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: cicely (Inadvertent Phytocidal Maniac) | June 26, 2009 9:56 AM

Which is better, bacon or sex?

Good bacon is better than bad sex; good sex is better than bad bacon.

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

It hurtsss ussss! It hurts us forever!

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: Variation exists in all populations. Some of that variation is heritable. Base pair sequences are encoded in a set of self-replicating molecules that form templates for making proteins. 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. 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. These recombinations and errors produce a tendency for successively increasing genetic divergence radiating outward from the initial state of the population.

SELECTION: 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. 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. 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". Migration of individuals from one population to another can lead to changes in the relative frequencies of alleles in the "recipient" population.

SPECIATION: 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. 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: The combination of these effects tends to increase diversity of initially similar life forms over time. 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, Quel Dommage | 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, Quel Dommage | 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, Quel Dommage | June 28, 2009 6:18 AM

Rev BDC,

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

Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage | 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, Quel Dommage | 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, Quel Dommage | 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, Quel Dommage | 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, Quel Dommage | 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, Quel Dommage | 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, Quel Dommage | 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, Quel Dommage | 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, Quel Dommage | 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, Quel Dommage | 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 (Inadvertent Phytocidal Maniac) | 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, Quel Dommage | 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, Quel Dommage | 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 (Inadvertent Phytocidal Maniac) | 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, Quel Dommage | 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, Quel Dommage | 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, Quel Dommage | 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, Quel Dommage | 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, Quel Dommage | 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 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.

Beyond all else, science has shown itself to be ultimately successful because it largely takes away that anthropic reasoning. Each foray into the unknown is a personal anthropic interpretation, but ultimately when I sit at a computer with a better mathematical capability than the whole human race combined. Recently I flew halfway across the world at 12,000m in a big hunk of metal. A computer and an aeroplane both work because the process that made them is as objective as it possibly can be.

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.

This ultimately touches on things personal, so of course it is going to get heated. I try my best to be impersonal about the situation, though that usually comes with cries of arrogance. But ultimately, when someone has a huge track record of inanity, what else can you do but ridicule them? Especially when some of these people are coming in with philosophical "gotcha" type arguments, where they aren't interested in doing anything more than showing they have an intellectual position where their worldview doesn't have a deficiency that your worldview does. That there are those who use assertions in place of evidence, and go out of their way to stick in apologetics as opposed to playing in the field of reality.

This is partly why I find I have developed disdain for this whole discussion. For me the question is simple: is there any evidence to support your position? If the answer is no, then I'm not interested. I don't want to hear special pleading as to why they don't need evidence, I don't want to see people attack "materialism" as if it follows that materialism is flawed then their worldview wins, I don't want to have to explain for the upteenth time that morality is a social construct and that absolute morality is silly.

Everything has been said before, I don't get why this tries to stay on the philosophical level and the same arguments get repeated ad nauseum as if somehow we've neglected the "ultimate" thing that demonstrates God. Is that the reason they believe? I'm willing to bet that the argument didn't convince them of god, rather that it is a rationalisation of a belief that they got another way. Maybe it was childhood indoctrination, maybe it was the notion that the resurrection was historical, maybe they received help from the community, maybe it just made them feel significant - I don't know. But I'm betting that none of the arguments I've ever seen put forth by theists to intellectually defend their position are the reason they believe.

And the whole masquerade is exposed there. Behind the mask there's scared faces hiding behind what they know is untenable. Otherwise they'd be open and honest about their position. For me, I talk about the reasons I "know" there is no God. I put my non-belief on the line every time I bring them up. I have nothing to hide, and I'm more than happy to be shown that my arguments are bad or that I'm mistaken.

At the end of the day, all I have is my honesty. I'm fallible, I don't know everything, but I do feel I have good reasons for the positions I take on most things. I'm not scared of being wrong because I am human. And I don't appreciate those who work on "gotcha" arguments because it feels so dishonest.

Posted by: Ken Wilber | July 11, 2009 6:05 AM

John,

Isn't an ontology essentially a descriptive categorisation of what is or can be?

Ontology, unless we've given up on it, would seem to me to be a mode of discourse concerned with giving explanations for being/s (that is, we want to know what beings really are, not just how they appear). This hinges on the semantic subtleties we want to use when distinguishing description from explanation, if we want to distinguish them at all. I think there are plenty of reasons to discriminate between the two.

I wonder, too, what do you understand as "scientific materialism"? How do you consider it is self-contradictory?

By scientific materialism, I mean the position that what is real is physical (empirically observable) and that its processes are determined entirely by non-teleological (i.e, only efficient) causes. As to why it is self-contradictory, I point to your own defense of justified belief.

What I have decided is that I need evidence, whether empirical or logical, to accept a proposition as a belief. In short, that my beliefs should be justifiable.

Surely, scientific materialism aims to include the human mind in its complete picture of the physical world. If telos (whether by fiat or due to observation*) plays no role in nature along side mechanism, then it can play no role in human reasoning, either. I assume your properly justified beliefs are nonetheless made on purpose?

There is no a-priori assumption of lack of telos; but the null hypothesis is that I need not believe in such until a compelling reason to do so arises.

Perhaps you'll buy my argument that the very justifiability of a belief already assumes that final causality is real.

Please explain the difference between 'why' and 'how', without invoking telos. If you invoke it, you are making an a-priori assumption, and begging the question.

An a priori judgment is not always an assumption; it can be founded upon certain logical necessities. For instance, we judge of ourselves, of necessity, that we are in possession of at least some modicum of free will. Otherwise, going on with the day to day practical task of living would become absurd. In the case of the a priori metaphysical banishment of telos in scientific materialism, however, I believe we have an unjustified assumption on our hands. As a methodological assumption, I raise no quarrels. But to claim either a priori, or based on factual evidence**, that no purposes exist in nature is ultimately self-defeating, as I hope to have shown above. To answer your question, a "why?" is asking "for what purpose?", whereas a "how?" is asking "by what means?"

I wonder, what proportion of atheists do you think were never religious, mainly as a result of childhood inculcation?

I agree with you, probably not many atheists became so without having been raised by religious parents. As for myself, I was not raised with any religious persuasion, but have come to settle on a somewhat pantheist outlook (there's nothing I enjoy more than being sufficiently far from city lights to gaze up at the sky and see the structure of the milky way--I find it positively sublime). I am comfortable with NOMA, though it is not quite sufficient to keep me from grumbling slightly. Science ("how?") and religion ("why?") necessarily overlap at some point (especially concerning cosmological questions), so NOMA is not fully adequate. It seems to be the best bet under the current cultural conditions, however.

You here construct a straw man; science only "denies" dualism inasfar as everything that is explained can be accounted for without it, and inasfar as dualist explanations are speculative, less parsimonious and no more explanatory than equally speculative monistic explanations.

My point in that passage was that either science is phenomenological description and therefore cedes explanation to other cultural spheres (I imagine literature has just as much claim to giving us meaningful answers to big questions as does religion), or science and philosophy (they seem to me a package deal) need a new metaphysical underbelly.

As for rationalism, would it be overly post-modernism to ask whose rationality? Was Thomas Aquinas irrational? Was Kant ("I had to deny knowledge in order to make room for faith")?

*I would argue that no such observation of a lack of final causation is possible, as the very motivation to do so would be evidence of it. Science doesn't look for purposes, but for mechanisms. This doesn't mean purposes aren't real.

**You may retort that science has explained almost very detail of nature perfectly well without invoking telos. This confuses the essentially descriptive role of science with that of explanation. You might say that at least physics has explained many phenomena within its domain (though even there, I think I could quibble--what is gravity, really?); but biology and certainly psychology remain largely descriptive.

Posted by: The Barefoot Bum | July 11, 2009 7:06 AM

John Morales (545):

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.

Metaphysical realism is neither a necessary nor parsimonious basis for science. Realism happens to be true, and we generally take it for granted, but it is not metaphysically justified. We can justify realism using more basic assumptions: the authority (not veracity) of experience, especially perceptual experience, logic and parsimony; each of these elements can be justified pragmatically, i.e. that pain hurts is both properly basic and falsifiable.

Realism, therefore, is the simplest way to logically explain the evidence of our senses.

Ken Wilber (549): (Are the Ken Wilber or an admirer?)

By scientific materialism, I mean the position that what is real is physical (empirically observable) and that its processes are determined entirely by non-teleological (i.e, only efficient) causes.

First, even under the long-discredited semantic theory of logical positivism the concept of "physical" is different from the concept of "empirically observable"; both differ from the concept of "real". Your straw man conflating scientific materialism with elements of logical positivism and naive empiricism is subtle, but it is a straw man nonetheless.

A better way of describing scientific materialism is Jason Rosenhouse's metaphor of the tank: materialism is the position that everything that happens inside the tank can be explained by reference to other things that are inside the tank. Obviously, one cannot hold materialism in this sense with absolute or deductive certainty, but scientists have done quite a lot of explanatory work without ever needing to reference something outside the physical universe of particles and/or quantum fields.

More importantly, neither naturalism nor materialism denies teleology; as you note, it is obviously the case that human brains exhibit teleology. Materialism denies only teleology external to the physical universe. (It also happens to be the case that the universe itself does not appear to exhibit teleology on any scale larger than the human brain, thus excluding pantheism.)

Perhaps you'll buy my argument that the very justifiability of a belief already assumes that final causality is real.

You yourself do not make any such argument, at least not in this thread. Are you referencing Matthew Segall (391)?

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).

An a priori judgment is not always an assumption; it can be founded upon certain logical necessities. For instance, we judge of ourselves, of necessity, that we are in possession of at least some modicum of free will. Otherwise, going on with the day to day practical task of living would become absurd.

You appear to understand neither the concept of a priori nor logical necessity. I certainly do not judge that I myself have "free will", a lot or a little, because the concept is incoherent. And, of course, logical contradictions are absurd, but not all absurdities are contradictory. Just because the absurdity of life made Jean Paul Sartre a neurotic whiner doesn't mean I have to be a neurotic whiner. Life is absurd, so what? It doesn't bother me in the least.

I agree with you, probably not many atheists became so without having been raised by religious parents.

What are you talking about? I know plenty of atheists, myself included, raised by non-religious parents. It is an obvious hypothesis that many atheists have religious parents simply because non-religious parents are in the minority. Perhaps Hunsberger and Altemeyer's study, Atheists, might answer the question empirically.

As for rationalism, would it be overly post-modernism to ask whose rationality?

Yes.

Posted by: The Barefoot Bum | July 11, 2009 7:27 AM

Also, Mr. Wilber: I'm not sure how you differentiate a description from an explanation, especially as you mention that physics has explained phenomena within its domain. I'm also unsure why you would determine that something merely descriptive, such as science, must necessarily be incomplete. Science does actually answer the "big questions", it just answers them in a way a lot of people find psychologically unsettling. But there's a big difference between an answer you don't like and no answer at all.

Why are we here? I can give you a causal explanation (evolution and a shitload of historical contingencies). For what external purpose are we here? Science does give an answer: there is no external purpose for the existence of humanity or any individual person. If you don't like that answer, boo hoo. Science is in the business of truth, and the truth is true whether you like it or not.

Posted by: Josh | July 11, 2009 8:01 AM

This confuses the essentially descriptive role of science with that of explanation.

And to this I would then retort that "the role" science is not "essentially descriptive."

The point of science is to explain nature. Sure, a lot of descriptive work must be done before we know enough about a topic to start proposing explanations for what we observe, and some explanations are definitely more elusive than others. No competent scientist should be arguing those points. But to characterize science as an "essentially descriptive" enterprise suggests a pretty serious lack of familiarity with science process (and indeed content). It presumes that our purpose is simply to describe; that's just false. Our whole reason for doing science is to explain. What exactly do you think scientific theories do? By necessity there are going to be more observations out there than the theories that explain them. Of course. But why is it, do you think, that by far most of the real discussion focuses on those papers which tie the observations together, rather than the myriad recordings of the observations themselves? Perhaps because an explanation is going to carry just a little more "weight" than the recording of an observation...?

Posted by: The Barefoot Bum | July 11, 2009 8:41 AM

Josh: Perhaps you're correct, but until he explicitly says so, I would interpret Mr. Wilber's remarks somewhat more charitably, in the sense that scientific explanations "describe" what happens on a theoretical level (as well as a pure observational level); they do not "explain" (at a fundamental level) why things happen. I do not agree with Mr. Wilber's position, but I think it's a little more subtle than you give him credit for.

In this sense, his factual position is in some sense correct: at some level, science has to throw up its hands and say, "That's just how the universe is." Why are there electrons, protons and neutrons? Why are the laws of physics symmetric under various transformations? (Even if we were to answer these particular questions scientifically, those answers would still raise the same kind of questions.)

Wilber's position, though, seems that because these questions can be meaningfully asked, they must therefore have nontrivial and truthful answers. Furthermore it is -- or so I interpret his remarks -- the "descriptive" nature of science that precludes even consideration of the answers. Mr. Wilber, if I am misinterpreting your remarks, please do correct me.

(Mr. Wilber, if you'd like to read a more-or-less scientific restatement of the kinds of questions you're asking, I would direct you to the science fiction of Greg Egan.)

In this sense, Wilber deserves a certain amount of credit for understanding that traditional anthropocentric and anthropomorphic religions do not adequately answer the sorts of questions he's raising. Indeed, they just push the same questions around: Why is the universe the way it is instead of somehow different? Because a god wanted to create the universe the way it is. But this answer just raises an identical question: Given that an omnipotent god could have created any sort of universe it wanted, why did this god want to create this particular kind of universe? At this point a theist must retreat into a mysticism indistinguishable from a naturalists' "that's just how things are" position.

Mr. Wilber calls for a new form of discourse to examine these sorts of questions. Fair enough. Personally, I'm happy enough with the answers of scientific materialism: The universe just is, it just is the way it is, I am what I am -- the product of the laws of physics and a lot of historical contingencies -- and there's no evidence for any sort of extrinsic purpose.

If Mr. Wilber wants to propose a new form of discourse, I'm most definitely willing to consider it on its own merits. But art, literature, music, etc. simply will not do: these endeavors are interesting, valuable and fun, but it is only a relic of our superstitious history to call them any kind of "truth".

Posted by: Josh | July 11, 2009 8:56 AM

You could very well be right. The fact that he wrote this, however

You might say that at least physics has explained many phenomena within its domain (though even there, I think I could quibble--what is gravity, really?); but biology and certainly psychology remain largely descriptive.

is what suggested to me, rather strongly, that he was talking about the actual business of doing science rather than the "larger-scale" how versus why foolishness that has recently dominated similar discussions here.

Posted by: The Barefoot Bum | July 11, 2009 9:07 AM

Hi there, BB; sorry about your blog :)

Shrugs.

BTW, when did Ken Wilber suddenly become "Mr. Wilber"?

On my own blog, I was a gigantic asshole. I'm not ashamed or unhappy about that, but I try to bend way over backwards to be polite on other people's blogs.

Posted by: SC, OM | July 11, 2009 9:47 AM

If Mr. Wilber wants to propose a new form of discourse, I'm most definitely willing to consider it on its own merits. But art, literature, music, etc. simply will not do: these endeavors are interesting, valuable and fun, but it is only a relic of our superstitious history to call them any kind of "truth".

I think what he would have to propose is a new method of acquiring knowledge. He would need to explain its relationship to science and how it works concretely (how do people apply it? upon what are its interpretations and conclusions - its answers - founded?), and justify its use in terms of specific valid knowledge it has produced.

Posted by: The Barefoot Bum | July 11, 2009 10:36 AM

rather than just idle speculation that goes on for pages, yet says nothing concrete when after all is said and done.

This sort of discourse would not of course qualify as "new", having been mined for millennia by most philosophers and all theologians.

Posted by: Rorschach | July 11, 2009 10:52 AM

Sartre a neurotic whiner

Who said that?

Posted by: The Barefoot Bum | July 11, 2009 11:37 AM

Rorschach: You are, of course, entitled to your opinion of Sartre's thought (and my own). But I find the quoted statements at best banal and rather obvious. Of course, I have the advantage of a half-century or more of hindsight, and the benefit of a non-religious upbringing in a mostly non-religious subculture. YMMV.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | July 11, 2009 11:46 AM

Sartre is one philosopher that I have actually read some of. I read one of his books to a blind student who was taking philosophy back in my undergraduate days. The protagonist got his girl friend pregnant, and just couldn't commit to marry her. Eventually, a gay friend of theirs stepped in to marry the girlfriend and raise the child.

Posted by: Dianne | July 11, 2009 11:53 AM

Now I'm just posting a totally inane comment because if the thread goes above 1000 we get a new one and I want to see what it'd be called. Granddaughter of the son of the bride of the thread that would not die? Cousin of the son of the etc? Neighbor of the thread?

Posted by: SC, OM | July 11, 2009 11:58 AM

Rorschach: You are, of course, entitled to your opinion of Sartre's thought (and my own).

The problem is that you made an empirical claim about what is/was encompassed by existentialist, and Sartre's work in particular - "The whole existentialist movement is about the pain of abandoning the psychological crutch of religious purpose (or, in Kierkegaard, accepting it knowing it's ridiculous), not about actually living without that crutch entails" - that is incorrect. I may prefer Camus and disagree with Sartre on much about Marxism (but not on Algeria), but Sartre wrote at great length about living, responsibility, ethics, and political engagement in a world without purpose. To call him a "neurotic whiner" is bizarre. For Pete's sake, he was a highly-engaged political philosopher.

BTW, although I still haven't read the book, I found this talk on Atheist Talk Radio in February pretty interesting and better than I had anticipated:

http://mnatheists.org/content/view/278/1/

Posted by: SC, OM | July 11, 2009 12:03 PM

As I mentioned before, my reading of the existentialists is that they are talking about the pain and angst of letting go of religious belief, not living without religious belief.

Then your reading of the existentialists has been extremely limited, to be blunt.

Posted by: Rorschach | July 11, 2009 12:11 PM

I may prefer Camus and disagree with Sartre on much about Marxism (but not on Algeria)

You do?
There's something we could talk about all night..:P

Not impressed with the recent influx of wannabe philosophers that throw assertions and interpretations around without having the faintest clue of what they are talking about, to be honest.

because if the thread goes above 1000 we get a new one

That is doubtful.The original thread topic has been lost somewhat over the months,and this is now more like the pub where the locals meet for a beer and a chat after work.

Posted by: thalarctos | July 11, 2009 12:47 PM

SC nailed my objection to some of the philosophy presented here. The need to ground it in reality, rather than just idle speculation that goes on for pages, yet says nothing concrete when after all is said and done.

Interestingly, this point gets back to another philosopher, Peirce, and his influence on the linguists Ogden and Richards.

Ogden and Richards described the components of meaning as symbol, referent, and reference. Symbol is the arbitrary string we use to refer to both a real-world referent and the reference, or denotation+connotations we hold--for example, the strings "bear", "медведь", "Bär", "ours", "熊", "oso", "shash", "άρκτοσ", and so forth, are totally arbitrary, depending on what speakers of a particular language have agreed upon.

The ideas we hold about bears (good mother, fierce predator, whatever) are influenced by our individual experiences, education, and reasoning. The real-world bear, with its own existence independent of terms or observer, is the referent.

These are the three corners of the triangle, and the lines are the connections we draw between them--connotations can affect how we refer to things, for example--"медведь", the honey-eater, is a euphemism for bears that has become the standard term because in antiquity, Slavic peoples did not want to provoke the bear's unwanted attention by referring to it directly, for example. Real-world events (you know someone who got attacked) can influence connotations, and so forth with interactions among each of the three components of meaning.

Anyway, as SC and Nerd correctly point out, it's possible to spend all your time in the term and reference parts of the model, and a lot of philosophers and theologians do so. But without the *validated* connection to the real-world referent, those endeavors are not science.

Posted by: Rorschach | July 11, 2009 1:05 PM

If you're offended by my opinion of Sartre -- or, more precisely a superficial representation of my opinion of some of his work in the current context -- you're offended

You're confusing disagreement with being offended.
Then again,you seem confused about a lot of things.

Posted by: Rorschach | July 11, 2009 1:11 PM

Then again,you seem confused about a lot of things.

Like,the Courtier's reply...:-)
Loser.

Nite.

Posted by: SC, OM | July 11, 2009 1:24 PM

If you're offended by my opinion of Sartre -- or, more precisely a superficial representation of my opinion of some of his work in the current context -- you're offended. Good for you. I'm not particularly interested in deep literary scholarship, and I've been talking with theists long enough that I find abuse and umbrage that I would dare to hold a contrary opinion amusing rather than insulting.

If you want to talk seriously about some topic of substance other than literary scholarship, I'll be happy to respond.

You're very confused. You made inaccurate statements about existentialism and Sartre specifically, and I pointed that out. Rorschach and I both suggested that you (among others) are making pronouncements about matters on which you are ignorant.* This has nothing to do with literary criticism. It's a question of historical fact.

Heck, a quick perusal of a small selection of Sartre's works in one area, as for example found here

http://www.iep.utm.edu/s/sartre-p.htm

, should be enough for you to realize you're wrong on this. It really doesn't matter if you're uninterested in what he had to say about "[what] actually living without that crutch entails"; the fact is he said a hell of a lot (and so did Camus, de Beauvoir,...).

Posted by: The Barefoot Bum | July 11, 2009 1:36 PM

You made inaccurate statements about existentialism and Sartre specifically, and I pointed that out.

I'm obviously talking about my own interpretation; it was as well an offhand comment: of course Sartre is a smart guy who wrote on a wide range of topics. It's difficult to see how I made "inaccurate" statements; it's not like I misquoted anyone or misattributed a quotation.

Perhaps my interpretation is naive or misguided (or perhaps not). But simply trying to bully me does not seem particularly conducive to changing my opinion. Hell, even cretinists get more substantive argument here than you've shown me.

Posted by: SC, OM | July 11, 2009 1:54 PM

Perhaps my interpretation is naive or misguided (or perhaps not).

There's no interpretation involved. Your claims about Sartre and the existentialist movement are incorrect. Historically incorrect.

But simply trying to bully me does not seem particularly conducive to changing my opinion.

I've not once tried to do that, and it's not a matter of opinion.

Hell, even cretinists get more substantive argument here than you've shown me.

Would you like a longer bibliography? Perhaps you could check out his Wikipedia entry. What would convince you?

You started with an inaccurate and dismissive characterization of Sartre and moved on to a mistaken claim about existentialism. You were mistaken. Pointing that out to you is not bullying. Get over yourself.

Posted by: Ken Wilber | July 11, 2009 2:04 PM

Until I have time to respond to each of you individually, here's something to chew on: http://wilber.shambhala.com/html/books/maseso_foreword.cfm

(I'm just a fan boi)

Posted by: SC, OM | July 11, 2009 2:31 PM

A charitable interpretation would have continued the "pain and angst" to both clauses: talking about the pain and angst of letting go of religious belief, not the pain and angst of living without religious belief.

Well, that would be wrong, too. Part of what they wrote about was the pain and anguish of living without religious belief. Part. But since you offered that as a response yo my challenging your dismissive characterization of Sartre as a "neurotic whiner," I'm led to ask what charitable spin people were suppoosed to give to that, or how your "finer point" followed.

In any event, I was responding to your "The whole existentialist movement is about the pain of abandoning the psychological crutch of religious purpose (or, in Kierkegaard, accepting it knowing it's ridiculous), not about actually living without that crutch entails," which I quoted.

Once you've let go -- really let go -- of religious belief, once you've really let go of the need for extrinsic meaning and purpose, once you've let go of the need for the immortality of the soul, living without extrinsic meaning and purpose doesn't seem at all difficult.

Living together in a world where we create our own lives and world in conditions not of our choosing and the freedom and responsibility that entails (and what all of this means for social arrangements) raises many questions that were addressed brilliantly by the existentialists. Whether these issues are of interest to you or whether you go blithely about your life without thinking about them (and are able to do so because of the circumstances in which you live) is irrelevant to whether others have concerned themselves with them.

What's there to write about, then, except the practical issues we face actually so living?

That's what the existentialists wrote about, in very broad terms.

I certainly didn't mean to imply that existentialist writers in general don't talk about such practical issues, only that they don't talk about the pain and angst of living with the practical issues of life without extrinsic meaning and purpose once the need has been decisively abandoned.

Yes, they did. And the practical, ethical, social, political, psychological, emotional,... aspects are not separable in the way you're implying.

But here you appear to be contradicting yourself. If you're now arguing that existentialists like Sartre did not dwell on the anguish aspect of the profound appreciation of the human condition and that this recognition didn't render them impotent in terms of work or action - and this would be correct, and is in contradiction to a common image of the brooding, inactive, angst-ridden existentialist* - then your portrayal of Sartre as being reduced to a "neurotic whiner" makes no sense at all.

*In fact, these were philosophers of human action and liberation.

Posted by: SC, OM | July 11, 2009 2:44 PM

It is bullying pure and simple to say, "Then your reading of the existentialists has been extremely limited, to be blunt," without further substantiation or clarification.

No, it isn't. It was a blunt observation.

You might just as well have said, "Shut up, fucktard, you don't know what you're talking about."

Not the first three words, but the rest of it, yes.

I don't mind being wrong, I don't mind being corrected, but I will not be bullied.

Pointing out your ignorance on a subject is not bullying. And I'll note again that it followed your dismissal of much of existentialist philosophy and absurd, arrogant remark about Sartre.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | July 11, 2009 2:56 PM

In the midst of this silence, religion speaks.

Posted by: The Barefoot Bum | July 11, 2009 2:58 PM

The complete quotation from the site:

Science might offer us truth, but how to use that truth wisely: on this science is, and always has been, utterly silent. ...

In the midst of this silence, religion speaks. ... For literally billions of people around the world, religion provides the basic meaning of their lives, the glue of their existence, and offers them a set of guidelines about what is good (e.g., love, care, compassion) and what is not (e.g., lying, cheating, stealing, killing).

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | July 11, 2009 4:14 PM

Anthony, the creobots left, but some philosophers arrived to take their place. Matthew Segall was a woomeister extraordinaire and total airhead. He left to spew his nonsense elsewhere, and a couple of more arrived, Ken Wilbur and The Barefoot Bum.

Posted by: SC, OM | July 11, 2009 4:35 PM

Matthew Segall was a woomeister extraordinaire and total airhead. He left to spew his nonsense elsewhere, and a couple of more arrived, Ken Wilbur and The Barefoot Bum.

Um, what?

(I'm a bit suspicious that Segall and Wilber are the same.)

Posted by: The Barefoot Bum | July 11, 2009 4:52 PM

Excuse me? I may have my faults, but in what sense am I a woomeister?

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | July 11, 2009 5:15 PM

Excuse me? I may have my faults, but in what sense am I a woomeister?

Posted by: Josh | July 11, 2009 5:25 PM

Did you see the post about his having taken up residence here?

I did. I've pondered popping over...but I just haven't had the chance. And there is the small issue that AlanC is a time black hole.

Posted by: SC, OM | July 11, 2009 5:29 PM

Compared to Matthew, you are the embodiment of rationality.

Nerd, I think you may be missing something here. Have you clicked over to The BB's (unfortunately defunct) blog? Did you really read his posts on this thread?

Posted by: SC, OM | July 11, 2009 5:35 PM

I didn't come here to be abused and insulted (I go to Christian websites to be abused and insulted) and I don't have to be a weatherman to see which way the wind is blowing. If I'm not wanted, so be it: it's your community, not mine, and you're entitled to whatever standards you please.

Dude, I'm sticking up for you. WTF?

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | July 11, 2009 5:58 PM

I've been a bit distracted this week. The Redhead's parents are visiting, so I don't get a chance to study anything. A quick peek, and a quick post is the best I can do until they leave.

Posted by: Dania | July 11, 2009 6:24 PM

I didn't think it possible, but I think Alan Clarke got stupider:

Yup. And would you believe he is repeating the same "arguments" we dealt with here over there? As if they had never been addressed by anyone before? Case in point:

Near Lompoc, California, the workers of the Dicalite Division of Grefco Corp. uncovered an eighty-foot baleen whale fossil buried in a diatomaceous earth quarry. [1] If the whale was buried horizontally, then we need at least 6-8 feet of diatomaceous soil to cover it in a short period of time before the bones had a chance to disperse. How can you explain using a uniformitarian/evolutionist model how this whale was buried? The global flood easily accounts for huge quantities of sedimentation and rapid burial.

[1] “Workers Find Whales in Diatomaceous Earth Quarry”, Chemical & Engineering News, 11 Oct. 1976, p. 40

Does that sound familiar?

Posted by: Josh | July 11, 2009 6:34 PM

Yup. And would you believe he is repeating the same "arguments" we dealt with here over there? As if they had never been addressed by anyone before?

Oh that does it. That just simply does it. This fucker is toast. I'm done being pleasant.

Posted by: AnthonyK | July 11, 2009 6:45 PM

I'm done being pleasant.

Posted by: Ken Wilber | July 11, 2009 7:05 PM

Kel,

...in terms of parsimony, that the universe is made for me seems far less parsimonious than me being a product of the universe.

Admitting that some degree of anthropomorphism is a given in any human thought about the universe doesn't mean "the universe is made for me." It means precisely what you find so parsimonious, that you are a product of the universe.

We have the ability to see the world quite clearly for what it is, not all relationships to us are anthropic in nature.

Most higher animals are quite well adapted to their earthly situation, but I don't think this means we humans have any reason to suspect our knowledge of cosmological principles is anything but anthropic. And even if our understanding is accurate, we can only know a universe capable of producing us.

Everything has been said before, I don't get why this tries to stay on the philosophical level and the same arguments get repeated ad nauseum as if somehow we've neglected the "ultimate" thing that demonstrates God. Is that the reason they believe? I'm willing to bet that the argument didn't convince them of god, rather that it is a rationalisation of a belief that they got another way.

Sophisticated theologians have given up the hopeless task of devising a philosophical argument to prove God's existence. That's not to say your average believer won't try to pull a thousand year old argument out of the grave. In my experience, those intelligent people who find value in religion do so not because of some trick of logic or because of parental indoctrination, but because they've had a personal experience they interpreted spiritually. I'm not here to argue for God's existence, or even for the merits of religion. I'm really just here to put in a good word for the idea that science cannot fill the gap that religion would leave should it be made to disappear. So while I applaud attempts to improve science education, I'm not so naive as to think people can survive on facts alone. Perhaps a few highly intelligent people can, because they are able to keep their mind's busy contemplating the possibilities. It's a different story for society at large. We should not underestimate the existential dread that most people associate with a godless universe. Perhaps you have already gone through it and seen the light on the other side, but for those whose faith is the foundation of their existence, convincing them that no one is responsible in some ultimate sense for what happens next is like telling a child their parents are dead. Growing up and taking responsibility for oneself as a mortal being is not easy; indeed, this is probably why religion arose in the first place.

There are ~6.5 billion people on this planet, and thus 6.5 billion worldviews - each one of us has our own interpretation on reality, that is a combination of our genetic wiring of our brain and our experiences. But in the end, there's one reality we are all striving to explain.

I sympathize with the last sentence, but I don't follow your argument that different worldviews are somehow fabricated. People are social animals. We believe as our community believes. It really isn't that difficult to recognize when two people belong to different communities with different ways of making meaning for their lives. Our only hope is that we all wake up one day and remember how tiny our planet is.

Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage | July 11, 2009 7:17 PM

The US government profits from the fact that people all over the world love our green pieces of paper.

How does the government actually profit? Through something called seigniorage.

Back in the bad old days*, seigniorage was the revenue the government earned because it costs less than a dollar to print a dollar. Say it costs 2 cents to print a $1 dollar bill. Then, poof, the government has gained 98 cents when it prints that dollar and uses it to buy something.

Today the Federal Reserve controls the money supply. And one of the ways it does this is by buying or selling treasury bills (government bonds). If the Fed wants to increase the money supply, it buys some treasury bills from banks. So a treasury bill is taken out of circulation and replaced, basically, with dollars. Presto. More dollars in the world.

Here's the key part: more dollars in circulation means more treasury bills at the Fed. And unlike dollars, the treasury bills earn interest. So the Fed profits. It's holding onto those treasury bills, which pay off with interest. Basically, when you hold onto US cash, you're giving the Federal Reserve an interest-free loan.

Do you want me to continue? I can go into such niceties as the Fed's balance sheet or Treasury Monthly Balance Statement.

*When ships were made out of wood and men were made out of steel.

Posted by: Owlmirror | July 11, 2009 7:29 PM

[Crossposted from:
http://debunkingchristianity.blogspot.com/2009/07/direct-evidence-of-moral-behavior-from.html
-- and waving "hi" to Feynmaniac and Josh]

[+1]

--------

You see, the problem is that Alan Clarke does not actually read, or believe in, anything that does not fit with his YEC ideology.

The talkorigins page that was linked to and cited from either directly describes or references descriptions of the geology of the Monterey Formation that the whale skeleton was found in. Careful and honest reading reveals this explanation, but Alan Clarke is not careful in his reading, and is utterly dishonest. His claim about avoiding ad hominem attacks is a flat-out lie.

Amusingly enough, Alan posted the exact same paragraph about the whale to the Pharyngula thread mentioned, and it was pointed out to him, by one of our resident geologists, that Flood -- or rather, "Flud" -- geology does not explain the geology of the Monterey Formation in its entirety, and so of course flood geology fails as science.

There was also a more subtle category error, in that the paragraph was posted in support of flood geology being responsible for limestone -- and of course, limestone and diatomaceous earth are not synonymous.

It was also pointed out that "diatomaceous soil" was the wrong term to use for what the whale was found in -- geologists distinguish between soils and sediments, and of course, the diatomaceous earth was sediment, not soil.

Alan Clarke has no use for science that does not confirm YEC, so of course, he ignored this, and has copy-pasted the exact same terminological mistake again.

Amusingly, his lack of interest in terminological correctness got him in trouble early on, when he wrote of the "voracity" of the bible. When he finally realized his error, he degraded himself by writing about "verasses" and posting a link to a picture of sagging buttocks. The only thing he likes as much as YEC ideology is perversion.

I foresee that he will be banned shortly. He is incapable of learning or of modifying his behavior, and his determination to promote YEC ideology (and display his perversity) will continue to result in threads being hijacked by him until that banning occurs.

It should be noted that PZ did not ban Clarke for being a perversely dishonest creationist, but for something from one of Clarke's other set of obsessions -- as noted above.

--------

( where "above" references Feynmaniac's pointing to PZ's dungeon entry for AlanC )

Posted by: Josh | July 11, 2009 7:42 PM

It was a nice synopsis, Owl. It should give them a better idea of what they're dealing with in our buddy AC.

Posted by: Owlmirror | July 11, 2009 7:45 PM

I think free will is a necessary assumption we make for the sake of practical living.

Necessary in what sense?

Do you not see how quickly the basic structures of our society would crumble if free will were denied on a mass scale?

Unpack this, please -- I think I know what you mean, but I like to see it explicitly.

Posted by: SC, OM | July 11, 2009 7:52 PM

Sheesh, you'd think someone who calls himself The Barefoot Bum wouldn't be so high-strung. He's making me look mellow. In any case, I hope he hasn't really left for good.

***

I take it that is an insult. Hard to tell, as I've not read this entire thread.

No, it was primarily in response to the similarity of your "arguments" and to BB's noting/asking in response to your "Perhaps you'll buy my argument that the very justifiability of a belief already assumes that final causality is real" that "You yourself do not make any such argument, at least not in this thread. Are you referencing Matthew Segall (391)?" It's really neither here nor there. You're both intellectual black holes.

It seems that Sartre's work leads only into solipsism ("Hell is other people").

People who have no respect for words and arbitrarily assign them random meanings make me very angry.

Posted by: SC, OM | July 11, 2009 8:15 PM

I suspect my economics lecture wasn't dry enough because, unlike the philosophy folks, I eschew jargon when writing for the non-cognoscenti. There's few things more boring than wading through pages filled with words you don't know but which the writer assumes that you should know.

I can't imagine anyone reading, say, Camus' Resistance, Rebellion, and Death or even The Rebel and finding many words they don't understand. He worked as a journalist in the French Resistance. He wrote very clearly. De Beauvoir did as well. Sartre can be more difficult, but many of his works are extremely accessible. Jeffrey Isaac's Arendt, Camus, and Modern Rebellion is a pretty good book about their political and ethical thought.

Posted by: windy | July 11, 2009 8:26 PM

Hey, a Christian wroted us a story! I'm reposting the link here since the the Mr Deity thread seems to be dead at the moment.

The style is very reminiscent of a certain children's book author slash apologist that we all know and love... but still, it's kind of flattering!

Posted by: Ken Wilber | July 11, 2009 8:32 PM

You're both intellectual black holes.

Yes, there's not an idea that escapes me.

Seriously though, thanks for allowing me to stop doubting whether I was too harsh in my first post when I said the threads on PZ's blog are filled with nothing but insults and personal attacks. I'll admit there's just enough substance that I might stick around.

Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage | July 11, 2009 8:36 PM

SC, OM #637

The only things by Camus that I've ever read were his novels The Plague and The Fall. I agree that in those works he didn't use philosophical jargon. So what? Did I mention Camus? No, Madam, I did not. I was actually referring to posts by Matthew Segall, The Barefoot Bum, Ken Wilber, John Morales, and thalarctos (but not, to your credit, you).

Incidentally, the bit in The Plague that I remember best is the author who's been working on his novel for ten years. He's polishing the first paragraph and when he gets it absolutely perfect, then the rest of the novel should just flow off his pen. I used to work with a man whose system for writing reports was similar, as a result the rest of us had to do most of his writing for him.

Posted by: Ken Wilber | July 11, 2009 8:49 PM

John, thanks for your response. More soon...

Posted by: SC, OM | July 11, 2009 9:00 PM

The only things by Camus that I've ever read were his novels The Plague and The Fall. I agree that in those works he didn't use philosophical jargon. So what? Did I mention Camus? No, Madam, I did not.

Well, Sir, you did mention existentialism specifically, did you not?

I was actually referring to posts by Matthew Segall, The Barefoot Bum, Ken Wilber, John Morales, and thalarctos (but not, to your credit, you).

:) Oh. Very well, then. Carry on. :)

Incidentally, the bit in The Plague

I loved The Plague. (One issue I had with it was that the plague was allegorical and yet it suggested that people escaping the city were exhibiting a positive form of rebellion, while in a real contagious epidemic situation that is of course more ethically problematic.)

***

No idea what happened with my blockquotes there. What followed

I'll admit there's just enough substance that I might stick around.

was:

I actually hope you do. For Sven, of course.

Posted by: Jadehawk, OM | July 11, 2009 9:01 PM

I said the threads on PZ's blog are filled with nothing but insults and personal attacks.

incidentally, that's not what you said, not even a close paraphrase. such imprecision is off-putting

Posted by: John Morales | July 11, 2009 9:11 PM

Ken,

(I'm a bit suspicious that Segall and Wilber are the same.)

I take it that is an insult.

Gotta say, I LOLed.

Posted by: SC, OM | July 11, 2009 9:22 PM

In 'Tis' defense, Camus didn't call himself an existentialist, so it's rather arrogant of me to attach him to the movement, bringing him up in response to a comment about existentialism.

Even if I'm right and Camus was wrong. :P

Posted by: SC, OM | July 11, 2009 9:39 PM

Sartre's "Nausea"

I liked Camus' critical review. I mentioned I'm sure months ago that I had gone to a panel discussion about Camus and Sartre at Harvard. The crowd was hilariously pretentious - it was everything I could do not to burst out laughing during the Q&A - but the discussion was good. I came away with a revived interest in de Beauvoir as a political novelist. I immediately got The Mandarins, but was soon distracted by other things and put it aside. Time to return to it.

Posted by: Rorschach | July 11, 2009 9:47 PM

de Beauvoir,now there's a topic !

Been re-reading their correspondence/letters recently, nice proof btw that it's possible for a feminist and a macho to have a decade-long love affair based on trust and respect.

Time for Sunday walk !

Posted by: Kel, OM | July 11, 2009 10:04 PM

I sympathize with the last sentence, but I don't follow your argument that different worldviews are somehow fabricated. People are social animals. We believe as our community believes. It really isn't that difficult to recognize when two people belong to different communities with different ways of making meaning for their lives.

Posted by: Rorschach | July 11, 2009 10:22 PM

Did you not notice the hour? ;)

Yup,just past lunchtime. Why? :-)

Posted by: SC, OM | July 11, 2009 10:56 PM

the best such an account can offer in terms of future prediction is an inductive generalization

[Not that this is correct, but] if you believe this what do you have that is better than the predictions of scientists in various fields based on decades or centuries of systematic empirical investigation? How do you arrive at these interpretations and predictions? Discuss one or two specifically, please. Fish or cut bait.

Posted by: John Morales | July 11, 2009 11:44 PM

Ken,

Thanks for engaging me so thoroughly, John. I hope we can arrive at some sort of commonality on all this.

Thank you likewise, I really appreciate the opportunity to have my ideas challenged, to challenge yours, and to clarify my beliefs.

OK, you've rephrased your contention regarding "scientific materialism" thus:

[1] scientific materialism (metaphysical science) makes reference only to efficient causes in its descriptions (or what it may assume are explanations) of natural processes. [2] If science wanted actual explanations, it’d need to make reference to final causes. [3] That is, if a certain event has a reason for coming to be, we cannot fully account for that reason by referring solely to what has happened prior to it. An account of an event referring solely to its past is descriptive and not explanatory because the best such an account can offer in terms of future prediction is an inductive generalization. [4] Perhaps this is all science is supposed to do.

[Note that I take it you're referring to the Aristotelian classification of causes: (Material, Formal, Efficient, Final), and I respond accordingly; also, I consider the 'formal' and 'final' causes to rely on the assumption of Platonic forms and telos, respectively, and thus unparsimonious and non-empirical).
Note also I'm assuming that by "scientific materialism" you refer to what I term "scientific metaphysics", since you elsewhere use the term 'science' just as I do.]

1. Under that schema, I think both material and efficient causes are explained by science, so no, I don't think it only makes reference to efficient causes.
2. Only if by an explanation you require a statement of purpose; do you seriously claim that science, say, does not explain gametogenesis (where gametocytes divide by meiosis into gametes)?
3. I think, under your definition, there is no epistemologically sustainable explanation for anything. But we don't require that of science, all we require is empirically-testable explanations. The problem of induction aside, scientific explanations self-evidently account well-enough for future prediction of phenomena to have provided for our current technology, which would've seemed indistinguishable from magic but a few dozen generations ago.
4. We can agree on that. Science only has to account for what's observable, in a coherent and predictive manner; this it does.

[1] That’s what I meant, that we necessarily act as if we have free will. [2] If we didn’t assume as much, our civilization’s moral foundation and legal system would require a total overhaul (which indeed may happen as neuroscience progresses, but I don’t think we will ever be able to conclude that absolutely no personal responsibility is possible).

1. I agree with you now, but it's not what you said, even if it was what you meant.
("For instance, we judge of ourselves, of necessity, that we are in possession of at least some modicum of free will." is quite different to the above)
2. Why would it, necessarily? For example, what about ignorantia legis neminem excusat, or what about the fact that laws address behaviour, not intent? "I had no choice but to kill" will be answered by "I have no choice but to prosecute" :).

Do you mean that contemporary science doesn’t claim to explain, but only to describe and inductively generalize based on past observation?

How is doing so not an explanation, under any reasonable interpretation?
Before science, how was the process whereby, say, plants produced seed and the seed germinated into another plant explained, in any meaningful sense? :)
(I know, you don't consider it explanatory unless it 'accounts for' final causes... but see my above.)

[1] I mean scientific materialism, if you accept my definition ([2] I’m not entirely clear on where you think I imputed tenets), [1] can make no sense of the mind’s ability to hold propositional states about the world.

1. Why not? Unless you hold that neurobiology and molecular chemistry and cognitive science are fully-developed and mature sciences, I don't see how you can a priori justify this disbelief. Historical evidence shows that what were once considered intractable problems have been addressed and explained (yeah, I know, no final causes! :)).
2. You wrote that "[physical] processes are determined entirely by non-teleological (i.e, only efficient) causes", it is to that I refer, as I explained previously.

Ontology is a mode of discourse?

[1] Yes, the suffix -logy stands for logos, which can be translated as discourse or speech. [2] When we do ontology, we are speaking about the nature of being. [3] This is a way of thinking about such terms I picked up from Heidegger. [4] He presents a strong case for the idea that any human method of study always already involves speech and the peculiarities associated with it. [5] Also, ontology is more than taxonomic classification of beings; it is discourse about the meaning of being itself. [6] Any explanation is going to come in the form of human speech, so I’m not sure why you think this overloads ontology as a mode of discourse.

1. As I understand it, logos has more than one sense, and the applicable one here is "the inward intention underlying the speech act: "hypothesis, thought, grounds for belief or action." ", and not speech per se.
Anyway, if that's your basis, it would be more of a monologue, no? The inquirer speaking about that which is enquired upon; one locutor, not multiple interlocutors...
2. We agree on this part.
3. Hm, I'm not well read on these matters, and haven't read Heidegger (or Camus, or Sartre, etc). So, unfortunately, the genesis of your concepts is not useful to me, you will have to explain them yourself. :)
4. I agree, in the sense that I think our cognition includes a kind of 'mental monologue', and that our conscious thoughts are shaped by our internal representative schema.
5. I don't dispute that. But since I hold that meaning is only applicable to sapient entities and their constructs, and that to apply it to nature and natural processes is unnecessary, unparsimonious and unjustified, I have no problem with scientific metaphysical ontology not addressing such. And, of course, anthropological and social sciences do address it, in their domains.
In short, I think that any 'meaning' here refers to the ontologist's apprehension of the ontology, not to the ontology's itself (or its constituents).
6. It didn't, the overloading comment had nothing to do with my aside where I expressed bemusement at your consideration of ontology as a dialogue (rather than an endeavour), but related to your claim that ontology had to be explanatory as well as descriptive.
My words were (context added parenthetically): "To ask it [ontology] to be explanatory [as well as descriptive] is to, I think, overload it".

[1] I think you’re mistaken if you think the scientific method leaves the door open to discovering immanent purposes in nature. [2] For instance, in biology, I think an immanent teleology is plain as day in the metabolic processes and survival instincts of all organisms; biologists refer to this as “teleonomy” to avoid breaking the rules of scientific discourse, though. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teleonomy

1. No problem, I think you're mistaken if you think it doesn't. :)
2. I'll get back to you on this; it's not something I have read about.
Perhaps it makes your case.

[1] The teleonomic appearance of purpose in organisms is held by most scientists to be a merely descriptive attribution of telos to life processes by human observers. [2] Science, in this case, does not make the metaphysical claim that no telos exists in nature, but it does withhold the claim that any telos it does find is actually a part of nature, rather than being an appearance or descriptive convenience. [3] In other words, science will never, so long as it remains faithful to its method, admit telos as constitutive of nature itself.

1. If it's appearance of purpose, that is as it should be (for example, under some measurements, electrons appear as if they're waves, under others, they appear as if they're particles).
2. But you've just said only the appearance of it is evident, and that this appearance is admitted. I think you're being a bit harsh, here.
3. I see you don't hesitate to employ "an inductive generalization".

I’d only want to argue that anything produced by the universe couldn’t be totally foreign to the processes that produced it. The universe didn’t have human beings in mind 4 billion years ago, but it nevertheless seems to be the case that ours is a universe in which minds and their full-blown purposes are potentials.

In what sense does the concept of 'emergence' not account for this, without requiring a Platonic form as its source?

I agree that rationality may be the form of discourse we need, if it means that all beliefs must be justifiable, that we must be able to give reasons for the way we view the world. I don’t think that “unsupportable” is necessarily equivalent to unscientific, however.

I think we're pretty much in agreement on this one, then. Which is nice. So, who do you think is in general more rational — the rationalists or the religious? :)