide whether to undergo the heart stop / retart procedure in the hopes that the rhythm will go back to normal

Your heart works more efficient in "regular" mode than in the fibrillation mode it is in now , as I understand, you are currently missing out on about 20% of filling to your heart ventricles before they pump the blood out into lungs and aorta.
If there are structural changes to your heart like what's called a cardiomyopathy,or severe valve disease,it might be easier to just leave it in the current uneconomic rhythm,in all other instances you are better off to have it back in the normal rhythm.
This procedure has a low complication rate and high success rate if an Ultrasound of your heart has demonstrated no clots prior to doing it and if you have been on Warfarin for 3-6 weeks prior.

It's actually not stop/restart,it's more like " zap, let's try this again ! " You wont remember anything,and after a day or 2 you should feel much better.(The heart doesnt like being zapped,so sometimes we see what's called "stunning", where it actually feels a bit worse after the procedure, but it goes away pretty quickly)

Bottom line,if there are no contraindications and a good chance of success is expected given a otherwise normal or not very weak heart,it is worth doing.

Posted by: Sven DiMilo | July 1, 2009 11:23 PM

party's here (as always)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g9HnoRgRIwg

Posted by: SC, OM | July 1, 2009 11:36 PM

party's here (as always) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g9HnoRgRIwg

I run to that. And this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ijU3BPyN9Qk

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | July 1, 2009 11:43 PM

Looks like the party has started. Tomorrow I'll have to loop around the bottom of the lake to visit some relatives for a couple of days. Party on. I'll catch up when I return.

Posted by: Kseniya | July 1, 2009 11:51 PM

That sounds so familiar. Twas used as the them for a show on NPR, yes?

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | July 1, 2009 11:59 PM

About a town I'll be going past...

Posted by: Sven DiMilo | July 2, 2009 12:06 AM

Oh, man, Nerd...I love that tune.
Spent the summers of my youth at a lake near K-zoo. My first wife and I had a whole routine worked out...we'd sing it on car trips.
Tex Beneke with the Glen Miller Orchestra! A real pipperoo!

Posted by: Janine, OMnivore | July 2, 2009 12:12 AM

Nerd, what does the cat has to say?

Posted by: SC, OM | July 2, 2009 12:18 AM

Oh, man, Nerd...I love that tune.

I can't imagine not liking Glenn Miller.

Nerd, what does the cat has to say?

Holy cow! I remember that!

And he never said a mumblin' word!

(Would that this were true of some trolls...)

Posted by: Sven DiMilo | July 2, 2009 12:22 AM

Here's what I've actually been listening to tonight:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HHj-JjcAo3k

Posted by: The MadPanda | July 2, 2009 12:27 AM

John Morales #211

YES! I fully concur that Mister Price is indeed one of the greats. Alas, my first memories of the man came from watching Mystery! on PBS.

Rorschach #213

Probably one of the few decent casting decisions made during the entire prequel trilogy. Not too many actors could have taken those scripts and managed anything decent.

Tis Himself #219

Another excellent, excellent role! Very impressive. (Hmmm. 'Darth Saruman, the White Sith'?) Kind of like catching Sir Alec (the original Obi Wan Kenobi) in Kafka with Jeremy Irons. Or spotting James Hong in anything that doesn't involve Lo Pan. :-)

The MadPanda, FCD

Posted by: SC, OM | July 2, 2009 12:41 AM

Something completely different :

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vVaK2QXWUeM

Someone should get her a necklace... ;)

/private joke

Posted by: Sven DiMilo | July 2, 2009 12:52 AM

here's the real shit:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a_ZKCAeMQuc

Posted by: Janine, OMnivore | July 2, 2009 1:15 AM

This is not John Parr.

Posted by: Janine, OMnivore | July 2, 2009 1:28 AM

I have to toss in something Australian.

Posted by: Janine, OMnivore | July 2, 2009 1:39 AM

Rorschach, I am trying to get a co worker to listen to Sister Ray.

And everybody can kiss my ass!

That is a joke. That is the name of the band.

Posted by: Rorschach | July 2, 2009 1:51 AM

I am trying to get a co worker to listen to Sister Ray.

Back to the Lou Reed theme,I like it !

Well,have a good meal beforehand,bring some crackers,and you should be all set to listen !
Wouldnt necessarily do it with the boss though,co-worker should be ok...:-)

Posted by: Janine, OMnivore | July 2, 2009 2:01 AM

Rorschach, I will play Sister Ray for my boss before I would play this song. And it is not even Metal Machine Music.

Posted by: Janine, OMnivore | July 2, 2009 2:21 AM

Damn straight! Joe Strummer was a member of The Pogues after Shane was kicked out.

Damn but I am feeling old. I have no idea how many times I listened to London Calling back in the early to mid eighties.

I won't open letter bombs for you!

Posted by: Rorschach | July 2, 2009 2:34 AM

Hmmmm, talk about Joe Strummer !

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JVXFKOyC8jE&feature=related

Posted by: Watchman | July 2, 2009 9:50 AM

> Adios Nonino/Astor Piazzolla

Awesome.

Posted by: Alan B | July 2, 2009 2:03 PM

#269 Rorschach & #270 Sphere Coupler

Thanks for your contributions.

Initially, my heart was beating far too fast (120+ bpm from memory) and I was told this was a major contribution to the problem. The first step was to give me a beta-blocker intended to bring the bpm back to normal. Either this did not work or it was overtaken by the buildup of fluid in the lungs which is what required my hospitalisation.

This treament was continued in hospital but with the addition of digoxin and a diuretic which seemed extremely effective. The Amelopidine (spelling?) I was taking was halved (it contributed to swelling in my legs).

Once things were under control I started on warfarin to reduce the risk of clots.

The U/S showed the heart valves were fine but the L ventricle was enlarged. The atrial fibrillation was still present but BP, heart rate, fluid retention were all under control by the medication.

In this country there is an organisation called NICE (National Institute for Clinical Excellence) who review the treaments used in the NHS to counter a range of conditions to ensure the best treatment is being carried out. "Best" is defined with a significant cost benefit component (why spend a lot of money on treatments that are known to be less effective? Can we afford to pay for this treament which is only partially effective or only works with 20% of patients?).

To date my treatment appears to be in line with the guidance. In the next day or 2 I shall have a careful read of what they say and why about "zapping". My understanding from the Cardiac Specialist is that the zapping is more likely to be effective the younger you are and the shorter the period of time after the start of the atrial fibrillation. He did not consider the change to the L ventricle disbarred any attempt but I did not push this hard at the time.

I don't intend to rush into anything but at the moment I am doing better than I was before I went into hospital (couldn't be doing much worse and still alive) but not as well as, say, 6 to 12 months ago.

Thanks to those who have sent their best wishes on this thread. It is much appreciated!

Posted by: 'Tis Himself | July 2, 2009 7:21 PM

Here's one of the best parodies I've ever heard:

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

Posted by: Josh | July 2, 2009 7:30 PM

That was terrific. I love the little cameo of the KFOR truck at the end.

Posted by: Rorschach | July 3, 2009 8:53 AM

And the movie tip of the night is :

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0960098/

Teh awesom !

Posted by: Sven DiMilo | July 3, 2009 1:58 PM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cI_Sq-S5dug

Posted by: Sphere Coupler | July 3, 2009 6:33 PM

*p0ps in*

Feynmaniac | June 30, 2009 4:13 AM.......did my part way back when it was really slow and it was thought AC had left.

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_SDaBoWZN_Rk/SkRKmNO8MmI/AAAAAAAAAEg/2e5OXU8soBk/s1600-h/image001.gif
(Graph courtesy of Sven DiMilo)

Carlie | June 30, 2009 5:36 AM...........Yep

Feynmaniac | June 30, 2009 6:01 AM

John Morales | June 30, 2009 6:18 AM

been there blah blah blah

I've got the T-shirt, it's a little tight but still fits.

Anybody feel like throwing rocks?

Drum cover anyone?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AWfrpKsiv0E

*p0ps*

Posted by: John Morales | July 4, 2009 9:27 AM

This is still an open thread, right?

OK: News item about cultural diversity...

Botched circumcisions 'kill 31 teens'.

Posted by: Sven DiMilo | July 4, 2009 11:42 AM

Botched circumcisions

My life was happier before I ever read that phrase.

Posted by: 'Tis Himself | July 4, 2009 1:28 PM

Ive seen 2 boys recently who almost bled out after some middle eastern GP did a dodgy CC on them,and thats in metro Melbourne !

That's mind-boggling.

Posted by: Sphere Coupler | July 4, 2009 3:21 PM

You have those, who have independence
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I3zr8ZY5c1c&feature=related
&
those who would like it back.......from those who have it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZzC9hzLzFVY

Independence is fleeting, it's moment strong yet fades into time, it must be felt to actually occur, it must be practiced to have meaning.Independence is best when shared by all.

Posted by: Rorschach | July 5, 2009 10:52 AM

*Teary*

Our thread is dying....:-(

Posted by: Rorschach | July 5, 2009 11:13 AM

Well,Sili started it lol....

This is how it's done Alan B :

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2nsN0vdXZuY&feature=related

Posted by: Sphere Coupler | July 5, 2009 11:31 AM

'Tis Himself | July 5, 2009 10:08 AM

My sentiments too, I really should have watched the video till the end but didn't do so till I returned home from 4th festivities...It really looked like a good video and would have been without the propaganda at the end.

Now Now the thread is not dying, it's just resting( hey look is that rodger s...

Posted by: 'Tis Himself | July 5, 2009 11:38 AM

Unfortunately, with the bannination of Alan Clarke and the disappearance of his lovely assistant, RogerS, this thread has lost most of its impetus.

Posted by: SC, OM | July 5, 2009 12:37 PM

***HONDURAS UPDATE***

Here's the latest in English:

http://narcosphere.narconews.com/thefield/zelaya-doesnt-blink-two-airplanes-heading-south-today

Zelaya is on his way from Washington, accompanied by Miguel D’Escoto, president of the UN General Assembly, to be followed by another delegation made up of other Latin American presidents who are going first to San Salvador. The coupmongers are saying they won't let the plane land. Hundreds of thousands continue to arrive in the capital city, despite the militarization of the airport, including the presence of sharpshooters.

Here again is the link to live coverage from Telesur:

http://www.telesurtv.net/noticias/canal/senalenvivo.php

Very tense. Very dangerous.

Posted by: Sphere Coupler | July 5, 2009 3:14 PM

Has anyone noticed that the gathering of large bioforms(cows, bisson, humans) in the vicinity of an approaching electrical potential has a negative effect no matter the status of action or thought of the bioform?
http://www.wesh.com/news/19951366/detail.html
*sad*
People need to pay attention, and not be so distracted.

Posted by: Sili | July 5, 2009 6:43 PM

Oh, I know about getting Word to behave. And, yes, I can look up escapecodes - or just copypaste as I do now.

But I have accents on this Danish keyboard - `´^¨~ - so I can easily type é, à, ü, ô and ñ, but the bloody thing doesn't automatically combine c and ´ that way.

Posted by: Sven DiMilo | July 5, 2009 7:04 PM

ah.
Danish keyboards.
Dunno.

Posted by: 'Tis Himself | July 5, 2009 7:39 PM

Not enough bacon, Sven.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | July 5, 2009 9:08 PM

Hi all, I'm back home with the Redhead's parents in tow. My posts will likely be spotty until they leave.

Posted by: Carlie | July 6, 2009 12:55 PM

I have never figured out how they function on the Continent with only a Continental Breakfast.

I don't think there are many people who aren't located on a continent. :p

Posted by: 'Tis Himself | July 6, 2009 6:25 PM

Here's Tommy Makem singing a cheerful little song:

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

Posted by: 'Tis Himself | July 6, 2009 10:40 PM

Here's one just for you, Carlie.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HcOZ6xFxJqg&feature=rec-HM-r2

Posted by: Kobra | July 6, 2009 10:44 PM

@356: It means your system is corrupt and you should reformat your computer immediately without backing up any personal files, then jump off the nearest skyscraper.

:P

Posted by: Carlie | July 7, 2009 5:47 AM

Hee. That was one of my favorite 80s songs ever, and we were one of the first families in the neighborhood to get cable, but my parents never let me watch MTV, so the first time I ever saw the Safety Dance video was just a few months ago on one of those "weirdest videos of the 80s" roundups online.

Posted by: John Morales | July 7, 2009 7:02 AM

All this jollity is unseemly! >:{

Here's a news report from my neck of the woods:
Cop charged after church camp 'exorcism':

The Lutheran Church has confirmed a police officer has been charged with false imprisonment and aggravated assault after an alleged exorcism at a youth camp in South Australia.
[...]
The church says 260 youths attended the camp in the Barossa Valley in April.

Sigh.

Posted by: John Morales | July 7, 2009 7:48 AM

Rorschach, yeah, I saw that, but didn't find it particularly disturbing. There is no evidence (yet) the female sailors were coerced into sex.

Young, randy people in an isolated environment, with a heavily-skewed (I presume, haven't checked) gender ratio; it's not that surprising some such shenanigans went on, is it?

For me, the over-the-top cruel hazing of new recruits prevalent years ago was far more objectionable.

Posted by: Sven DiMilo | July 7, 2009 1:19 PM

The lesbians are frying your bacon now!

wow, that makes me thirsty

Posted by: Josh | July 7, 2009 5:51 PM

Hmm...only 365 comments. Could the thread be dying at last?

Nahhh...just hibernation.

Posted by: John Morales | July 7, 2009 6:58 PM

I think we should get Matthew the Seagull here, he seems like a live one.

Might last a while before getting all raggedy.

Posted by: Sili | July 7, 2009 8:03 PM

Been reading through the archives of Subnormality after the recent relinking to it in the discussion of 'The Four Horsemen'.

The Line touches upon an issue we've discussed before, and for which SC has chided some of us - deservedly.

I still recognise myself in the conformity, and I am still ashamed. Yet I don't believe that if push ever comes to shove that I'll ever change. The one time I've had to step up, I shyed (shid?) away fast. (A girl was being ... harassed by a former boyfriend and some of his friends in the yard at the school where I worked, but just 'confronting' them was not enough to scare them off, and trying to call the police didn't help since they didn't pick up. And my boss had left just minutes before. I saw the girl later, but I don't know if she was harmed in the end ...)

Posted by: Sphere Coupler | July 7, 2009 9:41 PM

Me thinks I overloaded the comment checker software.

Posted by: cicely | July 8, 2009 10:24 AM

It's the lack of creationist nutjobs. If only we could lure Grant into the thread...and if only he would respond to posts, instead of complaining that we're being mean to him....

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | July 8, 2009 10:53 AM

The bush? Around here, the prairie.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | July 8, 2009 11:27 AM

Is it reserved for YECs or can we also get some woo here?

Posted by: Kseniya | July 8, 2009 9:17 PM

Paging all proto-experiential matter clusters. Paging all proto-experiential matter clusters. The Universe is calling on line 1.

Paging all proto-experiential matter clusters. Paging all proto-experiential matter clusters. The Universe is calling on line 1.

Posted by: Owlmirror | July 8, 2009 9:37 PM

Maybe a blast from the past would help tempt Josh/Alan B to provide more rock and roll...

Back in February (see also comment #132), Alan C blarged up a weird little fantasy about aliens interpreting the carved heads on Mt. Rushmore as being the action of wind and water erosion.

Given that you are confronted with someone making such a claim, after you *facepalm* yourselves over the painful stupidity evident, how do you respond?

I know you prefer lacustrine sediments, but maybe you could granite an exception...

Posted by: Sven DiMilo | July 8, 2009 10:55 PM

The guy is comedy gold, a laff riot:

J*hn Kw*k Says: July 8th, 2009 at 8:33 pm

I concur with Chris’s assessment as to what exactly did transpire between Sheril and myself.

Posted by: Kseniya | July 8, 2009 11:10 PM

And then there's the classic Kw*k name-drop:

Ken Miller spoke a year ago last spring as part of a panel discussion at the American Museum of Natural History which was moderated by E. O. Wilson (I remember that because afterwards I shared a cab ride with Ken back to his hotel and had dinner with him.).

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | July 8, 2009 11:25 PM

For Kseniya, whose #381 reminded me of this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3WZvlCwkYjE

Posted by: Matthew Segall | July 9, 2009 12:09 AM

In response to Owlmirror's post @ 786 under "I was wondering about that":

Perhaps we can agree that evolution has endowed most social organisms with a moderate blending of both selfish and selfless tendencies. As for humans, I think our species at least has the potential to nurture the selfless aspect, not just in terms of morality, but in terms of phenomenological experience generally. Such is the goal (if there be one) of meditation for most of the practitioners I know. I of course agree that identifying with a substantial and independent self or ego is the norm for almost all human beings. This is so not only for biological, but for cultural reasons. I have a feeling that learning language has everything to do with reifying one's sense of self.

Owlmirror writes: "Demonstrate how consciousness being reducible to material and efficient causes completely negates consciousness."

To be conscious would seem to mean that one is able to act in the world as a moral agent, to make decisions, to hold ideas about the world, to plan, design, remember, imagine and so forth. If consciousness is reduced to material and efficient causes, all of the aforementioned abilities become impossible and are at best illusions (even as illusion, their epiphenomenal generation would still require explanation). The ability to make moral decisions implies a relation to final causes, just as intentionality (having ideas about the world) and design/planning imply formal causation. So I say again, reduction of consciousness to material and efficient would negate consciousness; we may as well not even talk about it (though it would be bizarre, if consciousness wasn't real, that we are able to talk at all--b/c certainly language itself works only because we use it on purpose).

Owlmirror writes, in response to the above claim: "Or, once "organized material systems" exist in a certain sufficiently complex form (viz, a functioning brain, human and possibly other than human), they can exhibit ideas and purposes as an emergent property."

I'll cross post my response to thalarctos about emergence to explain why I think this argument about emergent properties would lead to a dualism. What I write about experience in #2 holds equally for formal and final causes:

1) Emergence - There are two basic ways of approaching emergence, one epistemic (or weak) and the other ontic (or strong).

The epistemic, or weak, form of emergence holds that some systems cannot be understood adequately by reduction to their component parts because at the level of the whole system, properties arise unlike what exists at the lower level. For example, the liquidity of water is not a property of individual molecules but arises only when molecules are present in sufficient quantity. Epistemic emergence still posits that all higher level properties are fully reducible to their components; emergent properties are useful only for description of systems and have only to do with human judgment (ie, water isn't actually more than H20 molecules).

Ontic, or strong emergence, suggest that not only can complex systems not be understood by reduction to their parts, but that these systems actually possess ontologically distinct properties not arrived at by a mere summing of components. In other words, the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. An example would be a living cell, whose life distinguishes it in some irreconcilable way from the molecules which compose it. Ontic emergence wouldn't necessarily entail some kind of vital force present in living organisms that is not found in matter, but it does suggest that living systems represent an ontologically irreducible level of reality.

2) I think some systems can be adequately accounted for in terms of weak emergence. Other systems, especially living systems, can be accounted for in terms of strong emergence; however, this leads us either into mystification as to how exactly a whole acquires supervening properties not found in its parts--and therefore a species of dualism--or it forces us to reconsider the ontology of material components themselves. I prefer the latter route, re-vamping physicalism by altering several of its presuppositions. If matter is process, not substance, and is at least proto-experiential from the start, then the emergence of life and conscious human beings with interior states of mind no longer seems such an intractable problem.

Owlmirror writes about my claim that human consciousness is unique and special: "'... very special and unique sort of consciousness'? Say.... is that hidden dualism?"

I should not have said I wouldn't extend our type of consciousness to any other organism in the universe, as there very well could be other intelligent life out there (if panexperientialism is true, I'd expect the universe to be teeming with intelligent life). I believe we've got more synapses than there are stars in the observable universe (though dolphins must have more?--perhaps hands helped us augment our intelligence with external tools, whereas dolphins can only blow bubble rings and fuck for fun), so in that sense, we are unique. But no, I certainly didn't intend to imply a dualism.

Owlmirror goes on to chide my use of the word "experience" to refer to self-organizing entities that do not have nervous systems because it implies such entities can have ideas and thoughts.

I respond with: "The way I've been using the word experience is meant to be more general than your definition, and would not involve any sort of knowledge or self-reflexivity (as would be present in human consciousness). The word etymologically breaks down to "to go out of and through." When I use it to describe atoms, I mean that they are not closed monads, but 'feel' in some way the universe surrounding them."

By "feel," I mean particles aren't just "there," they aren't fully themselves at an instant. I've explained several times on the other thread that in a process ontology, all matter is more a flowing than a being. An atom is embedded in the flow of time, and so at any given moment, rather than being frozen in an instantaneous "now" just as it is, it is stretched between past and future in an ever-changing present. This is an understanding of time as duration, rather than a succession of instants. The latter is an abstraction, which I'd argue has no basis in physical reality. We use clocks to measure time that way only as a convention. "Feeling" refers to the way an atom always inherits its past and anticipates its immediate future. For such a simple (only in comparison to living organisms--atoms are extremely complex self-organizing systems in their own right) entity (perhaps better termed an "event"), the amount of the future it can feel is quite limited, and so its behavior is statistically deterministic. Atoms are extremely habitual. As matter becomes more organized, its temporal horizons increase along with its experiential potential.

For more on time as duration (a concept Henri Bergson developed and I wish he were more well-known for, rather than being mistakenly associated with vitalism, which he criticizes in much of his writing): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duration_(Bergson)

Posted by: Feynmaniac | July 9, 2009 1:00 AM

There are other possible spiritual perspectives that one could argue not only don't contradict science, but align with the scientific attitude quite well, such as Buddhism (reincarnation can be given a non-supernatural interpretation).

What are the "non-supernatural interpretations" of reincarnation?

I usually take a Jungian angle on the matter and say that the human psyche is inherently religious/mythopoeic

"Mythopoetic" maybe, but I don't think they need be religious. On the other thread you said "a civilization without a meaningful story of how the universe came to be and what the place of human beings is within it is a civilization soon to collapse". However, many nations in Europe have high levels of atheism and haven't collapsed.

Posted by: Matthew Segall | July 9, 2009 1:11 AM

@ 394 thalarctos writes: "would you agree that personal incredulity is insufficient as evidence for a positive assertion, such as the ones you are making?"

If I thought that accounting for consciousness were a strictly empirical issue, then yes, I'd agree. But because consciousness, or experience generally, is unlike any other phenomenon science might study (in that experience is itself the stage upon which phenomena appear to us in the first place), it seems we are faced with more of a conceptual knot than an empirical question. The assertion I am making about the proto-experience present in all physical processes is an attempt to solve a metaphysical, rather than a scientific problem.

thalarctos writes: "Can you explain to us what those mechanisms would be [allowing non-supernatural reincarnation], and how an observer can reliably detect the difference between actual reincarnation and delusional belief that one is reincarnated?"

Reincarnation as it is commonly understood is a paradoxical belief for a Buddhist to hold, for the simple reason that it is in conflict with the notion of non-self. Selflessness isn't a moral precept Buddha said we should try to practice; he said it was a fact anyone could discover upon close examination of their consciousness. There is no self, only a continual flow of thoughts and emotions, etc. Reincarnation would therefore not be the migration of a soul from one life to the next, but the transfer of karma into the future. If you buy that the personal ego is a false idol, then what we currently are differs in no essential way from those who will follow us after we pass away, and so what reincarnates are our karmic deeds in this life.

thalarctos writes: "Ok, so if I understand you correctly, here you're saying that an emergent entity cannot participate in an ontological domain that its parts are not already participating in, is that right?"

I would say that an emergent system can partake in a new ontological state not present in its components, but only if we are willing to adopt a dualistic ontology. I'd prefer to avoid inventing separate substances with no identifiable relation to one another, however.

Thalarctos writes: "So if I understand you correctly, here you're saying that an emergent entity can participate in an ontological domain that its parts are not already participating in, is that right?"

No, I was here referring to epistemic, not ontic, emergence. The difference, again, is that referring to epistemic emergence when describing systems is more a regulative principle of human judgment: we call a system emergent only because it is convenient for us to do so (rather than try in vain to describe the mechanics of fluids in terms of individual atoms or molecules, we can just focus on their large scale dynamics); whereas referring to ontic emergence implies not only that we can't understand the system in question in terms of its parts, but that it actually is, in reality, not reducible to its parts because it is in the possession of entirely new ontological properties or abilities.

Keep in mind that my descriptions of each type of emergence were just that, descriptions of how the terms are usually used. I wasn't arguing for or against either until #2.

thalarcos writes: "How do you resolve the contradiction between what you are calling weak emergence, and your previous assertion that emergent entities are constrained from new ontological domains?"

Again, epistemic emergence does not imply that new ontological domains have arisen.

thalarcos writes: "Do you think your description of water as nothing more than H2O molecules adequately accounts for hydrogen bonding? Why or why not, and what does your answer to that question mean for your description of epistemic emergence?"

I think it is a matter of controversy among philosophers of physics as to exactly how to answer your question, but I'll do my best. I would argue that one only needs to reference epistemic emergence to account for how H20 becomes fluid. I believe it is well understood how the weak bonds between molecules can lead to the properties of water. Epistemic emergence is a more conservative form (hence weak) of emergence that accounts well for phenomena like water, or ant colonies, or cellular automata.

thalarcos writes: "Do you see how your definition of ontic emergence already assumes what you are trying to prove? Can you restate it in your own words without doing so?"

I'm not sure I do see, but perhaps you mistakenly thought I was arguing for ontic emergence of experience? I wasn't, I was just defining it as it is normally defined in systems theory.

Posted by: Matthew Segall | July 9, 2009 1:33 AM

@ 392 Feynmaniac writes: "Accepting your definition for 'weak emergence' I don't see how this is a form of dualism. It's not saying there are two different types of substances. Only that complex systems exhibit behaviors that simple ones do not."

I argued in my post to Owlmirror about emergence that life would require strong emergence, not weak. I say this because an organism's self-producing dynamics allow it to define itself as a membrane-bound unity in relation to its environment. In standard physicalism (non-panexperientialist), this would imply that new ontological domains can emerge from what had been a soup of chemistry and physics. The organism would still be made of the same stuff, but it would exhibit telos (bacteria swim toward food, away from toxins) and presumably possess some primitive sentience allowing it to do so. This would seem to me to force us into dualism. From a panexperientialist perspective, an organism would still be an emergent system with new properties, but these properties would only involve a more complex expression of the telos and proto-experience of atoms and molecules. No duality.

Feynmaniac writes: "Thinking of living cells as molecules may not be the best way for our limited human minds to think about them, but it's in principle possible to do so."

Granting panexperientialism, I'd agree that the emergence of cellular life does not require ontic emergence. So while it would be impractical, we could imagine a cell as very complex society of molecules.

Feynmaniac writes: "What do you mean by "statistically deterministic"?"

By statistically, I should have said probabilistically.

@ 393 Feynmaniac writes: "What are the "non-supernatural interpretations" of reincarnation?"

I'll paste my response to thalarctos here, who asked the same question:

Reincarnation as it is commonly understood is a paradoxical belief for a Buddhist to hold, for the simple reason that it is in conflict with the notion of non-self. Selflessness isn't a moral precept Buddha said we should try to practice; he said it was a fact anyone could discover upon close examination of their consciousness. There is no self, only a continual flow of thoughts and emotions, etc. Reincarnation would therefore not be the migration of a soul from one life to the next, but the transfer of karma into the future. If you buy that the personal ego is a false idol, then what we currently are differs in no essential way from those who will follow us after we pass away, and so what reincarnates are our karmic deeds in this life.

Feynmaniac writes: "On the other thread you said "a civilization without a meaningful story of how the universe came to be and what the place of human beings is within it is a civilization soon to collapse". However, many nations in Europe have high levels of atheism and haven't collapsed."

Theism isn't the only way mythic structure that holds civilizations together. I think most of the developed world today is operating under some mix of the myths concocted by advertising firms that fuel consumerism and the Enlightenment ideals of perpetual industrial progress and technological triumph over nature.

Posted by: slaven | July 9, 2009 1:38 AM

To be conscious would seem to mean that one is able to act in the world as a moral agent, to make decisions, to hold ideas about the world, to plan, design, remember, imagine and so forth. If consciousness is reduced to material and efficient causes, all of the aforementioned abilities become impossible and are at best illusions (even as illusion, their epiphenomenal generation would still require explanation).

Here's the most recent example I've heard of material causes for our "moral agency". This weekend I listened to a Radio Lab episode "Stochasticity". In it, they document a woman who developed Parkinson's and could no longer produce dopamine. She was given a replacement dopamine-like drug, and was later invited to Las Vegas with her friends. She had never had an urge to gamble in her life, but when she used the slots that weekend, she felt an extreme type of high. When she got home, she would spend days without sleep completely devoted to slot machines. She sold everything she could to continue gambling, losing about $300,000 and her husband (he left her), and living off of the bare minimum cost of peanut butter and crackers. She hated it, saying she would wake up in the middle of the night screaming in angst of what she was doing, but she couldn't stop. Research has found that the dopamine system, which is involved in our movement, starts associating events with reward, and seeks to figure out the pattern. Her problem was that her brain couldn't figure it out, and it was obsessed to learn. The first studies of the drug she was on started showing that this type of behavior was common among users, and her neurologist took her off of it. She lost the urge to gamble within the next week, and hasn't gambled in the 3 years since.

Posted by: Matthew Segall | July 9, 2009 1:49 AM

RE: mythic stories to Feynmaniac:

The current dominant (and secular) mythic structure guiding our civilization may provide us with temporary (albeit extremely solipsistic and self-serving) meaning, but it is also leading us into violent conflict with Islamic civilization and with the earth. I think we need a planetary mythos based in science, but given a meaningful interpretation (ie, Gaia theory). If every human being (we might begin just with economists) on earth could at least agree on our actual physical context on this relatively tiny spaceship, I'd feel we'd have a much brighter future.

Posted by: Matthew Segall | July 9, 2009 2:01 AM

@ 400 thalarctos,

I do not know how to explain how an observer might reliably detect whether their soul has reincarnated or not. But I don't believe such reincarnation of souls or personal identity is possible. As I said, there are different ways of interpreting reincarnation. Mine was one such way.

Posted by: Matthew Segall | July 9, 2009 2:21 AM

@ 404 Slaven,

Glad to hear you're on board, even if for different reasons.

As far as molecules preferring stability, that only seems true when they are trapped in a thermodynamically closed system, no? Feed them some free energy and they don't seem so lazy anymore.

Posted by: Matthew Segall | July 9, 2009 2:23 AM

RE: Slaven,

Unless by stability you meant order, in which case I agree!

Posted by: Owlmirror | July 9, 2009 2:40 AM

Woo transplant has arrived, I hope the patient is still alive. If not, I've got woo for that, too.

LOL

----

I have a feeling that learning language has everything to do with reifying one's sense of self.

And I reiterate: many organisms without language certainly seem to have a sense of self, as do humans who have not yet learned language. Are aphasics more selfless? I don't think you can show that.

Territoriality is very primal indeed. Your suggestion that it is not is a very extraordinary claim.

That having been said, you might find this of interest. No, it does not really support your feeling, above.

  How Does Our Language Shape The Way We Think?
  http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/boroditsky09/boroditsky09_index.html

To be conscious would seem to mean that one is able to act in the world as a moral agent, to make decisions, to hold ideas about the world, to plan, design, remember, imagine and so forth. If consciousness is reduced to material and efficient causes, all of the aforementioned abilities become impossible

How do they become impossible? Why are they impossible?

You keep arguing from assertion. You need more to convince.

and are at best illusions (even as illusion, their epiphenomenal generation would still require explanation).

OK. As noted elsewhere, what's wrong with saying that we don't know but we're working on it?

"Feeling" refers to the way an atom always inherits its past and anticipates its immediate future.

Gaaah. "Anticipates". Why do you use anthropomorphic language??? How does something "anticipate" without awareness? What is it about the atom that is doing the anticipating?

Posted by: Matthew Segall | July 9, 2009 3:05 AM

@ 409 Owlmirror,

I'll give Boroditsky's page a read, sounds very interesting.

Every animal has a self-preservation instinct, but perhaps we can distinguish between such instincts and the sense of "ego" that arises in the human psyche? It seems that often times language leads human beings to assume they are some kind of homunculus somewhere inside their head. We say things like "I have a body" and take offense when people judge us based on our physique instead of our personality. Language tends to makes us feel more separate from our bodies and the world than we otherwise would, or would you disagree?

Owlmirror writes: "How do they become impossible? Why are they impossible?"

Moral agency would require that there at least be an emergent level of neural synchrony capable of exerting top down effects on the rest of the body. This would be an example of formal causation, as it breaks the linear cause-->effect mechanism that is efficient causality. I think it would require even more, though, because true moral agency implies we make choices based upon consequences, that we act with a purpose. This is by definition final causality. You can argue that moral action is an illusion because only material and efficient causes are real, or you can admit the nervous system allows us to act purposefully.

For clarification, here are Aristotle's four causes: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aristotle-causality/#FouCau

Aristotle felt all these causes implied one another, that it would make little sense to say some are illusory while others are real, as that would undermine the explanatory power of the others. They are a package deal, so to speak. Modern philosophy, with its mechanistic bent, decided it could dispose of formal and final causes at least for description of the natural world (Kant being the notable exception, who thought human reason was not capable of accounting for the "natural purposes" of living organisms the way Newton accounted for the motion of the heavens).

Owlmirror writes: "OK. As noted elsewhere, what's wrong with saying that we don't know but we're working on it?"

I admit I don't know how supervenience of mental properties on physical properties might be possible in a non-dualistic way, and I would fully acknowledge a scientific discovery which showed exactly how it was.

As for the "anticipation" of atoms, it all has to do with time as duration, rather than a series of static "nows." Because an atom is not a thing but a process spread through time, "anticipation" has to do with the fact that the future is always present with the becoming process which is the atom. The presence of the future is "anticipation."

Posted by: Matthew Segall | July 9, 2009 4:33 AM

I found a paper about visual consciousness and the brain that might be of interest. I mentioned neural synchrony as a possible explanation for our experience of ideas or formal causality above, but said I didn't think this could be the whole story. Here is part of the reason why (from p. 5, "Disambiguation, Binding, and the Unity of Visual Consciousness" by Eric LaRock at Oakland University--link below):

"If there were direct correlations between feature representations in distributed neural areas and visual experience, it would seem that visual experience would consist of an unconnected set of features minus object
unity. Normal subjects, in any case, do not visually experience objects as disunities,and so merely telling a story about the neural correlates of the distinctive feature representations of an object cannot be the complete story."

There is still a "binding problem" left to solve; that is, how is it that we experience objects in the world as unities when the brain represents them in a distributed fashion?

Here's the paper, I haven't finished it yet so I don't know how LaRock tries to solve the problem. We'll see: tap.sagepub.com/cgi/reprint/17/6/747.pdf?ck=nck

Posted by: Matthew Segall | July 9, 2009 5:29 AM

Another teaser for LaRock's paper:

Having presenteda critique of neural synchrony and attention-based approaches to object feature binding, I would now like to discuss interactive hierarchical structuralism (IHS).This view suggests that object feature binding could result from the interaction of information organized by spatial structuring capacities correlated with lower, higher, and intermediate levels of the visual hierarchy. IHS coheres with some of Lamme’s (2003) views on this issue. Like Lamme,the IHS account draws a distinction between the initial feedforward sweep of information from lower to higher levels of the processing hierarchy and the sub-
sequent feedback interactions of information between these levels. On the IHS account,a unified percept (i.e.,a feature-unified object of visual consciousness) results from the subsequent feedback interactions. A metaphysical implication
of IHS is that a unified percept is not reducible to the activity of any cognitive capacity or to any localized neural area, but emergesout of the interaction of visual information organized by spatial structuring capacities correlated with lower, higher, and intermediate levels of the visual hierarchy. This raises a crucial question.
What notion of emergence is compatible with IHS? It is important to point out that there are weak and strong notions of emergence in the philosophical
and scientific literature. This has largely to do with the diverse kinds of criteria invoked to determine whether a property is emergent. Some philosophers
who defend a weaker conception of emergence appeal to the criterion of nondeducibility to establish the emergence of consciousness, but wind up denying that consciousness,as an emergent property in relation to the brain,could produce top-down influences independent of the causal powers endemic to neural properties (cf. Varela & Thompson, 2003, pp. 274–275). After looking at a species of weak emergence, we will then examine a notion of strong emergence in order to motivate the IHS account.

Posted by: Matthew Segall | July 9, 2009 5:50 AM

Guess I picked the right paper to link, LaRock again:

"These reflections on the causal power of consciousness are compatible with the idea that the cognitive subject is not merely an efficient cause but also a formal cause(i.e.,an organizational cause), a distinction that goes all the way back to the genius of Aristotle (1941: Physics, II, 3; see also LaRock, 2002).

Posted by: John Morales | July 9, 2009 6:12 AM

Hi, Matthew. Just had dinner and got back, I did say I'd respond to you...

@ 782 John Morales: "evidence of experience in molecules",

[1] It would be extremely tough going for me to argue based upon inference from empirical evidence that molecules are experiential. [2] I don't think the mechanically-induced process of chromatography would be the place to look, though. [3] I'd point toward chemical self-organization as found in the Belousov-Zhabotinsky reaction, or other oscillating reactions. [4] I realize that the spontaneous emergence of spatial and temporal order in such thermodynamically open systems can be described perfectly well without reference to anything but molecular properties and entropy, [5] but the excitability of certain chemical mixtures does make it seem that matter is dying to come to life, [6] or less wooishly, naturally aiming toward order ([7] after all, entropy is just a description--[8] there aren't any good explanations for it other than that there was a tremendous amount of order present in the universe's first moments--unless you know of other possible explanations?). [9] Panexperientialism wouldn't necessarily add anything to the field of chemistry itself, [10] but it is not meant to; [11] rather, it is an over-arching generalization that elucidates the underlying reason for the self-organizing tendencies of a whole range of natural phenomena.

1. Subjunctive mood.
2. No empirical evidence.
3. Chemical self-organization is "evidence".
4. ... although it's already accounted for without my supposition.
5. Woo!
6. Woo!
7. ∀X:(X is just an abstraction).
8. I forget religions exist.
9. Subjunctive mood.
Not necessarily → ∃X:(X sometimes does)∨(X never does).
10. ...
11. Woo!

Posted by: John Morales | July 9, 2009 6:27 AM

Matthew:

Didn't mean to tell your story for you, quite sorry.

Story?

Please paraphrase what I wrote, in your own words, as you understand me, and I shall address your misapprehension.
Because I thought I'd just told you I don't have a "life narrative", that I just live life and don't need a justification for it. We're not all Walter Mittys, you know.

Is it that you reckon you know me better than I know myself, or was I really unclear, or do you superciliously suggest you disbelieve me?

We all have kidneys, but we don't all have "life narratives", certainly not in any mythopoeic sense.
Unless I'm somehow special and unique; the which I mightily doubt given the (heuristic) law of mediocrity.

(Call me a philistine, if you like.)

Posted by: John Morales | July 9, 2009 6:58 AM

Um. Is a planetary mythos anything like a cultural epic?

(Or have I just played too much Civ4? ;) )

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | July 9, 2009 8:17 AM

Josh, Matthew has been very big on allegations and descriptions, but very short on verifiable details. Or how to prove what he says. The philosophical woooo is very strong in this one.

Matthew, this blog uses html tags for formatting. If you want to quote somebody, try [blockquote]material you are citing[/blockquote], where the square brackets are replaced by the pointy brackets (shift comma and shift period on standard keyboard). That allows you to do this:

Josh:

Can someone remind me where in the last thread the obvious question was asked: "how does one explain how an observer might reliably detect a soul?"

Posted by: SC, OM | July 9, 2009 9:03 AM

http://www.theness.com/neurologicablog/?p=309

***

Why is there so much order, harmony, and creativity?

Why is there so much chaos, death, and destruction?

Your attempt to be more precise with your definitions of these terms can be reduced to: "Why is there something rather than nothing? Why is there life? How does anything new come about?" Interesting questions, all. You've provided nothing in response, and don't appear to be on the road to doing so.

Posted by: Dania | July 9, 2009 11:01 AM

Matthew, #778 (from the I was wondering thread):

How would you define behavior if not as I have?

Your definition of behavior: the movement of a body as seen from the outside. I would say something more along the lines of action or reaction of a body in response to internal or external stimuli. But I don't think that matters to our discussion.

So so long as we see the limits of the empirical method (or rather, so long as it remains a method and isn't ontologized), there is no need to "prove" that others are sentient just as we are.

Fair enough. We can't empirically prove it, and we don't need to. But there is good evidence to accept that certain organisms are sentient while others are not. We know what's responsible for our feelings and emotions - the nervous system. So I think it is reasonable to say that an organism which lacks a nervous system doesn't feel. Although, at this point, I'm so confused by your use of words that I have no idea what you understand by the word "feel" in the context of this discussion anymore...

In the case of hydra, to my knowledge they do possess a very simple nerve net and are the predators of other microorganisms. This, like the movement of a bacterium up a sucrose gradient, is evidence I use to infer experience is present. A source of food illicit the feeling of "yum."

Feeling? How do bacteria feel? Sure, they react to external stimuli. They receive information from their environment when a certain substance binds to some specific receptors in their cell membranes, which causes a series of complex reactions inside the cell leading to a response from the bacteria. But having no nervous system, how can you say they feel in any meaningful sense of the word?

Plants are easy to deny experience to because they are so sedentary, but sunflowers, for instance, will pan across the sky during the course of the day to follow the sun. As primitive as the experience therein may be, I'd again argue that solar food = "yum."

Yes, plants do have impressive nastic and tropic movements. But I don't understand how you conclude that plants sense anything at all from that observation.

Whitehead once remarked that if survival was all nature was interested in, it would have remained rocks.

Why should nature be "interested" in anything? Are you anthropomorphizing again, or are you going to redefine that word to mean whatever you want it to mean?

I argue that survival implies the "jouissance" of experience*, not simply the barren endurance of empty existence.

Another empty statement. What does that mean, and why do you believe it?

So while I'd love to be able to provide evidence for my case, the fact that empiricism has been mistaken for a metaphysics instead of a method (such that only empirical evidence counts as evidence) makes such presentation on my part impossible.

Ok, you admitted that you cannot present evidence for your case. Now, explain why you think we should give any credit to your blind speculations if you cannot use evidence or logic to persuade us.

Posted by: Paul | July 9, 2009 2:34 PM

Say it ain't so.

This thread won't die, not on my watch.

Posted by: Paul | July 9, 2009 2:39 PM

First post ever here and it's a double. D'oh! If only all of my drinks were such, I'd be in better spirits.

Posted by: Alan B | July 9, 2009 3:56 PM

Re: #425

Sorry, folks. I have never used html tags for formatting. This is a test. If it works, I'll try to use it more often.

Sorry, folks. I have never used html tags for formatting. This is a test. If it works, I'll try to use it more often.

The Preview seems to suggest it works: I'll post ...

Posted by: Alan B | July 9, 2009 5:16 PM

#435 Well, that seems to have worked.

Can anyone help with a query ...

I am currently on Internet Explorer 8 (8.0.6001) - you know, the one that has had all the previous IE problems sorted out!
Does anyone know of any Add-ons I can use to help with html tags?
(If you think I'm lightyears behind - I congratulate you on your perspicacity. I'm trying to play catch-up.)

Posted by: John Morales | July 9, 2009 5:48 PM

Thalarctos,

so although it came across as ecphonesis, my intent was anything but that.

You're kinder than I am; and I stand corrected.

Posted by: 'Tis Himself | July 9, 2009 7:03 PM

All your base are belong to us.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qE6emvdmg-M

Posted by: Dianne | July 9, 2009 7:47 PM

Well, if there aren't any creationists around to keep the thread alive we could argue about other things. I don't think the Pharyngula regulars are in perfect harmonious agreement on abortion and animal rights, for example.

Posted by: SC, OM | July 9, 2009 7:59 PM

Greatly enjoyed reading Novella's blog, thanks for that.

You're welcome.

I think Dennett mischaracterizes those who take the hard problem seriously [this appears to be a varied group] by analogizing it to vitalism. We don't need to suppose consciousness is some extra stuff above and beyond brain dynamics;

I see that/how you differ from property dualists, but that's, um, immaterial.

the question is how brain "functions" (as Dennett and other functionalists refer to neural processes) become experiential, and also why they should need to be at all. Why can't the brain function without being aware that it is functioning, like the heart or kidneys?

You've simply asked more questions (or repeated the same ones). You haven't provided any substantive data, explanation of why this question/problem is in a qualitatively separate category, or offered an explication and defense of the methods you've used to arrive at your "answers." Unless and until you do so, I don't see how this conversation can proceed.

Posted by: Josh | July 9, 2009 8:00 PM

*puzzled look*

No. No. That can't be right.

No abortions for anyone!

*crosses arms*

Posted by: 'Tis Himself | July 9, 2009 8:03 PM

Abortions for all!

I don't think I'm properly equipped to have an abortion. But thanks anyway.

Posted by: Lynna | July 9, 2009 8:07 PM

'Tis Himself @440:

The philosophers have arrived! Grab the women and children bacon and lesbians and run for your lives.

ha! LOL. But, "children bacon" ?? Ah, well, to each his own.

It's not possible to be off-topic in this thread, so here's a quote from Michael Chabon's article "Manhood for Amateurs: The Wilderness of Children" (July 16, 2009, The New York Review):

Art is a form of exploration, of sailing off into the unknown alone, heading for those unmarked places on the map. If children are not permitted--not taught--to be adventurers and explorers as children, what will become of the world of adventure, of stories, of literature itself?

And wildly veering to another topic, I hear that North Korean is sending out Denial of Service attacks again against various U.S. Government websites. Do we have some expertise here on Pharyngula that could make some suggestions?

Posted by: Lynna | July 9, 2009 8:19 PM

I'm having a discussion with myself. Isaiah Berlin writing about "thinking that unhappiness is happiness and torture is normal" (see comment #452) reminds me of Christopher Hitchens's comments to an interviewer from Walrus:

There is a strong incentive to say, the more faith I have, the happier I am. But compared to what? If a Japanese person says, “The more I believe in the emperor, the happier I am. After all, he is god, and everything I have comes from him.”

Also wondering how many of my Mormon friends pretend that unhappiness is happiness? Prozac-use stats for Utah are telling.

Posted by: Lynna | July 9, 2009 8:27 PM

How about postmodernism as a topic? That should be as incendiary as philosophy...but it would put us all to sleep before our time. Here's Geoff Dyer on literary academe in "Out of Sheer Rage" (he's reading a postmodernist critique of/on D.H. Lawrence):

I could feel myself getting angry and then I flicked through the introductory essay on "Radical Indeterminacy: a post-modern Lawrence" and became angrier still. How could it have happened? How could these people with no feeling for literature have ended up teaching it, writing about it?... I kept looking at this group of wankers huddled in a circle, backs turned to the world so that no one would see them pulling each other off. ... Then I looked around for the means to destroy his vile, filthy book. In the end it took a whole box of matches and some risk of personal injury before I succeeded in deconstructing it.

Posted by: Sili | July 9, 2009 8:35 PM

As I noted to someone else, I was simply imitating the sardonic humor used by a former teacher of mine, a certain well known Irish-American memoirist.[my emphasis]

He just can't help it, can he?

I've been reading Russell's History of Western Philosophy for the last month or so (yes, my mind has turned to brick over the years), and so far I haven't discovered anything positive about philosophy. I do love the snark, though. (And only now, wikipeeking the title, do I discover that BR got a Nobel in literature ...)

If you wan't controvorsy, I think circumcision is cause for more vituperance than abortions and vegetarianism. But we've been over that subject in threads past.

Now, if you'll excuse me, I think I'll go get a bedtime snack of pre-born baby prepuces.

Posted by: cicely | July 9, 2009 8:57 PM

I contend that animals should be allowed to have abortions in cases of rape, incest, and to save the life of the dam.

Posted by: Matthew Segall | July 9, 2009 9:06 PM

@ 445 SC,

You haven't provided any substantive data, explanation of why this question/problem is in a qualitatively separate category, or offered an explication and defense of the methods you've used to arrive at your "answers."

Would you argue that a functionally equivalent replica of a human brain would be conscious? Functionalists argue that the medium matters not at all, that a sufficiently powerful silicon computer could possess phenomenal consciousness just like you or I (ie, biology/nervous system is not required for experience). This is because the functional role that a particular neural group plays is equated with the conscious state associated with it. You already know my position, and I cannot provide empirical evidence for it, as I've already said above, because it is a metaphysical reinterpretation of the empirical evidence already known by everyone. I can only point out that the functionalist approach hardly elucidates the relationship between the brain and consciousness. For instance, let's grant that a function is the same as an experiential state, what then distinguishes between the functional states we can be conscious of (like visual objects) and the functional states we cannot (most of neural activity is entirely unconscious)?

Posted by: SC, OM | July 9, 2009 9:19 PM

...You already know my position, and I cannot provide empirical evidence for it, as I've already said above, because it is a metaphysical reinterpretation of the empirical evidence already known by everyone...

This, along with the rest of your post, is nonresponsive drivel. You're verbose and tiresome, Matthew.

My advice to you is to put someone on your committee who thinks your ideas are bogus and silly.

Posted by: 'Tis Himself | July 9, 2009 10:31 PM

How about postmodernism as a topic? That should be as incendiary as philosophy...but it would put us all to sleep before our time.

Noam Chomsky criticized postmodernism as meaningless because it adds nothing to analytical or empirical knowledge. He asked why postmodernist intellectuals won't respond as "people in physics, math, biology, linguistics, and other fields are happy to do when someone asks them, seriously, what are the principles of their theories, on what evidence are they based, what do they explain that wasn't already obvious, etc? These are fair requests for anyone to make. If they can't be met, then I'd suggest recourse to Hume's advice in similar circumstances: to the flames."

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | July 9, 2009 10:35 PM

Matthew, your speculation is just mental masturbation if it isn't backed up by reality. You need to show that it is backed up by reality. That's what separates true (useful) philosophy from sophism. Not just a piece of evidence here or there, but in near totality.

Posted by: Matthew Segall | July 9, 2009 10:43 PM

Nerd,

I'll repost my attempt to reference evidence (for the 3rd time, to no response)

from #434:

I'd be interested to know what anyone here thinks the implications of empirically verified top-down causality due to emergent neural synchrony in the brain are...

Link to paper discussing this (as pasted @413 to no response). tap.sagepub.com/cgi/reprint/17/6/747.pdf?ck=nck

The evidence also suggests that consciousness having causal powers (formal causality) is the only explanation for neural binding (ie, what makes the properties of the objects in our visual field appear unified in visual consciousness when the regions of brain representation associated with them are distributed in space and time).

Where might top-down causal power come from? From a standard physicalist perspective, this would definitely require strong (or ontic) emergence. Does this force at least a causal dualism upon any physicalist account (ie, that there are efficient and formal causes associated with material processes)?

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | July 9, 2009 10:55 PM

A link to anything but the peer reviewed primary scientific literature is not considered evidence. That makes it real. Linkage to more mental masturbation doesn't. That is my point...

Posted by: 'Tis Himself | July 9, 2009 11:12 PM

(Or have I just played too much Civ4? ;) )

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tmut6FBx4xk&feature=related

Yeah, it's the Lord's Prayer, but it's a great song. And how many of us are fluent in Swahili?

Posted by: Matthew Segall | July 10, 2009 12:47 AM

@ 464,

Phenomenology is relevant to explaining biological individuals.

You, on the other hand, when confronted with something you can explain, instead of finding out about receptors and signal cascades, make up just so stories to explain it.

When a plant grows toward a light source, is this best explained by;
a)Some inexplicable desire on the part of the plant("Yum").
b)Auxin.

Can living organisms, especially when you factor in their emergent phenomenology, be explained in terms of molecular motion? What is a "signal" or a "receptor" if not a felt experience?

Posted by: Feynmaniac | July 10, 2009 1:54 AM

I would argue story-telling isn't just something we enjoy, it is the very basis of culture.

I didn't mean to suggest story-telling was only done because it was enjoyed, but looking back I can see how it read like that.

So long as you're using language to convey the information, this seems unavoidable to me.

I think you are overgeneralizing. Information is conveyed all the time in math, science and many other fields without resorting to "story-telling".

I think human consciousness is evolving.....I'll link you to the wiki of a cultural historian named Jean Gebser who has a very insightful way of describing the various mutations in consciousness

I'll take a look, but I'm very skeptical about the idea that "human consciousness is evolving". Sure culture, modes of thinking, lifestyle, etc. have changed but I'm not sure consciousness has.

our rationality hasn't transcended its mythic foundations by any stretch of the imagination

How are you using the word "myth"? Are you using the popular meaning "a traditional but unfounded story" or in some much more general sense? Please define how you are using it.

Posted by: Matthew Segall | July 10, 2009 2:16 AM

*A myth is an image in terms of which the human being understands itself in relation to the universe.

Posted by: John Morales | July 10, 2009 4:24 AM

Himself @473, Wow! I'm flabbergasted!

Yeah, I'm intimately familiar with that tune but never followed it up — The Lord's Prayer, eh? I thought it was some traditional tune.

Anyway, I'm no Holbach.
I still think it's groovy and like it a lot.

--

Feynmaniac @466,

Are you moping around the house, unhappily muttering "It's too crowded" too?

Heh, that would by my monk character in NWN ("My backpack is too heavy!"). The wife got sick of it (I don't blame her, either).

Posted by: John Morales | July 10, 2009 4:35 AM

Matthew @469:

I'll repost my attempt to reference evidence (for the 3rd time, to no response)

from #434:

I'd be interested to know what anyone here thinks the implications of empirically verified top-down causality due to emergent neural synchrony in the brain are...

Let me reiterate what I wrote on the other thread:
"Matthew, to clarify my previous, I feel I should add that I (and many other commenters here) will happily address your own arguments and contentions, but don't tend to do likewise for those who argue from others' authority.
Instead, I tend to just point out that's what they're doing."

You're not offering evidence for a claim, you're asking for opinions on a paper you haven't even finished reading!

Posted by: John Morales | July 10, 2009 8:11 AM

Matthew, you've admitted your science knowledge is from pop science; have you yet admitted your understanding of logic is of a similar quality?

I've made (at least one) very clear and very basic error(s) @419(#9); you haven't mentioned that yet, though you've made more than one comment since.

I await your response.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | July 10, 2009 8:15 AM

(Hint: philosophy won't help you understand signal transduction.)

Posted by: John Morales | July 10, 2009 9:10 AM

Dianne, it's very right-wing, but I like to read The strategy page.

Posted by: Malcolm | July 10, 2009 9:57 AM

Matthew,
I simple challenge for you:
Explain the relationship between MAPK,MAPKK,MAPKKK and "felt experience."
Until you do, everything you say is just blather.

Posted by: Alan B | July 10, 2009 1:04 PM

I am getting together some material on Neptunean Dykes/Dikes with examples from the UK. Possibly later this evening my time (currently 18.00 BST).

Posted by: 'Tis Himself | July 10, 2009 1:18 PM

Rorschach,

I don't know about Oz, but in Britain and Canada, prisoners are held "at Her Majesty's pleasure". Talking to court officials with one's lawyer present is often a precursor to incarceration.

Posted by: Matthew Segall | July 10, 2009 2:45 PM

I think it's about time to call it quits. I've learned I need to study field equations and the details of intracellular molecular processes before scientists will take my philosophical conjectures about nature as a whole seriously. I would recommend to any one interested in thinking about the meaning of biology from a philosophical angle a book by Hans Jonas called "The Phenomenon of Life: Toward a Philosophical Biology."

http://books.google.com/books?id=F2seCz7wmfQC&dq=the+phenomenon+of+life+jonas&printsec=frontcover&source=bn&hl=en&ei=N4xXSsqPIsuLtgeFmMjdCg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4

Posted by: Dania | July 10, 2009 3:02 PM

The organism is able to distinguish differences by interpreting various molecular cascades as signs. In other words, it feels their meaning and responds accordingly.

Translation[Apologies to Owlmirror, but I couldn't resist]: No, Dania, I have no idea what's going on inside a cell when a extracellular signaling molecule binds to a cell-surface receptor and how the subsequent chemical reactions make the cell respond to the stimulus. But if you thought that would stop me from spouting more woo... you were wrong!!!

________________

Seriously Matthew,

Posted by: Matthew Segall | July 10, 2009 3:33 PM

Dania,

I am willing to learn and hope to spend the rest of my intellectually-able life doing so. My rantings here have been driven primarily by ethical concerns, not scientific ones. Science investigates nature (including its physical, living, and human manifestations) without considering its meaning, purpose, or value. This is acceptable as a method, as a heuristic; but sometimes it is forgotten that such methodological assumptions are superposed on nature. My talk of "feelings" and "creativity" is an attempt to reawaken a sense of nature prior to the flattening that scientific analysis of it requires. As misguided and uneducated as many Creationists and religious-types are, they are right to protest against the positivist attitude they detect in many scientific claims concerning the nature of nature.

Posted by: Matthew Segall | July 10, 2009 4:07 PM

Stu,

They do not apply to laboratory analysis, but they certainly apply to any coherent philosophy of the whole of nature. Human consciousness is not a metaphysical anomaly standing above and beyond a purposeless natural world; we're part of the same process of becoming. Our purposes and meanings are derived from the natural processes which produced us.

Posted by: Matthew Segall | July 10, 2009 4:21 PM

Seeing the processes of nature in light of the unbroken continuum connecting them to our own human consciousness doesn't mean that everything is intended. Nature is full of conflicting desires. It's not always cut and dry; certainly not always a matter of good and evil. I wouldn't pretend otherwise.

Posted by: thalarctos | July 10, 2009 4:25 PM

My point is that you don't yet have any rigorous way to distinguish among them, and so you cannot rule out the examples I quoted, except by deploying special pleading.

I hope that that will change as you learn more.

Good luck on your quest.

Posted by: Dania | July 10, 2009 4:33 PM

Matthew,

The problem is that you ended up making scientific claims about matter and living beings. I don't agree with your ethical concerns with respect to materialism and how it will affect our civilization, but even if I did... you can't argue from consequences when you're trying to understand the universe. The possible consequences of materialism say nothing about universe's nature. And you can't discover anything about the universe only by speculation. That's my problem with your panexperimentalism.

Still, it was good to have this debate with you*. I actually learned some new things, and I confess it was the first time I had a conversation with a panexperimentalist. But I still find your beliefs kind of odd. :) Maybe you want to come back to this discussion later... For now, I'm glad to hear you recognize that you need to go study some science before we will take your ideas seriously. Good luck, Matthew.

*Sorry if my #499 comment sounded too snarky, but I got annoyed when you said 'I got that' to show some sentences later that you really did not.

Posted by: Nicola Tesla | July 10, 2009 5:00 PM

Imaginative speculation has always been behind scientific advancement. It's too bad scientists and philosophers seem not to get along.

Posted by: Jadehawk, OM | July 10, 2009 5:28 PM

with Matthew and Walton, I have become convinced that people should be banned from studying any philosophy before they've been sufficiently educated in the FACTS of whatever it is they want to philosophize about.

fucking sophistic airheads...

Posted by: Kel, OM | July 10, 2009 7:58 PM

Has Matthew shown evidence for his position yet? Or does he still think that unknowns are enough to put a nebulous metaphysics over reality that just happens to coincide with his anthropic pattern-matching?

Posted by: Kseniya | July 10, 2009 8:40 PM

don’t do a very good job in name dropping. Myers excels at it

Wow. Denial, projection, blah blah blah. Interesting fellow, this Kwok.

Posted by: Kel, OM | July 10, 2009 8:50 PM

That is, what is the relationship between physical and spiritual energy?

We might start trying to answer this question by comparing gravity and love. Gravity is the physical equivalent of love, giving matter an attraction to itself.

A couple of years back, I went to a music festival wearing my "Guns don't kill people, kids who play videogames kill people" t-shirt. The hippy lady serving me orange juice told me that she agreed with the shirt, adding that when one kills in a video games it sends negativity throughout the universe and that causes people to kill.

One of my Mum's friends believed in absolute love, to the point that if you went up to a crocodile it would not eat you because it recognised the love you brought with it. Even my "spiritual healing" mother thought that was a bit crazy.

And people wonder why I'm so vocal in my scepticism...

Posted by: Kseniya | July 10, 2009 8:53 PM

...giving matter an attraction to itself.

Which is not even true. Mr. Newton, meet Mr. Einstein.

Posted by: 'Tis Himself | July 10, 2009 9:08 PM

Jadehawk #513

with Matthew and Walton, I have become convinced that people should be banned from studying any philosophy before they've been sufficiently educated in the FACTS of whatever it is they want to philosophize about.

Both Matthew and Walton are quite naive.

Walton has been protected from the real world, as a result he doesn't know what real people have to do to survive, especially when times get hard. He's against the social safety net because neither he nor anyone he knows has ever had to use it. He's doesn't know what it's like to live paycheck to paycheck. He's never been in the position of having to chose what to buy this week, food or medicine. As a result, he just doesn't know what effect his ideology would have in real world situations.

Matthew's situation is different. He rhapsodizes philosophically about feelings and creativity and how cold, hard science needs to evaluate the anthropomorphic consequences of what it's studying. It's an almost reasonable tack to take, except that Matthew's knowledge of science doesn't support his philosophical meanderings.

Posted by: bastion of sass | July 10, 2009 9:28 PM

OK. I've tried to follow Matthew Segall's comments as much as I could--that is, until my eyes glazed over and my brain went numb.

I must say that I've been reading Pharyngula for well over a year now, and I don't recall a thread in which so many sensible comments were posted by so many excellent commenters in response to someone who wasted thousands of words to say nothing of any consequence.

My summation of Matthew: "Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah."

Posted by: Kseniya | July 10, 2009 9:40 PM

I don't recall a thread in which so many sensible comments were posted by so many excellent commenters in response to someone who wasted thousands of words to say nothing of any consequence.

I agree. So how do we square this observation with the well-known fact that this blog is dominated by childish and vulgar PZ fanboiz? ;-)

Posted by: bastion of sass | July 10, 2009 10:01 PM

Kseniya @ 527:

So how do we square this observation with the well-known fact that this blog is dominated by childish and vulgar PZ fanboiz?

Only a fucking, idiotic, worthless, stinky, poopie-headed asshole could post such a sucky and mean lie about the commenters here!

I am not a boi!

Posted by: Kseniya | July 10, 2009 10:27 PM

Bastion of Sass @ #528

*nod*

Read my #783 and #785 here.

Bastion of Sass @ #529

LOL!

I am not a boi!

No.... Me neither.... *g*

Posted by: Bernie | July 10, 2009 10:45 PM

Not that I am taking Matthew's side, but choosing Pauli as the source of a rebuttal is strange considering his own bizarre beliefs concerning the connection between quantum physics and psychology.

Posted by: 'Tis Himself | July 11, 2009 12:45 AM

Bastion,

Don't complain to us about not being a boi. It was one of Chris Mooney's minions who described each and every one here of being a PZ fanboi.

Posted by: John Morales | July 11, 2009 3:25 AM

Bernie @533,

choosing Pauli as the source of a rebuttal is strange considering his own bizarre beliefs concerning the connection between quantum physics and psychology.

I think you've misunderstood me; it was not a rebuttal, but an expression of my sentiment after engaging Matthew.

Because I knowingly borrowed someone else's felicitous phrasing, it would've been plagiarism for me not to acknowledge its source — plagiarism is frowned upon by honest people.

Furthermore, I was not borrowing Pauli's authority, such as it may be — I was giving credit where credit is due.

Additionally, to dismiss Pauli's sentiment here based on its source would be an instance of the genetic fallacy.
I try to avoid such, when I can.

Posted by: Bernie | July 11, 2009 3:48 AM

That's fair, John Morales.

As a slightly unrelated follow-up to you, or anyone else here, the ad at the top of this page by Seed Magazine asked about C. P. Snow's "two cultures, " and linked to a video series they've done asking if such a gap still exists between the sciences and humanities. http://seedmagazine.com/twocultures/

Might their be a relation to the disconnect displayed wonderfully on this thread between unfalsifiable woo and what is understood to qualify as scientifically evidenced fact? Perhaps the mission of science is not only to dispel religious, but to reshape the way research is done in the humanities as well?

Posted by: Ken Wilber | July 11, 2009 3:54 AM

John Morales has directed me here from another thread, so I'll re-post my submission there.

Fox @ 103 (from The Power of Nonsense): "...there is no philosophical basis upon which a religious person can communicate with an atheistic mentality..."

And that, unfortunately, is why the current tactics of both sides will continue to fail.

Philosophically speaking, neither scientific materialism nor Judeo-Christian supernaturalism are fully self-contained, complete ontologies (at least not without being self-contradictory). The former assails anthropomorphism only to end up undermining itself by settling for merely descriptive knowledge of nature; while the latter shuts its eyes to the realities of nature for the promise of an afterlife less morally demanding than earth.

I think the reason atheists and religious people only throw words past one another in attempted conversations is that each makes a different a priori assumption. The skeptical, scientifically-minded atheist has already decided that purpose (as in final causality) is a mere human contrivance having nothing to do with the inner workings of the universe. The religious person, on the other hand, finds the question "why?" among the most important and vital a human being can ask. Of course, the atheist wouldn't necessarily disagree, many claiming to be in awe of nature and of the scientific method's ability to shed light on its mechanisms. However, this is to misunderstand what the religious mean when they ask why. The atheist assumes it is equivalent to a "how" question, to the sort of thing one can theorize about and run experiments to test. Asking "why" in the religious sense is a more practical, existential concern: not "why do clouds form?" but "Why am I here?" or "Why is there a universe at all?" or "Why ought I to be good?" You don't have to be religious to wonder about these questions, but for the more skeptical mentality of the atheist, for fear of anthropocentrism, such contemplation is reduced to a merely subjective fantasy having nothing at all to do with how the external world of neutral, physical law operates. This skepticism, of course, is what forced science either to accept the dualistic Kantian handicap (neutering it from any positive claims against the plausibility of religious ideals--think NOMA) or the Humean absurdity (that so-called physical causality is but a useful fiction). Scientific materialism, with its denial of all telos in nature, ends in self-contradiction, as it can not then justify its own use of reason (the brain being part of a contingently evolved animal) or the doctrine of necessary connection (b/c there is no purely empirical evidence for causality). Judeo-Christian religious belief rightly acknowledges the necessity of real purpose for coherent life, but instead of finding purpose where it should (immanent in natural processes), it imagines it to be imposed by a favored transcendent deity.

What we all need (atheists, agnostics, Jews, Christians, Muslims, Buddhists, etc.) is a new mode of discourse, a new way of talking about the issues at stake (namely our shared fate as earthlings on this warming planet in the midst of mass extinction) that doesn't involve any of the aforementioned narrow presuppositions.

Posted by: Ken Wilber | July 11, 2009 4:36 AM

Kel,

I wonder, do you think science precludes natural (immanent) purposes in nature as a matter of course, or does it discover empirically that no such telos exists, or is it that methodological naturalism just doesn't ask questions that intersect with the issue of finality?

I notice that anthropomorphism has already been discussed on this thread, and that is precisely the issue I wish to raise. If science really takes the ban on anthropomorphic reasoning to its logical conclusion, there is no evidence to suggest our reasoning or perception has anything whatsoever to tell us about how the universe works independent of our human minds and their technological extensions.

The runaway anthropomorphism of religion is not the answer to this problem. Childish projection doesn't make our understanding of the world any more secure.

Perhaps we can discuss another way forward that would allow actual dialogue between skeptical atheists and religious adherents, because all I've read on this blog so far are ad hominem attacks lobbed back and forth across no-man's land. Perhaps the middle ground nobody here seems dare tread isn't so dangerous, after all.

Posted by: John Morales | July 11, 2009 5:07 AM

Ken writes

My worry is that putting a materialistic metaphysical spin on science necessarily makes the "why?" questions trivial and unreal in comparison to the hard facts demonstrating "how?"

As I recently wrote:
"That science assumes certain metaphysical premises is not in question, but these are both necessary and parsimonious.

Basically, those assumptions are that there is an external reality, and that it is consistent, and that only the senses can convey information about that reality. No more."

How is that materialistic?

I do hope you'll respond to my previous re 'how' and 'why'.

Posted by: Kel, OM | July 11, 2009 5:25 AM

I wonder, do you think science precludes natural (immanent) purposes in nature as a matter of course, or does it discover empirically that no such telos exists, or is it that methodological naturalism just doesn't ask questions that intersect with the issue of finality?

It could be that I'm wrong, that I'm making a type II categorical error in thinking - that is rejecting a truth. But in terms of parsimony, that the universe is made for me seems far less parsimonious than me being a product of the universe.

I notice that anthropomorphism has already been discussed on this thread, and that is precisely the issue I wish to raise. If science really t