Considering an idea "possible" vs. seriously entertaining that idea

[Silent3]

A fairly common accusation leveled against atheists, and skeptics in general, is that they aren't being very "open minded", that they aren't considering "all of the possibilities".

Typically "all" in this context doesn't really mean "all", however, it's a small subset of an effectively infinite set of possible ideas, a subset that happens to appeal to various human fears and desires and aesthetic sensibilities.

If we're really talking about considering all possibilities, I could consider one new idea once per second every waking hour of my life for a hundred years without making the slightest noticeable dent in the vast realm that is "all of the possibilities".

If you want me to take a moment to specifically consider something you consider "possible", why that particular thing? Why should I stop to consider if there's some all-powerful being who doesn't want me to eat meat on Fridays or marry someone of the same gender, any more than I should consider that a deity might exist who would insist on both of those things, or a committee of such beings that are holding a meeting on those subjects right now, who will inform us all next Wednesday of their final vote via a shower of carved stone tablets falling from the sky?

Beyond merely considering an idea, what about seriously entertaining a particular idea? What makes an idea worth particular prolonged mental focus? What makes an idea worth spending an afternoon hanging out with the adherents of that idea, maybe even going through the motions of those adherents, rather than doing the same with a different group of adherents with a different idea, or reading a book from yet another perspective, or seriously entertaining the idea of finally cleaning out the garage?

Do ideas gain merit for consideration simply by being popular? By people who espouse them being sincere? Should so-called "mystical" ideas merit particular consideration? If so, why?

A particularly common gambit among believers who want to convince nonbelievers that their beliefs have value (be it to convert the nonbeliever, or merely to convince the nonbeliever than their beliefs are worthy of "respect") is to say that that the value of their beliefs can't be explained, it has to be "experienced".

At one level, a contingent ability to fully appreciate some ideas makes sense. You can't really appreciate, for example, the intricacies of modern particle physics without a great deal of study. A particle physicist listening to a crackpot with a "theory" that atoms are made out of tiny mice has every right tell the crackpot that he hasn't studied the subject matter well enough to know what he's talking about.

Does that same reasoning apply, however, when a believer tells an atheist that the atheist doesn't know what he's talking about because he hasn't devoted years of study and prayer to "understanding" the Bible or the Qur'an, or enough money on higher levels of training in Scientology? If the challenge of expertise doesn't fit here, why?

The difference is that you don't have to understand particle physics to see the fruits of particle physics. Lasers, semiconductor technology, atomic energy... all of these things are explained by particle physics, and can be manipulated and changed or improved with a knowledge of particular physics. We face real dangers from this knowledge too, from atomic waste to thermonuclear explosions. The fruits of particle physics are available and tangible to everyone regardless of their knowledge of the subject. You can use your computer right now without the slightest understanding of the physics that makes it work.

Religion and superstition have no such clear fruits. People may find morality through religion, but they do so without it as well. People gain happiness or peace or a sense of purpose from religion, but people find these things without religion too. Great art is created in the name of religion, but also without religion. Much of the great art done in the name of religion can be explained, at least in part, by religions often having control of the purse strings of some very large purses for funding artistic endeavors.

Then there's the issue about considering an idea that could be called the "so what?" factor. Suppose there is a god by someone's particular favorite definition of God? So what? Follow all of the rules someone tells you that this God of theirs expects you to follow? If the God isn't a particularly strict or demanding God, just smile beatifically because somehow the existence of this God makes everything mean more to you? If this God is just a synonym for "the universe" do you then speak of "the universe" as if it carries all of the baggage from people who define God as some sort of personality or willful, intelligent power?

The more definite your religious and spiritual ideas, the more reason I have to ask for evidence before seriously entertaining those ideas. The more vague your religious and spiritual ideas, the less consequence there is to not considering those ideas.

If you think atheists aren't "considering the possibilities" because of another common accusation about atheists, that "they think they know all of the answers", then I'll tell you, at least as far as myself and most atheists I know, that's flat out wrong.

It's more than we think that we don't know many answers to many big questions, and neither do you. We're more comfortable with real mystery -- the mystery of simply not knowing and not thinking we have to fill the void in our knowledge with imagined hopes and fears. We think asking for evidence is a very reasonable thing if you'd expect us to judge your claims of special knowledge as worthy of being seriously entertained.

[RandomThoughts]

1. On the subject of belief.

I know I do not know for sure, that is why it is belief, but I like and feel great comfort in loving as I choose, which is about the feelings of love and kindness, and ideas of free will and grace given to us by God.

Am I trying to convert, if that happened it would be an effect of sharing joy, and when I am in discomfort, God does share joy with me in many ways, so that seems to be a side effect of finding wondrous things. Also finding wondrous things can give a thought and let a person share their own ideas.

So I like your comment about it being entertaining, it seems to me that God will help and keep things as fair as possible within free will limits, but he also adds much laughter and joy to my life, letting me see great entertaining things. I am glad musicians and writers have talents, and am happy they share those gifts. I think that is part of how God works, through people to create joyful things.

It is true everything can be seen from a few directions. And I think it also depends on the person that wants to create things, what kind of things they want to create makes a difference. But even if the stuff is not perfect, I try to see the fun stuff, but that is a choice also.


The idea of 'laying down a track' Playing a song! Or for a singer singing one! or a writer writing one!
Sledgehammer
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N1tTN-b5KHg

[Silent3]

3. What you describe sounds more like a perspective than a being

It sounds more like the results of an approach of positive thinking than it does a consequence of the existence of an all-powerful supernatural entity.

The darker side of believing that so many good things come to you in life only because some deity is there to help you out is an implication, whether you make that implication intentionally or not, that people who suffer through miserable lives aren't as worthy as yourself for those benefits, that your God would either be petty enough to hand out blessing only to those who believe in him, or that your God is cruel enough or arbitrary enough to make some people suffer more than others without good reason.

[RandomThoughts]

4. I did not say that life is great, or there are not hardships.

I actually believe that if God could make 2 peoples lives better, by me having a little hardship, then he would, and it would be just. Although in that hardship, he would also give me joy. Also many of the things I have made it through, I would not have been able to do without some learning from hardships. You might ask why should anyone have hardship, well free will means people can make mistakes, and mistakes of some people lead to hardships for other people.

I am not saying my life is great, but during hard times, I still have much joy, little things that show that I am never alone.

I do not believe he only blesses those that believe in him. Many times it seems a person will recieve many blessings, and wants to do good works, so a way is given to do those things. Then in my belief, some time they will see God in their own way, since in my view, he shows himself differently to different people.

[MineralMan]

2. Well, as an atheist, I give all major religions equal consideration.

I've studied their scriptures and read books about them. I still am unable to believe in any sort of supernatural entity.

To those members of any particular religion who accuse me of not "considering the possibilities" that their religious beliefs might be correct, I simply ask them if they "consider the possibility" that their religion is incorrect, but another one is correct. I am specific, based on the religion of the questioner. Universally, they say that they "know" their religion is correct.

Then I simply tell that that their is incorrect, too, the same as all the others they reject. They disbelieve in all gods but their own. I disbelieve in all gods, after having given consideration to all the major ones.

[darkstar3]

5. "Well spoken, sir."

I suspect, given the length of the OP and the fact that it would be difficult for anyone to disagree with at all, that this thread will sink like a stone. That's a damn shame, because I think everyone who visits R/T should read it.
:applause:

[iris27]

6. +1 to all of this, but especially the last:

"It's more than we think that we don't know many answers to many big questions, and neither do you. We're more comfortable with real mystery -- the mystery of simply not knowing and not thinking we have to fill the void in our knowledge with imagined hopes and fears. We think asking for evidence is a very reasonable thing if you'd expect us to judge your claims of special knowledge as worthy of being seriously entertained."

I'd also add that I personally value science because it isn't claiming to know the answers to big questions, but it's out there searching for them in ways we can test and repeat, so we can have some degree of confidence in the results of whatever we find. Science so far has helped us find answers for some of the smaller mysteries humanity used to attribute to the gods (huge catastrophic weather/geologic events), and I'd say one of the "big" mysteries as well - that of "how did all this life we see around us, in its amazing diversity, get here?"

As a seeker, I back that which has a track record of past success, you know?

[tama]

7. Can you tell me

why "stopping to consider" the possibilities of some perfectly scientific ideas and evidence, e.g. quantum mind hypothesis, Sheldrakes evidence of telepathy etc. (aka "the new paradigm") does not usually happen in certain "skeptic groups" - not to overgeneralize but speaking from experience - but lot of time and energy is dedicated to ridicule and ad hominems. Why seriously entertain mocking attitude if an idea is not worth considering in the first place?

"If you don't understand it, mock it"? Could that happen, ever, in human behaviour?

[Silent3]

8. An idea does not become "perfectly scientific" simply because...

...you attach a few scientific buzzwords to it.

You want me to seriously consider the "quantum mind hypothesis"? I'm perfectly willing to consider that maybe Roger Penrose might have been onto something in the idea that our brains might use a form of quantum computing. There's at least enough substance to his argument to warrant further investigation, even though Penrose has hardly proven his point. The fact that we've now created a few crude quantum computing devices in the lab lends further credence to the idea that perhaps biological equivalents to those laboratory devices exist.

When someone takes huge evidence-free leaps from the word "quantum", however, acting as if merely uttering that word proves that pet psychics and Reiki really work, that's not worth seriously considering until specific solid evidence of such things is provided. If such things do work, evidence should be easy to come by too -- but all you usually get is hand-waving and excuses and complaints that the champions of such ideas are being "repressed" by an evil orthodoxy that is "threatened" by those ideas.

"If you don't understand it, mock it"? Could that happen, ever, in human behaviour?

I don't mock ideas because I don't understand them, I mock them because I believe the ideas to be absurd. It's a self-serving defense mechanism to assume that all people who mock any idea you favor are only doing so because they don't understand it as well as you do.

While mocking isn't always the nicest way to deal with absurdity, it does have a useful place in rhetoric. When people carefully steer clear of mockery of an idea, that careful avoidance creates a false aura of respectability for the idea.

You clearly don't like what "banksters," as you like to call them, have done to the country (and neither do I). Isn't the term "banksters" itself a form of mockery? Should I take it that because you mock the "banksters" that means that you simply don't understand them?

[tama]

9. Penrose's idea

is plagued by many problems and has been duly criticized. I see more promise in the hypothesis that are based on non-collapse models of quantum mechanics, such as Bohmian mechanics. Besides David Bohm, e.g. Henry Stapp writes about these matters in a way that is approachable to a non-specialist like me.

Quantum mind hypothesis also offers possible physical explanations of "non-local" mental phenomena such as Sheldrake's solid empirical studies about telepathy - which are anomalous in respect to the hypothesis of reduction to classical physics alone.

So, as a thought experiment, let's assume that the quantum mind hypothesis leads to well formed and non-falsified aka "proved" theory (with all the required math) stating that universe is consciouss holographic quantum computer. Would you then object to some people identifying and calling such quantum computer as "God"?

[Silent3]

10. You keep speaking of telepathy as if it's a given, a known real phenomena...

...awaiting an explanatory mechanism. As intriguing as Sheldrake's work might be, he's hardly proven that telepathy is a real, repeatable phenomena.

As for calling "conscious holographic quantum computer", if such a thing exists, "God"... well, why not call it "Sally" or "Uulaaniakapa"?

You said before "god" is just a word, so why suggest that word and not another? To suggest that word, you must think it signifies something special that another word would not. What is that something?

[tama]

11. Duh

there are real, repeatable phenomena coined by the word "telepathy". That is not really in question no matter what certain groups of self claimed skeptics say. The dogs can bark but the caravan keeps on going, the research has long time ago moved from appeasing the pseudoskeptic groups and their debunking polemics to actual research of the phenomena and hypothesis formulation.

<<<As for calling "conscious holographic quantum computer", if such a thing exists, "God"... well, why not call it "Sally" or "Uulaaniakapa"?

You said before "god" is just a word, so why suggest that word and not another? To suggest that word, you must think it signifies something special that another word would not. What is that something?<<<

Yes, why not, I'm not against creative name giving - especially when its funny. :)

And it is no secret that the word 'god' signifies something special to many people. That something seems to be often - but perhaps not allways - something bigger than the individual, hopefully inclusive of the individual and hopefully also something nice. Universal quantum computer could be fun scientific theory satisfying those needs and hopes for a god. Union of science and religion could be much more fun than the constant battle between atheists and theists, which is getting very boring.

[Silent3]

12. "...research has long time ago moved from appeasing the pseudoskeptic..."

This is just a fancy way of saying you can't meet strong standards of proof, have decided to vilify those who expect those standards to be met, and have moved on to play in your own private, unaccountable playground.

If telepathy were real, reliable, and repeatable, the value of the applications of telepathy would be enormous, far too great for mere stubborn "pseudoskeptic(ism)" to hold it back. I'm sure plenty of people were originally quite skeptical of electricity and radio, but solid useful application swept any lingering doubts.

What are the current telepathic equivalents of the light bulb or the telephone, the things that reliably work whether you understand or believe in the underlying mechanism or not? Things that can't be easily explained by non-telepathic phenomena?

[tama]

13. Well, not so

I've been through the evidence, meta-anayses of, discussions about all the intricacies and complexities involved as a non-partisan observer. The sceptic critique has contributed in many ways to making the tests more reliable and excluding other possible explanations, so it's not all bad and I can also be quilty of over generalizations.

But from what I've seen there are also phenomena of consistent and dishonest denial of evidence among the skeptic groups that has nothing to do with science and scientific methodology and all to do with playing politics. Such barking deserves no attention - though it must be admitted, it gets plenty.

As "spontaneous intuition" seems to describe telepathy rather well, the phenomenon is not a good candidate for technologically controllable applications. There are more reliable ways of knowing who is calling on the telephone than telepathy, for example. Sorry to disappoint you.

But let's also keep in mind that the view that only the scientific fields that contribute to technological progress are valuable, is of course ideological position.

[Silent3]

14. It has nothing to do with contributing to technology.

It as to do with demonstrable applications that don't require people to believe in the underlying principle for them to work anyway.

But now the excuses start. Oh, telepathy is real, but it's "spontaneous"... in other words, it only works sometimes, on and off, and not so much when you're trying to test it.

[tama]

15. What excuses?

If a phenomenon is spontaneous rather than controllable, so what? What is that an excuse for?

Spontaneous phenomena are not outside of scientific inquiry, as should be clear by now. On the contrary, if and when scientific inquiry shows that a phenomenon is spontaneous, at least mostly, that is scientific progress, ability to describe a phenomenon as it is and happens.

[beam me up scottie]

18. Do you read what you write before you post?

Because reading it is such a painful experience, I can only compare it to watching Dubya Bush pretending to understand science at a summit.

On the contrary, if and when scientific inquiry shows that a phenomenon is spontaneous, at least mostly, that is scientific progress, ability to describe a phenomenon as it is and happens.

You really write for a living?

[iris27]

26. I can believe it.

In fact, it wouldn't surprise me if tama were the author of the book zie's pimped on here before. Because when I looked it up, on a whim, at my favorite book trading site, it had one lone review, as follows:

"The author must have taken far too much "acid"; this is the most inane, inarticulate, and absurd abstract regarding human consciousness and its evolution I've read in a long time (and I read an AWFUL lot of books on this topic). I think this must have been the guy seated next to me in "Abnormal Psychology", the one who pretty much encapsulated what was in the text book. Duh."

[tama]

31. Interesting

One finds what one seeks? And you are flattering me but I really am not Hancock.

Amazon reviews are very different in tone, the most helpfull:
"All in all, it's an impressive, enthralling book which gains force as it continues, firmly grounded in scholarship, yet able to utilize the fruits of personal experience and experimentation. Hancock presents a unified theory for almost every encounter between humans and supernatural beings (although, in the "spirit" of the season I must say that, despite the fact that departed ancestors play a role, Hancock does not grapple with the localized phenomena of ghosts). Supernatural is a brilliant work, the capstone of Hancock's career, one that has (of course) been ignored by mainstream media and science, despite being much more interesting and valuable than timid but more ballyhooed works like William J. Broad's The Oracle.

Hancock is no freewheelin' hippy, but a rather rigorous enquiring mind of the old English school, but he's not afraid to go where Wisdom beckons, and the book's final scene shows him recumbent in the midst of nature, about to gobble a handful of magic mushrooms, the results of the journey to be recorded, I can only hope, in his next volume."

Second most helpfull:

"What most interested me about this book-- besides the way Hancock hits so many topics of interest to me and ties them together into new knowledge-- is that if you read without prejudice, you will see how science and the supernatural re-mingle in Hancock's world view. He looks at the same set of phenomena in three ways-- subjectively (as one who has experimented with psychoactive substances like Ayuhuasca); spiritually (the construct of the religious observer); and scientifically (the construct of the empiricist.) Each construct uses different languages, but each describes, accommodates, accepts, "knows" the same set of phenomena. The implication is that science and religion are not so much diametrically opposed, as they are akin to the 5 blind men describing the elephant. Each knows there's an elephant in the room. It is only in the description, not the actual perception, that differences emerge. "

Third:
"This fascinating book by alternative historian Graham Hancock investigates the origins of consciousness with reference to the work of David Lewis-Williams and his theory of the neuropsychological origins of cave art. It also goes further in proposing that those worlds and entities encountered in shamanic visions are not mere hallucinations but very real and that altered states are the means to gain entry to them. "

[beam me up scottie]

33. LOL! I'm sure Oprah loved it too.

I only read books recommended by Oprah and Amazon.

[tama]

37. If that works for you

I don't actually remember how I got that book, it was sitting in my bookshelf long time before it drew my attention.

[beam me up scottie]

48. It apparently worked for you, your research began and ended at Amazon

How can someone so credulous expect to be credible?

[tama]

51. Beam us back, Scottie

Iris quoted one - and the only - review from one book store that was prejudiced against use of psychadelics. I showed Iris that in other book stores there are also other and better reviews of a fine book.

What's so strange about this sharing of information with Iris that you need to jump in with your strange assumptions?

[darkstar3]

54. Paperback swap is prejudiced against ANYTHING?!

Who knew?!

Fuckin' wow...

[iris27]

57. I'm pretty sure tama meant that the *review* was prejudiced, not the site...

and the review was indeed quite biased. But it also seemed to echo, in an (I thought) amusing way, the headspins induced when one tries to read such a writing style. :)

No, sadly, PBS isn't prejudiced - they will let anyone post a book review that says anything, no matter how much I might enjoy it if they took down all those damn fawning reviews of the Twilight books!

[darkstar3]

60. I suppose you could see where I'd make the mistake. :)

[beam me up scottie]

55. iris was addressing me, remember? This is a public forum, if you want an echo chamber - donate.

No one is allowed to disagree with you, question your credentials or ask for evidence for your claims in the ASAH group.

[tama]

61. Sorry

but I get the sense that - again - you are not really talking to me but some monster image that your mind has created.

If you really want to talk to me and know how I see the world, by all means ask. But you can't expect me to take responsibility for your debate with your imaginary monster enemy.

[beam me up scottie]

62. More like a mosquito than a monster.

I'll stop asking for evidence for the extraordinary claims you've made in this forum when you actually produce it.

[tama]

65. Charming

If you care to read what I've posted, it will become evident that I've cited plenty of evidence. Is there something specific that is missing? Please specify and I'll do what I can.

[darkstar3]

68. From studies where even the authors admit there is no support for the hypothesis,

and from widely discredited sources as noted above. I don't call that "plenty of evidence", I call it a "plurality of inadequacies." (I can use big words for no reason, too.)

[tama]

70. What are you responding to?

This is getting very confusing... :D

[darkstar3]

73. I am responding to your claim that you have cited plenty of evidence,

which was of course evident thanks to the structure of the board. Are you perhaps trying to change the subject? Perhaps BMUS has you pegged after all, and you ARE reading from a manual...

[omega minimo]

116. "you can't expect me to take responsibility for your debate with your imaginary monster enemy"

"you can't expect me to take responsibility for your debate with your imaginary monster enemy"

... and yet, she does.

[muriel_volestrangler]

110. "Hancock is no freewheelin' hippy" - true; he is "an intellectual fraudster"

And that's official:

...
The programme had created the impression that he was an intellectual fraudster who had put forward half baked theories and ideas in bad faith, and that he was incompetent to defend his own arguments.
Adjudication: (The Commission) finds no unfairness to Mr Hancock in these matters.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/horizon/2000/atlantisreborn_bsc_synopsis.shtml

Hancock has made his career out of making up bullshit and selling books and giving talks about it. "A rather rigorous enquiring mind" is the most laughable description I've ever heard of him. He's out to separate fools from their money as quickly as possible. If only he were a hippy, he'd have a shred of conscience, and he wouldn't be ripping off his targets.

[tama]

144. Do you ever

listen to the other side and other evidence before jumping to conclusions and making a very strongly worded ad hominem? Have you ever served in a jury?

Here's the other side of the Horizon controversy:
http://www.grahamhancock.com/horizon/bsc-press_release.htm

A quote:
"The Commission considered that the programme-makers had acted in good faith, giving Mr Hancock and Mr Bauval a fair opportunity to explain their theories, and with one exception, fair opportunity to comment on criticisms. Therefore, the Commission did not uphold most parts of the complaints. However, it found that the programme's omission of Mr Hancock's and Mr Bauval's responses to criticism of one important aspect of their theory, which related to a correlation between the Giza pyramids and the Orion constellation, had been unfair.

Accordingly, the complaints were upheld in part."

[muriel_volestrangler]

152. Yes, I do, and Hancock is a fraud

I just wanted to point out the official decision. All you have to do is read his crap and you see that it's complete nonsense. The BBC programme was just a detailed demolition of it.

The BBC rebroadcast the programme with the extra response from Hancock and Bauval they wanted to make. They still came across as ridiculous fantasists. They are the heirs of von Daniken, and almost as bad as David Icke.

[tama]

165. It's quite a leap

to claim that "ridiculous fantastists", as you have every right to believe, are also "frauds" - which suggests conscious deception. Such accusation without any evidence seems, how to put it, angry and hatefull.

[muriel_volestrangler]

181. He makes his living through this fraud

He takes money off the gullible people who believe it. He continues to do so after his claims have been shown to be full of shit. He just goes back to the really gullible, or moves on to new marks. It's no leap at all.

[tama]

183. It is your opinion

that SOME OF his claims have been shown to be full of shit. Not everybody shares your view. Not even BBC.

I guess you just hope that the gullible people would give their money to the frauds you like to lend your gullibility to. Unless you claim that you are superior to gullibility, in which case I suppose I should just take your word for it.

[beam me up scottie]

34. Nice find!

I love the internets. :D

[Silent3]

25. So let's see if I can sum this all up...

Telepathy is real because a few scientists like Sheldrake claim to have proven that maybe baby chicks can learn things from other baby chicks indirectly, or people can tell other people are staring at them, based on highly disputed lab results, results which are only disputed by bad guy pseudoskeptics, not by the good guy "true scientists", who are sadly in the minority.

Telepathy has no solid, dependable, repeatable applications because it's "spontaneous", and somehow being "spontaneous" makes something untestable by most means... unless you're playing with baby chicks and staring games.

If telepathy exists, how long as it been around? It would be part of human nature for a long time, wouldn't it, not something developed in a lab at MIT during the 1960s, yes?

Yet for generation after generation after generation, the cult of the pseudoskeptics, with their tight grip on the levers of academic power, have kept evidence of telepathy repressed, have successfully generation after generation made the study of telepathy so disreputable that it just can't get a fair shake?

For some reason many ideas once met with great skepticism manage to overcome that initial skepticism, sometimes very quickly, sometime in a generation or two, while the idea of telepathy just can't manage to climb out of the pit of skepticism, but that problem is the fault of "pseudoskepticism", not a lack of the merit of the idea of telepathy?

[tama]

27. Yeah, it's weird

<<<Telepathy has no solid, dependable, repeatable applications because it's "spontaneous", and somehow being "spontaneous" makes something untestable by most means... unless you're playing with baby chicks and staring games.>>>

I'm not saying that telepathic sensitivity - which varies a lot from person to person - cannot be practiced. Some kids who have played staring at back games have developed quite a talent. Meditation and other similar practices may develop telepathic sensitivity, also cannabis and other psychoactive substances for the duration of of their effect.

So what seems to be in question is a mostly subconsciouss process that can't be controlled by consciouss willing; the telepathic information enter consciousness usually as intuitions, nagging feelings etc., and telepathic sensitivity can be enhanced by meditative concentration, silencing thoughts - e.g. in empirical tests it has been observed that "first hunches" are most reliable.

So it would seem that consciouss analytical/linguistic/symbolic thinking has negative effect on telepathic sensitivity. What does that tell us about nature of consciouss analytical thinking in wider context of study of cognition? To me it would suggest that telepathic information is present in "subconsciousness" - what and where ever that is but certain consciouss processes function as selective barriers to that information. As if brain is tuned into just one channel instead of showing all channels simultaneously.

<<<If telepathy exists, how long as it been around? It would be part of human nature for a long time, wouldn't it, not something developed in a lab at MIT during the 1960s, yes?<<<

Yep, and not only human nature but also other forms of life - plant telepathy is also interesting field, as there are studies showing that plants react telepathically to human intentions.




For the rest of your questions, here's a good discussion on the subject:
http://www.skeptiko.com/rupert-sheldrake-and-richard-wiseman-clash/

[Silent3]

30. Once again, this seems to be your SOP, you talk about...

...telepathy even some more as if it's an established fact, as if ignoring that there's any controversy about its existence is the way to argue for its existence.

If I tell you that I have a friend who is a 6-foot tall invisible rabbit, you express doubt that 6-foot tall invisible rabbits exist, and all I do in response is elaborate further about my rabbit friend, tell you what he had for dinner last night, the names of his brothers and sisters, what he thinks of your shoes... not one bit of that would prove my indirect assertion of the existence of 6-foot tall invisible rabbits.

You're also blurring the line between intuition and telepathy, as if one thing has to be linked to the other. I don't buy that.

"...as there are studies showing that plants react telepathically to human intentions."

Ah, but if I ask you for well-respected studies, well, that wouldn't be fair, because you're sure the studies are good, it's just the awful prejudice of the pseudoskeptical establishment that's keeping this important work suppressed, right?

[tama]

35. Only sort of

I'm certainly not ignoring the controversy. It can be and it is debated ad nauseam. It is perfectly OK and far more interesting to put the controvercy aside for a while at least, and continue ahead - so, assuming that telepathy is real phenomenon even if "weak but persistent", what could be said about it in face of available evidence and conceptual models?

<<<You're also blurring the line between intuition and telepathy, as if one thing has to be linked to the other>>>

That's a valid point. Telepathy is only one term for large phield of phenomena and not necessarily the best term as it can be misguiding. There's a lot of conceptual fuzzines in cognitive studies, it's not an easy puzzle to put together.

Interestingly, also the myth busters tested plant telepathy and initially the tests showed the effect. The effect disappeared and "myth was busted" when the test arrangement was changed to automatic so that there was no human intention to be sensed by plants or eggs. Funny that.

[darkstar3]

41. So, in the face of a mountain of evidence against telepathy,

your answer is to not only dismiss it, but attempt to make the rest of us assume telepathy is true and debate its effect on current scientific data?
:wtf:

[tama]

43. Short memory?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=214&topic_id=240221&mesg_id=241113

The mountain of evidence states: "Small but significant effect".

Your answer is to not only dismiss the mountain of evidence, but attempt to make the rest of us assume telepathy is not true and not discuss its effect on current scientific views?

Frankly, I thought better of you.

[darkstar3]

46. That's not the mountain I was talking about, and you know it.

I don't have all the links handy, so for now, I won't go into the mountain of evidence regarding brain function, double-blind telepathic communication studies, and other scientific results that show telepathy simply doesn't happen, and isn't possible with our current brain chemistry.

Meanwhile, as I stated in the thread you linked, the only study you cite can't have any conclusions at all drawn upon it because even its own creators admit to its shortcomings in methodology and sample size.

Since I seem to have trouble getting through to you, I'll leave it to Silent3 or one of the other bastions of clarity here.

[tama]

58. Contrary to what you may think

I'm not a mind reader.

The study I cited was two meta-analysis of several studies (which of course are all not methodologically compatible), which concluded that there is small but significant effect. Meta-analyses are handy in the way that others have allready done the comparative work over several studies which saves lot of time and effort for others.

As is prudent in scientific methodology and skeptical attitude, they didn't want to make a FINAL conclusion and recommended further empirical study and developing conceptual models to gain better understanding of the phenomena.

Presumption that further study would automatically show no effect is pure prejudice. In fact, devicing differrent tests that provide different results, e.g. some showing an effect and some not, produce scientific results. To gain better understanding of the phenomena it is important to know what kinds of tests show effect and what kinds do not.

[darkstar3]

59. I repeat, from the other thread where this originally came up,

Go back and read it again, tama. You'll find that these researchers flat out admit that their data proves nothing, because their methodology was flawed and their sample size not representative. There's nothing more to say after that.

Can we contain this topic to one place, please?

[tama]

66. Let's contain it here.

Now, I've allready responded to your interpretation in my provious post to this subthread.

[darkstar3]

74. No, you really haven't. You've tried to ignore it, but the fact stays right there for all to see.

Even the people who authored this study have no faith in its scientific rigor.

[tama]

78. False testimony is not helpfull

"Conclusion
We conclude that for both data sets that there is a small, but significant effect. This result
corresponds to the recent findings of studies on distant healing and the ‘feeling of being
stared at’. Therefore, the existence of some anomaly related to distant intentions cannot
be ruled out. The lack of methodological rigour in the existing database prohibits final
conclusions and calls for further research, especially for independent replications on
larger data sets. There is no specific theoretical conception we know of that can
incorporate this phenomenon into the current body of scientific knowledge. Thus,
theoretical research allowing for and describing plausible mechanisms for such effects is
necessary."
http://www.uniklinik-freiburg.org/iuk/live/forschung/publikationen/EDA_DMILS_MA_BJP_2004.pdf

(British Journal of Psychology, 1 May 2004, vol. 95, no. 2, pp. 235-247)

Of course the authors of this study have all faith in the scientific rigour of their study, otherwise they wouldn't publish it. "The lack of methodological rigour in the existing database" does not refer to their own lack of rigour but their assesment of quality of the studies included in the meta-analyses, which is rigorously accounted for in their method and conclusions.


Few more quotes:
"One could conclude that the data indicate the existence of some as yet unknown
effect of distant intentionality. Our goal was to assess whether this strong claim can
stand up to critical evaluation from a sceptical perspective."

"The crucial point in interpreting the results of direct mental interaction and remote
staring experiments is their methodological quality. Only if appropriate safeguards and
state-of-the-art methodology are applied to exclude conventional explanations or bias,
can one draw conclusions on the phenomenon under research. Earlier analyses of these
236 Stefan Schmidt et al. experimental studies (Schmidt, Schneider, Binder, Bu¨rkle, & Walach, 2001; Schmidt & Walach, 2000) have shown that techniques in EDA recording, statistical methods and
the randomization of the epoch sequence are crucial points for the evaluation, and not
all studies have always applied the best techniques available."

"Because of the unconventional claim of the studies under research, we always chose a more conservative strategy whenever such a decision had to be made."

With such conservative and skeptical rigour, they still come to the conclusion of small but significant effect which requires further study.

The last quote refers to the principle "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence", which is a bias of it's own kind and affects the methodology and results of this meta-analysis in favour of the skeptical presupposition. However, that principle should not be uncritically accepted as telepathic fenomena are extraordinary only in relation to materialistic ideology but 30-50% of human population report having had telepathic experiences which makes not extraordinary but quite normal phenomenon.

[beam me up scottie]

81. So now Carl Sagan is "biased"?

The last quote refers to the principle "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence", which is a bias of it's own kind and affects the methodology and results of this meta-analysis in favour of the skeptical presupposition.

And what the hell is "the skeptical presupposition"?

[tama]

84. No such inference

The point was that telepathy is not really an extraordinary claim but quite normal phenomenon.

"And what the hell is "the skeptical presupposition"?"

A contradiction in terms. Which is why it beats me up, scottie, that many self-claimed skeptics make the presupposition of materialistic ideology.

[beam me up scottie]

89. Wrong. It's a talking point used by anti-science creationists and other woo advocates.

Usually used after their "research" and "theories" have been torpedoed by real scientists.

Imagine, if you will, that someone was foolish enough to to make the following claim at http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/">Respectful Insolence (or any of the science blogs) :

telepathy is not really an extraordinary claim but quite normal phenomenon.

and was unable to provide empirical evidence. Hilarity would ensue, the epic humiliation would provide weeks of entertainment, possibly more.

Pretending scientists and skeptics are part of a vast conspiracy to stifle earth-shattering discoveries made by the delusional doesn't help your cause.

[tama]

90. No doubt

"Hilarity would ensue, the epic humiliation would provide weeks of entertainment,"

For some reason, I don't find humiliating others entertaining and seeing others being humiliated by bullies is painfull to me. I guess we are different in that respect.

Self-ridicule in nice company is my cup of tea.

[beam me up scottie]

94. You can dish it out but you can't take it.

You have repeatedly insulted skeptics in this forum, called us liars (among other names), informed us that we weren't real skeptics, insulted our intelligence by feeding us bullshit when asked for evidence, and then inferred we were too stupid to understand your brilliant statements.

[tama]

95. I see

All I can say is that I've done my best to discuss ideas, not individuals.

1) I havent called YOU a liar, just pointed out that the claim about no evidence is a lie. See point three. You may have made your claim out of ignorance or knowingly, but anyway the claim is a lie.

2) I have argued that materialistic ideology is not a skeptical attitude but ideological.

3) Considering the evidence presented, e.g. the meta-analysis article from the Psychology journal, bullshit is your opinion, I have different opinion.

4) Last but not least, I often feel too stupid to understand what people wiser than me are saying but that does not stop me from trying.

[darkstar3]

96. It is certainly not, so stop giving it.

Your verbosity in spamming does not negate the fact that in the very first paragraph you cite, the same scientists who authored the study explained that it didn't prove a damn thing. Stop trying to pretend that it did.

[tama]

99. Ummmm

Sorry but instead of following your recommendation of disrespect for evidence and scientific method I'll rather accept that the study proves what the authors say it proves, with all the fine nuance aka scientific rigour that you call "verbosity in spamming".

[darkstar3]

100. Have fun,

but if one of us is "disrespecting" the scientific method (whatever-the-fuck that means), it certainly isn't me. If a study or experiment doesn't support a hypothesis, and the scientists who performed that study or experiment flat-out admit that it doesn't support their hypothesis, it is highly disingenuous to state that the study or experiment DOES support they hypothesis.

Keep in mind, lack of support for this hypothesis doesn't negate the possibility of future study, it just means that this study cannot be used to support any current ideas on telepathy, which is exactly what you're trying to do here.

[tama]

102. Their hypothesis?

What is their hypothesis, or more generally, the hypothesis of meta-analysis of database of several studies in your view?

Your hypothesis is that if most rigorous and conservative methodology would be applied to the study of of these fenomena, they would show no effect. That is exactly what has been done in these meta-analysis which evaluate the quality of studies with most conservative criteria.

The meta-analysis does not confirm your hypothesis.

[darkstar3]

103. You're trying to tell me they DIDN'T have a hypothesis about the existence of telepathy?

Give me a break.

[tama]

104. I'm trying to tell

that as good scientists they took relatively non-partial stand between
1) hypothesis of existance of telepathy
2) hypothesis of non-existance of telepathy
with their bias somewhat inclined in direction of 2) as they subscribe to the prevailing materialist position that telepathy would be something extraordinary and not a common phenomenon as experienced by 30-50 percent of human population.

Let's keep in mind that there is no disagreement over the actual phenomena labelled as telepathy occurring. The disagreement is about explanatory models. Materialistic presupposition claims - extraordinarily! - that all the everyday phenomena experienced and interpreted as telepathical can be explained by classical mechanics alone. The position scientifically skeptical of the universal explanatory power of materialistic paradigm claims that these phenomena are anomalous in that respect and cannot be explained by classical mechanics alone.

[darkstar3]

105. Bullshit.

A. You cannot have a dual hypothesis. The hypothesis for the experiments in question was the existence of telepathy.
B. Let's keep in mind that there is no disagreement over the actual phenomena labelled as telepathy occurring. :wtf: There is plenty of disagreement! What kind of claim is that?

[tama]

106. Binarism

A) Even if you can't think except in terms of binary oppositions, it is not logical to assume that others, including scientists, could not and should not work within the shades of gray.

B) Phenomena as such occur as experienced. Nothing controversial about that. Controversy is about how phenomena should be interpreted and explained.

Phenomenon as such: A person answers telephone: "Hi John, so nice to hear from you after so long time! I was just thinking about you and that I should call you and ask how you are doing, what a coincidence - maybe we have some kind of telepathic connection?!"
Interpretation A: pure coincidence explainable inside materialistic paradigm
Interpretation B: meaningfull coincidence interpreted as telepathic connection not explainable inside materialistic paradigm

Then the real "fun" of probability math and experimental rigour etc. really starts...

[darkstar3]

107. More bullshit.

A) The scientific method allows only for the testing of one hypothesis at a time, and it is obvious that the hypothesis in question is the existence of telepathy. Different experiments are required to test different hypotheses.
B) Everything you've written here does nothing at all to substantiate the existence of telepathy. Further, not all phenomena DO occur as experienced. Do we really need to discuss optical illusions and other types of misperception?

If you REALLY think that there is no controversy, no argument over the existence of telepathy, then I encourage you to visit the Biology Department of your local university, and start asking random people if telepathy is real or possible. You may be genuinely surprised at the results.

[ironbark]

142. "Binarism"!!!??? No, never , couldn't be, could it?

How un usual.

;-)

"...it is not logical to assume that others, including scientists, could not and should not work within the shades of gray."

Hmmmmmmmmmmm. ;-)

[tama]

145. Between one and zero

there is infinity of rational numbers.

[darkstar3]

155. Two days.

You had two whole days to formulate a response, and that empty statement, which answers nothing from the post it replies to, is the best you could come up with? :boring:

[iris27]

193. Call it binarism if you want (I don't agree), but scientists should NOT be working in shades of gray

while setting up and analyzing the results of an experiment. They can prance through fields of charcoal and slate all they want while they talk about the past studies that have been done on their topic, and while they discuss the implications of those results on future research.

However, actually conducting an experiment without a clear hypothesis, to be answered with a binary "supported" or "not supported" based on the results, is a sure-fire way to end up concocting nonsense theories to explain one's data, such as "People born on August 7 have a much higher chance of switching minors more than twice in college."

"Good scientists" (to borrow your phrase) form a hypothesis, and a way to test that hypothesis. The resulting evidence either back up the hypothesis or doesn't. Then a new hypothesis for a new experiment is formed, rinse, repeat. The caution inherent in that process is what allows us any degree of confidence in the results we receive and what they say about our theories. Otherwise, one is just working from intuition and may feel quite confident while being quite wrong.

The meta-analysis you link cites its hypotheses at the end of its introduction as most studies do: "First, we wished to determine whether there is an overall effect in all direct mental interaction or remote staring studies. Second, we wished to find out whether effect sizes are related to methodological quality, i.e. whether poor methodological study quality, and thus bias,can account for positive findings."

I do think darkstar is incorrectly assuming the authors' hypothesis was broader than it truly was, but he is right that this is anything but a study supporting the existence of telepathy.

The authors found a small but statistically significant effect when ALL the studies were considered together. They also found that this effect was dramatically reduced or eliminated when they only looked at studies known to have used greater care with controls and generally better methodology.

For the "direct mental interaction" analysis, they report that "although the quality weighted analysis of 36 studies (model 1) yields a highly significant result, the best-evidence synthesis of seven studies (model 2) does not. The authors are cautious and do not say this means there could not possibly be an effect, because all of the 'best-evidence' studies were done by their own research group and they want to be careful to avoid bias. But it remains a fact that a significant result is only obtained with the inclusion of lower-quality studies.

For the "remote staring" analysis, the authors state that "the mean overall quality of the studies is lower (59%) than in the direct mental interaction data (66%) and, most importantly, the study with the highest quality reaches only 71% of the maximum score compared with
100% in direct mental interaction." "...one has to be careful when interpreting the remote staring data because there is a lack of high-quality studies and such studies may reduce the overall effect size or even show that the effect does not exist."

So basically, they said, "There are a lot of crap studies out there on this topic, with inaccurate and inflated results. We found a small effect when we combined them with more carefully conducted studies and analyzed them all together. But because there were so many more bad studies than good in our analysis, no real conclusions can be drawn until more high-quality studies are done."

Or in their words again, "The lack of methodological rigour in the existing database prohibits final conclusions and calls for further research, especially for independent replications on larger data sets.

Anyway...

Others may not have had links handy, but a just few seconds on the first page of Google Scholar yielded two studies that tested ESP and found results that were no better than chance:

ESP and ESB: Belief in personal success at mental telepathy
Effects of paranormal beliefs on response bias and self-assessment of performance in a signal detection task

[tama]

223. As said

The hypothesis was the sceptical one, that the better the quality of studies the more insignificant the effect, and the researches are clear and honest about their own skeptical bias:

"One could conclude that the data indicate the existence of some as yet unknown effect of distant intentionality. Our goal was to assess whether this strong claim can stand up to critical evaluation from a sceptical perspective."

"Meta-analysis is the state-of-the art method for the statistical integration of individual
research results. The method implies a high degree of objectivity and reliability.
However, any practical application of meta-analysis requires a number of decisions on
procedural details at all stages. Nonetheless, it is clear that different procedures can lead
to different outcomes (Fishbain, Cutler, Rosomoff, & Rosomoff, 2000; Sacks, Berrier,
Reitman, Ancona-Berk, & Chalmers, 1987). Because of the unconventional claim of the
studies under research, we always chose a more conservative strategy whenever such a
decision had to be made."

The remote staring database showed no significant correlation of results with the researchers assesment of the study quality, and if I interprete correctly their assesment of lower overall quality of the RS studies was largely on the basis of the randomization issue (assuming pattern recognition and positive learning curve for the tested).

As said, despite the conservative and skeptical bias the analysis showed small but significant effect calling for further study as the researchers honestly admit. Further studies have been made as recommended, including about the crucial hypothesis of poor randomization explaining the effect:

http://www.sheldrake.org/Articles&Papers/papers/staring/scopesthesia1_abs.html
http://www.sheldrake.org/Articles&Papers/papers/staring/hitrates_abs.html

These studies show that positive scores do not significantly increase with feedback:

"However, when Marks & Colwell (2001) and Lobach & Bierman (2004) conducted tests of this kind, some of their experiments gave results not significantly different from chance, and they attempted to explain the positive results in staring tests as artifacts. Their hypotheses predict that positive scores should arise only in trials with feedback, only in trials with one particular kind of randomization, and that scores should increase towards the end of the experimental session. I have examined the data from the first and second halves of more than 19,000 trials to test these predictions. Both with and without feedback, and also with different randomization methods, the scores were positive and statistically significant in both the first and the second halves of tests. With feedback there was a small increase in scores in the second halves, but this was not statistically significant. Without feedback, there was a tendency for the scores to decline. In a trial-by-trial analysis of one large-scale experiment, the highest hit rate occurred in the very first trial for starees who were about to receive feedback, before any feedback had actually been given! Thus the beneficial effect of feedback may not depend so much on the feedback itself as the state of mind of the participants."



PS: The links you give are about correlation of PSI ability with belief and non-belief in paranormal phenomena, suggesting there is no such positive correlation.

[iris27]

249. The links I gave are PRIMARILY about belief's correlation with ability, yes,

however as a side tangent they tested everyone's ability to communicate symbols telepathically. And whether they were believers or no, NO ONE was better than chance.

I'll look at the Sheldrake info more later, but thus far no links you have given me have been about studies that were conducted with any sort of rigor. If you want to call that a conservative and skeptical bias, that's fine...that's the way science works. It took ten years for the bacteria theory of ulcers to become scientific consensus - and a similar timeframe for the idea of prions. When the evidence is there, and careful studies show it again and again, the credible theory wins acceptance.

[beam me up scottie]

49. Yeah, you know plant telepathy is real because you doubt the methods used by the Mythbusters.

:rofl:

[iris27]

56. If I remember that Mythbusters correctly, the stated myth they were examining

was primary perception at large...the idea that life reacts to life, not that life senses *human* intention only. So the 'automatic' experiment was a perfectly valid one.

On the ONE test that did get a spike on the graph, Tory and Grant were standing right next to the machine. Later mental "attacks" by Tory, after they'd moved further away (but still within line of sight), got no response on a EEG.

They also tested several other ways that had humans involved before moving to the automatic test. They had Kari drop boiling water into yogurt while an EEG was hooked to another vial of yogurt, testing the idea that the 2nd yogurt's bacteria should be able to feel either the pain of the first or Kari's evil intentions toward the first...nothing. Then they shocked the crap out of Tory with a stun gun while cells scraped from his cheek were monitored...no response from Tory's cells to the pain caused their originator.

Only after all that did they move to the "non-human" test. The plant reacted not a whit as several eggs were dropped, one by one, into boiling water by their robotic setup.

In my mind, a valid critique of the egg-boiling experiment would be that non-fertilized eggs, likely stored in a refrigerator before the test, are just dead organic matter and not living 'life', so maybe that was why the plant wouldn't react. If they were boiling a carrot just pulled from the garden, or eggs known to be fertilized and brooded over by a hen until the test, maybe they would've gotten a different reaction.

Or maybe plants and bacteria lack ESP capabilities.

Mythbusters hardly holds the gold standard of experimental rigor, but they came up with the same results as more controlled studies on the subject have - that is, they did not find evidence for primary perception.

[tama]

64. Haven't seen the episode

But the results seem to conform with Backsters results:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cleve_Backster
http://www.derrickjensen.org/backster.html
http://kwc.org/mythbusters/2006/12/episode_61_deadly_straw_primar.html

Effect appeared in Myth Busters also after leaving the room, but disappeared after changing polygraph to EEG. Their claim that Backster used EEG and not polygraph is misunderstanding AFAIK, as all resources I've seen refer to Backster (CIA expert on polygraphs) using polygraph.

The especially strong reaction to mental image of burning that is mentioned in the MB narrative also confirms with Backster's findings.

Bose (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jagdish_Chandra_Bose) was the pioneer scientist in the field, also other studies show similar effect:

"VI Summary and Conclusions

"The purpose of the investigation reported here was to assess the feasibility of the use of a special class of device (organic sensor) for real-time contactless measurement of psychological stress or other psychological or physiological state in a human subject being monitored. To this end special detectors were developed so that the electrical activity and micromovements of plants (Philodendron oxycardium, Mimosa pudica) and algae (Nitella) could be monitored. The activity of these sensors while in close proximity to a human subject viewing slides of varying emotional content was then examined. The sensors were located inside Faraday cage electrical shielding to eliminate trivial electrical artifacts. To provide an objective indicator of emotional response during viewing, the subject's GSR (galvanic skin response) was recorded to provide a signal to cross-correlate with the organic sensor output."

"Pilot experiments with the algae Nitella indicated that they were nonresponsive to the activity of human subjects in close proximity, and therefore experimentation with Nitella was terminated early in the program. With regard to plant sensors, however, experimental findings with twelve subjects indicated that the electrical activity of plants in close proximity to a human subject viewing slides of putative emotional content, although not in one-to-one correspondence with subject GSR, nevertheless did show in some cases (20%) statistically significant evidence of correlation with subject GSR.* Furthermore, such electrical activity is found not to be an artifact of plant micromotion, the latter being uncorrelated with either subject GSR or plant potential, nor is it a system artifact due to slide tray activity signals in the GSR channel. Thus, although we must reject the hypothesis that subject GSR and plant potential fluctuations of a nearby electrically shielded plant are in general correlated, there is evidence for a degree of correlation beyond that expected by chance.""
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Randall_Fontes

[iris27]

109. Interestingly enough, Mythbusters tested Bose's ideas in yet another episode and got results

contrary to his. They had five isolated garden beds growing peas -- a control, two exposed to speech (one nice, one mean), and two exposed to music (one classical, one heavy metal). Noise seemed to help plant growth over no noise, as all test categories grew better than the control, but pleasant speech and angry speech had the same effect on growth. Music helped even better than speech did, but metal actually helped more than classical! The heavy metal plants grew the best of all five categories -- even despite having had their water accidentally shut off halfway through the experiment!

Anyway...

What do you suggest a polygraph measures that an EEG doesn't? They both measure electrical resistance as far as I'm aware. It's just that the EEG is much less vulnerable to artifact interference -- static electricity, proximity of others, etc. The fact that these 'results' are only ever seen with a polygraph, whose reputation for inaccuracy and falsifiability is well known, does not help the credibility of this theory. Even with a polygraph, though, other studies attempting to replicate these results got data that did not meet the threshold for statistical significance.

Horowitz, K. A., D.C. Lewis, and E. L. Gasteiger. 1975. Plant primary perception. Science 189: 478-480.

Kmetz, J. M. 1977. A study of primary perception in plants and animal life. Journal of the American Society for Psychical Research 71(2): 157-170.

Galston, A. W. and C. L. Slayman. (1979). The not-so-secret life of plants. American Scientist , 67 337-344.

Back to Mythbusters...even when using a polygraph, they only got a response roughly 30% of the times they "attacked"...just over 30% when they stood right by the polygraph, under 30% when they moved further away. That's about the same frequency that everyone else who'd run these experiments had gotten, and it was found that the data never once reached significance level -- except when Fontes tried some interesting statistical gymnastics and basically threw out any individual test that didn't get a good result. (I can't find reference anywhere to Backster having done any sort of statistical analysis on his results.)

In 20% of cases, Fontes reported, the correlation between the human and the plant's respective galvanic skin responses reached a statistically significant level (and even the GSR match is not the "consistent one-to-one relationship" they were evidently hoping for). But we hear nothing about what the stats say when those other 80% are added back into the mix and the sum total of their findings are examined...I'm guessing the stats for the overall picture don't come close to beating chance.

That is a VERY weird way to analyze data. It's like me taking a survey of 200 people about whether or not they have ever seen a ghost, and 40 say yes. I then ask the 40 what their favorite beer is, and a small but statistically significant amount say Natty Light. I publish my findings as "Natty Light Causes Hallucinations!" That's roughly equivalent to what Fontes is doing by claiming this study is proof of a "http://www.ebdir.net/enlighten/index.html#Secret%20Life%20of%20Plants">Secret Life of Plants".

My eyebrows are also raised a bit at the mention that Fontes began by testing an algae, but "terminated" that line of testing after the algae showed no response of any kind. That's not very responsible science - usually that would be reported as a separate experiment which ended up supporting a null hypothesis, with the plant experiment reported entirely separately.

Was Fontes' work ever published somewhere peer-reviewed? It doesn't look like it according to the wiki page you linked (but of course Wikipedia's no paragon of accuracy). Googling Fontes in general led me here:

"Very few of the original copies of this one of a kind document are known to still exist detailing the use of plants as a human biofield sensor. If you would like a copy of "Organic Biofield Sensor" email Randall. In your email briefly state your interest in in this work. He will email you a copy in Adobe .pdf format. [e-mail]"

This also makes me suspect that this study was probably never published anywhere peer-reviewed, because back issues of scientific journals are pretty widely accessible through most academic libraries, even for journals that have since gone out of print. I'm also curious why those who support this idea don't seem to have done any more research to back themselves up in more than 30 years?

To me, when there are more studies (with better controls) failing to reach significance level than the ones finding specious "significant" results, at best it means that further study is still needed. At worst it means, "sorry, the hypothesis you were hoping to support is most likely incorrect".

EDITED TO ADD: Actually, it looks like Backster and at least one supporter claimed to get results with an EEG as well, so why object to the Mythbusters' use of one?
http://keelynet.wordpress.com/2008/04/26/cleve-backster-emeters-and-the-singing-plant
http://www.intuitive-connections.net/2008/book-primaryperception.htm

[iris27]

111. Oh, and a bit of a non-sequitur about eggs, because the editing period on my post #56

has expired. I did a little more reading and saw that Backster also tested ordinary eggs out of the refrigerator. He began after a plant that he apparently left hooked to the polygraph 24/7 "reacted" when he cracked an egg for his breakfast, or to give to his dog. So he then went on to conduct tests involving cracking eggs and/or dropping them into boiling water. So that was also a perfectly valid test for the Mythbusters to try, despite what I initially thought. And again, they got zero reaction.

[tama]

146. Very thorough

I have no time (nor need) to find any counter arguments. :)

[beam me up scottie]

32. Oh brother, here we go with the "plant telepathy" woo again.

- plant telepathy is also interesting field, as there are studies showing that plants react telepathically to human intentions.

Are you really going to pimp Baxter's fraud on DU?

Really?

[tama]

36. Why not?

I also hug trees. :)

[beam me up scottie]

47. Because he's a fraud, his "research" was discredited a long time ago.

I would expect more discernment from a person who poses as a scientist and decreed herself the arbiter of skepticism.

[tama]

71. See 64 n/t

[beam me up scottie]

75. You mean your Cut and Paste Sylvia Browne Special of the Day?

The dude attached a fucking polygraph machine to a leaf and claimed its "reaction" proved it was sentient!

You are Barnum's dream girl, you lack even the most basic understanding of science.

[tama]

80. Who is Sylvia Browne? n/t

[beam me up scottie]

82. Cleve Backster's psychic. nt

[tama]

85. Really?

Then I'm sure you can produce evidence that Cleve Backster and Sylvia Browne know each others and Cleve has used Sylvias psychic services. You would never make counter factual claims, would you, because doing so might harm your credibility?

[beam me up scottie]

87. Prove she's not.

I'll wait. :popcorn:

[tama]

88. And now I suppose

I'm supposed to say you made a positive claim so the burden of proof is on you?

I must admit that I don't as much satisfaction from this game as you do. You win.

[ChadwickHenryWard]

127. If strong evidence for telepathy exists,

can you direct us to peer-reviewed scientific studies wherein this evidence might be found? If controlled scenarios have yielded repeatable results in the field of telepathy, that would be huge. I'm anxious hear more.

[tama]

147. "strong" is subjective notion

But here you go:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=214&topic_id=240415&mesg_id=241270

[darkstar3]

156. "He is the closed circle." n/t

[ChadwickHenryWard]

176. That doesn't prove anything.

It's only one study. Though I'm surprised you were even able to come up with that, all you have is one study with a small departure from what was expected. There's a reason why scientific studies are supposed to be repeatable: so they can be repeated. One study is not enough to prove anything. The phenomenon, if it even exists, cannot be established from one experiment becuase it may have been an accident. Only when different scientists at different facilities but using the same methods have consistently found a phenomenon to occur can we begin to call it "true."

However, even if we could see some significant departure from out expectations manifesting consistenly in the same way under these controlled conditions, that would not prove that we have a case of "telepathy" on our hands. As the study you cited pointed out, there is no known mechanism by which these supposed phenomena can occur. That means that we need a compelling explanation of why something contradictory to current scientific knowledge is consistantly and demonstrably occurring. After all, the appearance of some new phenomenon could in fact be a phenomenon we already understand at work. Even with a statistically significant occurrance, there is a lot more work to be done in explaining this supposed "telepathy."

[tama]

185. Oh,

there's plenty of studies, more than I have time and energy to discuss. I quoted that one because it's recent article consisting of two meta-analysis analyzing large database of several repeated studies with most conservative and rigorous methodology. It is usually advisable to read a study before making assumptions about it. ;)

What 'current scientific knowlegde' are you referring to? The materialistic hypothesis that mental phenomena reduce to brain neurology is just a working hypothesis shared by many scientists - but certainly not all. As for philosophers of mind, the materialistic hypothesis is minority position (Churchland's 'eliminative materialism'). A working hypothesis does not mean 'scientific knowledge', which would require well developed and unfalsified theory in form of mathematical physics, at least in the case of reductionistic hypothesis.

The current most promising alternative hypothesis is 'quantum mind' which has much wider potential to explain anomalies that the reduction to classical mechanics can't explain, such as placebo effect etc.

[iris27]

194. CHW may not have read the study closely, but that doesn't mean it's anything

worth using to draw conclusions on the existence of telepathy. See my entirely-too-long 193.

[tama]

226. A null study?

I beg to differ, for it's part its good science and valuable contribution. But taken alone and separate from the wider context it is of course not sufficient to draw any final conclusions. May I also remind you that science is not about proving anything absolutely, scientific truths are conventional truths. Demand or expectation for absolute proof is not something that scientific method can fullfill.


Here's a wider look at the history and current situation in the study of the staring effect - wich of course is just a subfield in the wider study of telepathy:

http://www.sheldrake.org/Articles&Papers/papers/staring/pdf/JCSpaper1.pdf

A small exerpt about the well known basis of "anectodatal evidence" that calls for the study of the phenomenon, as it considered real enough to be taken into consideration in certain professions:

"Most people take these experiences for granted and pay little attention to them.
But some people observe others for a living. The sense of being stared at is well
known to many police officers, surveillance personnel and soldiers, as I have
found through an extensive series of interviews. Most were convinced of the
reality of this sense, and told stories about times when people they were watching
seemed to know they were being observed, however well the observers were hidden
(Sheldrake, 2003a). When detectives are trained to follow people, they are
told not to stare at their backs any more than necessary, because otherwise the
person might turn around, catch their eye and blow their cover.

According to experienced detectives, this sense also seems to work at a distance
when the observers look through binoculars. Several celebrity photographers
and army snipers told me that they were convinced that some people could
tell when they were being looked at through telephoto lenses or telescopic sights."

[ChadwickHenryWard]

230. Look, if you're just gonna make shit up, I'm not gonna play. n/t

[tama]

235. Make shit up? n/t

[onager]

17. I checked with a real quantum physicist...

On the "holistic/quantum" claims:

Victor Stenger...explains that energy exists in discrete packets called quanta. Energy fields are composed of their component parts and so only exist when quanta are present. Therefore energy fields are not holistic, but are rather a system of discrete parts that must obey the laws of physics.

This also means that energy fields are not instantaneous.

These facts of quantum physics place limitations on the infinite, continuous field that is used by some theorists to describe so-called "human energy fields".

Stenger continues, explaining that the effects of EM forces have been measured by physicists as accurately as one part in a billion and there is yet to be any evidence that living organisms emit a unique field.

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

Stenger worked on the research teams that discovered the quark and other sub-atomic particles. He's a Professor Emeritus of physics at the University of Hawaii.

For those who would dismiss him as a cold, mechanistic scientific type - he also has a doctorate in philosophy and teaches that subject at the University of Colorado:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victor_J._Stenger

Finally, for anyone who actually believes they can do telepathy etc., there's always this simple test:

At JREF, we offer a one-million-dollar prize to anyone who can show, under proper observing conditions, evidence of any paranormal, supernatural, or occult power or event.

http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/1m-challenge.html

[beam me up scottie]

19. It's not telepathy, it's "spontaneous intuition" !

:rofl:

You couldn't make this stuff up.

[onager]

22. ROFL'ing with you. And Quantum Mechanic...

Hell, I'm going to become a Quantum AUTO Mechanic!

"Well, I heard that some other car had a problem similar to yours, and they fixed it over at J.B. Rhine Institute Garage. Or maybe it was the Stanford Research Institute Garage, when that Uri Geller guy bent a driveshaft or something.

Anyhow, they had indisputable proof the car was fixed, but I can't find it right now. So I'll just talk about your car's problem with you for a day or two.

Then I'll send you an invoice with a 5,000 word description of how the Universe is apparently just pissed off at your car and is interfering with its energy flow. No, that's not grease. It's solidified dark matter.

That'll be $900, after I give you the special Sylvia Browne discount. Cash, check or credit card?"

[beam me up scottie]

28. The amazing recovery of the first car is easily explained: spontaneous regeneration.

Happens to automobiles all the time, just Google it.

Unfortunately, since spontaneous regeneration cannot be repeated in technologically controllable applications, your customer will have to pay for the repairs.

Of course she can always manifest the $900.00.






"special Sylvia Browne discount" :spray:

[tama]

29. LOL

I've heard about guys who fix computers professionally that burn incence and chant mantras when nothing else seems to help the sick computer... with good results :D

[darkstar3]

38. Really?

You do of course realize that when you speak of professions in that manner, all it takes is one professional in that field to call total bullshit?
(BTW: I fix computers for a living. If you think incense works, I can only say that is a flabbergasting idea.)

[tama]

39. I'll suspend my judgement

but if it produces the wanted results, fine by me.

[darkstar3]

40. Please.

I know you're trying to make a clever rhetorical point about "real skepticism" here, but come the fuck on. You cannot possibly believe that there is even a possibility that burning incense and chanting will somehow cure a computer virus or other problem.

Do you also believe that there is a possibility that people will step out of your TV and into your life?

[tama]

44. To be honest

I can stay open to that possibility. World can be really wierd and then some and strawberry jam on top.

PS: From what I can does not follow that you should. If your world view works for you, fine by me. I'll manage with mine. And as far our world views overlap, ain't it nice, this shared reality? :)

[darkstar3]

53. You must live in constant fear.

To stay open to the possibility that the laws of physics, the very laws NATURE could suddenly reverse themselves for one moment at any time with no explanation or prior warning? How do you go outside everyday without fear of incredible sunburn, sudden flight in an updraft, or even "total protonic reversal"?

[tama]

69. Curiously

it's not a "must" as I don't live in constant fear. Even when the very laws of nature are being broken:



"For a brief instant, it appears, scientists at Brook haven National Laboratory on Long Island recently discovered a law of nature had been broken.

Action still resulted in an equal and opposite reaction, gravity kept the Earth circling the Sun, and conservation of energy remained intact. But for the tiniest fraction of a second at the Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider (RHIC), physicists created a symmetry-breaking bubble of space where parity no longer existed.

Parity was long thought to be a fundamental law of nature. It essentially states that the universe is neither right- nor left-handed — that the laws of physics remain unchanged when expressed in inverted coordinates. In the early 1950s it was found that the so-called weak force, which is responsible for nuclear radioactivity, breaks the parity law. However, the strong force, which holds together subatomic particles, was thought to adhere to the law of parity, at least under normal circumstances.

Now this law appears to have been broken by a team of about a dozen particle physicists, including Jack Sandweiss, Yale's Donner Professor of Physics. Since 2000, Sandweiss has been smashing the nuclei of gold atoms together as part of the STAR experiment at RHIC, a 2.4-mile-circumference particle accelerator, to study the law of parity under the resulting extreme conditions.

The team created something called a quark-gluon plasma — a kind of "soup" that results when energies reach high enough levels to break up protons and neutrons into their constituent quarks and gluons, the fundamental building blocks of matter."
http://www.physorg.com/news188211977.html

[darkstar3]

72. So on a micoscopic scale,

for a fraction of a second, in an incredibly controlled environment designed specifically approximate conditions NOT found anywhere in this cosmos since the Big Bang, scientists managed to bend one speculative law of nature. How does this in any way lead to the assertion that laws of nature or physics can spontaneously reverse themselves?

To make a jump like that, you'd have to be Mulder..."I want to believe."

[tama]

77. Hey, just like you

If I can choose I prefer that the sky does not fall down next moment. But I cannot a priori exclude such (extremely remote) possibility.

"Laws" of nature is curious expression as in nature laws are found mainly in hierarchically organized human societies and originally considered of divine origin like the laws of Moses - absolute, immutable and eternal, set in stone. "Laws of nature" is bad case of anthropocentrism, not least because laws refer to hierarchic organizion.

The more sensible case of anthropocentrism is admitting the self evident fact that observers like us observe this universe so it is only natural and logical that universe must satisfy the conditions that allow observers like us to observe and preserve those conditions from quantum jump to quantum jump as long as universe sees fit to observe it through observers like us. That means that there is not much room for values of "constants" to vary and otherwise to step out of habit. But some.

[beam me up scottie]

52. Sure, she can. Her houseplants heard it through the grapevine and told her about it.

Of course plants can't really talk, they communicated with her telepathically through a polygraph machine.

[tama]

20. Dark matter and energy

cannot be directly measured, that is why they are called "dark".

[omega minimo]

115. When people carefully steer clear of mockery of an idea, that creates a false aura of respectability

"When people carefully steer clear of mockery of an idea, that careful avoidance creates a false aura of respectability for the idea."

[omega minimo]

16. Ah, there it is.

"When people carefully steer clear of mockery of an idea, that careful avoidance creates a false aura of respectability for the idea."

So, it's a public service to mock and badger and flame ideas one doesn't agree with, just in case others mistakenly let some "aura" of respect tinge the topic for those unable to read and determine for themselves.
:sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm:
Those who attack others in various non-skeptic/non-belief/non-scienceyist forums always have some form of this rationale to prop up their antagonism -- someone might actually BELEVE what they don't BELIEVE in or endorse, so it must be DESTROYED, SHOT DOWN, ELIMINATED. Resistance is FUTILE.

That is not their right.


"When people carefully steer clear of mockery of an idea, that careful avoidance creates a false aura of respectability for the idea."

Actually, in this context "when people carefully steer clear of mockery of an idea" it's called being "civil" and abiding with DU Rules, if "based on respect" is too challenging for the "Respect has to be earned" subset.


"It's more than we think that we don't know many answers to many big questions, and neither do you. We're more comfortable with real mystery -- the mystery of simply not knowing and not thinking we have to fill the void in our knowledge with imagined hopes and fears. We think asking for evidence is a very reasonable thing if you'd expect us to judge your claims of special knowledge as worthy of being seriously entertained.

These recent discussions may be healthy. They may have healed some old wounds or opened some jaded eyes or introduced new voices and attitudes. If nothing else, they can be pointed to the next time someone is "asking for evidence" with hostility or mockery and justifies it with any number of mental tricks. "Asking for evidence is a very reasonable thing" unless and until it's done in very unreasonable ways. The complete denial on the part of atheists or skeptics here that they really DON'T have the right to mock, attack and disrespect others and their beliefs has been quite revealing.

Even for those who lack belief, The Golden Rule applies in this lifetime for those seeking integrity and "deserving" respect.

[Silent3]

23. You're using the rhetorical method of mockery right now

Why is that okay against my OP, but not for me to use myself elsewhere?

That is not their right.

I think it's everyone's right.

Even for those who lack belief, The Golden Rule applies in this lifetime for those seeking integrity and "deserving" respect.

Aside from the fact that you're once again playing the game of conveniently blurring the line between respect for people and respect for ideas, I'm perfectly happy to live by the Golden Rule. You're mocking my post right now with your post, and I'm not boo-hoo-hooing my sad, sad victimhood as you try to DESTROY and SHOOT DOWN my ideas.

Your arguments are so feeble, however, that resistance is EASY. :)

[omega minimo]

42. Not true. Not "conveniently" -- Clearly

That post is not "mocking" your post. Or you. Or trying to destroy and shoot down your ideas. It is making a point.

You are sidestepping addressing that point by making false accusations, ignoring the point altogether.

"Aside from the fact that you're once again playing the game of conveniently blurring the line between respect for people and respect for ideas, I'm perfectly happy to live by the Golden Rule. You're mocking my post right now with your post, and I'm not boo-hoo-hooing my sad, sad victimhood as you try to DESTROY and SHOOT DOWN my ideas."

"Conveniently"? What "line between respect for people and respect for ideas"? No one can answer how or when that became the law of the land. There's no logic there, merely a weak claim and "feeble arguments."

I won't mock you. I will point out however that your reply reflects apparent immaturity and inability to discuss directly.

[Silent3]

45. Wow, do you have a major blind spot...

...for the vitriol of your own rhetoric.

[omega minimo]

50. Another dodge and false accusation.

I also notice when the perpetrators of these attitudes adopt the vocabulary that I have previously used to comment about their behavior :hi:

How mature are you? Able to address directly, without insult, anything in the post?

Thank you.

[Silent3]

63. When I criticize and idea, and use anything but the most diplomatic language...

...to do so, let my feelings that I think the idea is silly or mean-spirited or crazy through -- when I give more than just a detached, cool, analytical response -- I call that mocking.

I call that mocking when I do it, and I call it mocking when you do it. You most certainly do it. Quite a bit. With relish.

How mature are you?

This is not mockery? Riiiggghhtt.

[darkstar3]

67. The only righteous and correct "x" is my "x".

Substitute mockery, hypocrisy, abortion, etc. as needed.

[omega minimo]

117. The debunkers credo, used to bully and badger as shown clearly on this thread and others,

not mine.


"The only righteous and correct "x" is my "x"."

Substitute evidence, authoritarianism, science, etc. as needed. Speaking of hypocrisy

[omega minimo]

76. So you are unable to respond to the post, as reasonable as it was.

[Silent3]

79. Remind me which post # of yours you considered to be reasonable.

It's not self-apparent to me.

[omega minimo]

83. oh nevermind

just go directly to the one that points out what your last post proved again: "your reply reflects apparent immaturity and inability to discuss directly."

[Silent3]

91. I will gladly leave the judgment...

...of relative maturity and ability to engage in direct discussion to the audience for this thread.

[darkstar3]

97. Oh, but then you forget,

everyone who agrees with you is either part of your cult or a sock puppet. :eyes:

[Silent3]

98. I made you say that

We're sharing talking points through our telepathic network of skeptics. :)

[iris27]

108. Fuck did you EVER hit the nail

on the head there!

[omega minimo]

114. Nonsense.

I stand by my words and by my intentions. If there was vitriol I would be aware of it. In fact, vitriol is one of the vocabulary words picked up by those whose vitriol I have commented on.

The blind spot is in those who cannot read the words with an open mind and address them rationally. The post at the top of the subthread is reasonable and the people objecting to it are assuming intentions that aren't there, making excuses for not addressing what the post actually says.



BTW after you've been around a while, you will see this -- it's not a false claim, it's a pattern here, that the perpetrators actually TALK ABOUT THEMSELVES:

"So, it's a public service to mock and badger and flame ideas one doesn't agree with, just in case others mistakenly let some "aura" of respect tinge the topic for those unable to read and determine for themselves.

"Those who attack others in various non-skeptic/non-belief/non-scienceyist forums always have some form of this rationale to prop up their antagonism -- someone might actually BELEVE what they don't BELIEVE in or endorse, so it must be DESTROYED, SHOT DOWN, ELIMINATED. Resistance is FUTILE.

"That is not their right."


If that's what set people off in that post, it's really too bad because it's not anything that can't be proven by witnessing it in various forums and in the words of those who feel that way, feel they have that right and even obligation to prevent some topics and ideas from being discussed on DU. You'll see for yourself.

[iris27]

161. "If there was vitriol I would be aware of it."

:rofl:

No.

You insult, use condescending tones and snide insinuations with the best of them on here. I don't deny that others do, but you are quite blind to the ways in which you are doing the EXACT SAME THING. Your posts drip with contempt. When people "assume intentions that aren't there", it's because those intentions come through with every word of the post. You insist on characterizing a handful of snarky people on a message board as THE VICIOUS ENEMY out to CRUSH ALL RESISTANCE, and meet them with equal force. That is a hilarious level of unnecessary drama.

[darkstar3]

162. Proposal for a new R/T board name:

a hilarious level of unnecessary drama.
:rofl:

[omega minimo]

198. Unfortunately, you still don't know what you are talking about

most likely because you have not observed it (yet). If it isn't repeated, that would be a good thing. There is little indication that the perpetrators will alter their behavior, because the same games are being played, the same knee jerk defenses, tag team behaviors and ASTOUNDING level of total denial that anything they do could be in any way objectionable. You may be new enough that you haven't seen how obsessed, organized and even insane it can get. So you are comparing apples and oranges.

You are also projecting bigtime:

"You insult, use condescending tones and snide insinuations .. Your posts drip with contempt."

That's outright disingenuous, unskeptical, non-scientific, subjective, thin-skinned, fucking BULLSHIT!!!!!!!!! Wanna make something of THAT statement, go ahead!! No rational person is going to read words and ascribe "condescending tones and snide insinuations" unless they are predisposed to that stupid and insecure level themselves. I STAND BY MY WORDS. If we were talking, you could decide via actual "tone" and body language what is condescending or snide. Otherwise, kiss my digital ass. The insinuations are YOURS.

The projections are based on a defensive posture, an insistence on choosing up "sides" and seeing this as battle or competition, rather than discussion. Which IMHO is BORING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Ya get that?

"Your posts drip with contempt."

Really? How come I don't feel contempt and yet you perceive it? How fucking NUTS is that!!!!?!!! HOW CAN A COMPUTER SCREEN CONVEY EMOTION?

I know that my words are thought provoking. I know that i don't underestimate the DU audience. And I know that -- unfortunately -- some people are threatened, confused or pissed off by that.

"The blind spot is in those who cannot read the words with an open mind and address them rationally. The post at the top of the subthread is reasonable and the people objecting to it are assuming intentions that aren't there, making excuses for not addressing what the post actually says."

You will see if for yourself or be absorbed by the Borg. But don't flatter yourself that what you think you're seeing now is the extent of it or that my "insinuaitons" (that you are projecting) are "EXACTLY THE SAME THING."

These words are typed, appearing on a screen, there's no Stephen Hawking robot voiceover, which would be dispassionate anyway. Projecting "tone" and "insinuations" is really crazy and even creepy.

"If there was vitriol, I would know it." Aside from being one word the perps picked up from me and adopted, "vitriol" means anger and hostile intent. i don't have it. I am, admittedly, frustrated, that so many smart people, with so much to offer, prefer to topdog others and prevent discussion, than contribute their thoughts and foster discussion.

[EvolveOrConvolve]

93. There's that subtle attack again

"Even for those who lack belief, The Golden Rule applies in this lifetime for those seeking integrity and "deserving" respect."

If you don't see the implied insult in there, then you've got a serious problem understanding your own rhetoric.

[Name removed]

101. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[EvolveOrConvolve]

112. That's funny

You made the claim that you don't post on these threads with attacks, and I'm pointing out where you are being offensive to atheists. You seem to prove my point with the whole "toxic views".

BTW, before you can accuse me of projecting, you have to provide evidence of WHAT I'm projecting. It definitely wasn't in my previous post.

[omega minimo]

113. So are you unable or unwilling to read that with an open mind?

THAT's funny, from those who consider themselves so logical, evidence-based, skeptical, whatnot.

There's no insult there, implied or otherwise. If you perceive one, that is in your mind. It is certainly not intended. So I accept that you may perceive it and ask you to reconsider. I am not obligated to accept another misinterpretation of my words or take any more crap because of it.


The really stupid part of this vendetta you and others apparently have is your assumption that I am one of the enemies of whatever it is you dis/believe, which is based SOLELY on your assumptions and projections. I don't have any issue with atheists or atheism. I take issue with those who attack me because of what they pretend or think I am saying WITHOUT ANY EVIDENCE. And I don't assume that all atheists behave or think like those people, either.

So again, can you do it?

Try reading that with an open mind. I stand by the statement, in its truth and peaceful intent. Do you disagree that treating others as you want to be treated is basic to having integrity and "earning" respect?

Otherwise, explain how my statement has the meaning you ascribe to it.

""Even for those who lack belief, The Golden Rule applies in this lifetime for those seeking integrity and "deserving" respect." "



And BTW "BTW, before you can accuse me of projecting, you have to provide evidence of WHAT I'm projecting. It definitely wasn't in my previous post" your post title line "subtle attack" SAYS you're projecting your own meaning and intent on my statement. Incorrectly.

[rug]

21. Why should I seriously consider this post?

[Silent3]

24. Maybe you shouldn't.

But I'm not going to play the game of guessing what you're looking or what you would expect out of the post for it to be worth your consideration. Either ask some cogent, specific questions, or deem my OP not worth your time and waste your time posting in this thread at all.

[rug]

92. I agree.

[DeSwiss]

86. Excellent post! And thank you for the link. n/t

[Jim__]

118. "Religion and superstition have no such clear fruits."

Whether or not the fruits of religion are clear, there is a definite possibility that religion is critical to the survival of a society. Religion is ubiquitous across human cultures. Not everyone needs to be concerned with this fact. However, anyone proposing the elimination of religion has to grapple with this issue and resolve it before publicly calling for the elimination of, or even engaging in the mocking of, religion.

[TZ]

119. "the definite possibility that religion is critical to the survival of a society"

Really? Funny, in all my evolution/sociobiology/behavior classes I NEVER ever heard that.
Link please, to any LEGITIMATE scientist that has suggested this. I know it wasn't Dawkins.

[Jim__]

120. Actually, Dawkins does talk about this a little bit in "The God Delusion."

He states that any trait that is ubiquitious must be considered as possibly conferring an evolutionary advantage. Naturally, given Dawkins take on religion, he postulates that religion is just an accidental trait that is carried along due to a relationship to some other trait that does confer evolutionary advantage. He gives some suppositions as to what these other traits may be, but admits that the matter is unresolved. IOW, although Dawkins doesn't accept the hypothesis, he admits it is a valid hypothesis.

But, let me provide a few sources to discussion about the work of Emile Durkheim, one of the founders of sociology, who equated religion to society:

In the final chapter, Durkheim equates religion to society. He says that society is the cause of the sui generis sensations of the religious experience. Furthermore, social action dominates religious life (466).

In addition, the fundamental categories of thought and science have religious origin. In fact, nearly all great social institution, moral and legal rules, have a basis in religion. Religion is the concentrated reflection of collective life, and its principal purpose is to influence moral life (466-7).

Religion systematically idealizes. Collective life 'awakens' religious thought in order to bring about a state of effervescence which changes the conditions of psychic activity. Thus man places another world -- a sacred, ideal; world -- above his every day profane life (469). In creating new ideals, society remakes itself (470).

Although certain religious symbols mat disappear with time, every society will always feel the need to reaffirm the collective sentiments which make up its unity (474-5).

more...

And, another bit about Durkheim:

Recognizing the social origin of religion, Durkheim argued that religion acted as a source of solidarity and identification for the individuals within a society, especially as a part of mechanical solidarity systems, and to a lesser, but still important extent in the context of organic solidarity. Religion provided a meaning for life, it provided authority figures, and most importantly for Durkheim, it reinforced the morals and social norms held collectively by all within a society. Far from dismissing religion as mere fantasy, despite its natural origin, Durkheim saw it as a critical part of the social system. Religion provides social control, cohesion, and purpose for people, as well as another means of communication and gathering for individuals to interact and reaffirm social norms.

more ...

Also, Nicholas Wade's book, The Faith Instinct, covers this topic extensively, including references to scientists who agree and those who disagree - including Dawkins. Granted, Wade only has an undergraduate degree in science; but he is currently the science editor for the New York times and has been a writer for both Nature and Science.

[darkstar3]

121. Dawkins explanation is correct.

Religion IS most likely a side effect of other, actually advantageous traits that have been naturally selected. It happens all the time.

Take homosexuality as an example. Homosexuality is not a trait that can be naturally selected in any direct fashion, since by definition, homosexuals do not reproduce (except under very certain and modern circumstances). However, it IS a trait that has been present in human biology for thousands of years. How can homosexuality be present all over the globe and yet not be evolutionarily advantageous? Because the traits that lead to homosexuality, including various forms of attraction and sexual enjoyment, ARE advantageous.

Just because a human trait is common does not make it evolutionarily advantageous or necessary for survival.

[Jim__]

122. Dawkins suspects that religion doesn't confer evolutionary advantage.

He doesn't claim to know that. I agree with him that we don't know.

[darkstar3]

123. We don't KNOW,

but, in regards to religion, which is more likely?

1. An usually authoritarian, group-think susceptible, often highly destructive behavioral pattern is still somehow, inexplicably, a direct evolutionary trait that is beneficial.
2. This behavior is actually a side-effect of direct evolutionary traits that HAVE been shown to be advantageous.

Keep in mind, we already know that evolutionary side-effect behaviors and traits occur regularly in nature.

Aside from that, this discussion is not about the fact that we here cannot KNOW the answer to this question. It is instead about the fact that your argument is baseless. Once again, prolific distribution of a human behavior or trait IN NO WAY makes that said behavior or trait evolutionarily beneficial.

[Jim__]

124. Fortunately, science is based on evidence; and not what you think is more likely.

Science is currently studying this. Since we don't know for certain whether or not religion is critical to survival, we probably don't want to try to eliminate it just yet.

[darkstar3]

125. Nice dodge.

Your argument regarding religion's ubiquitous nature is still baseless.

Further, there is a HUGE difference between that which is evolutionarily beneficiary and that which is critical to survival. The opposeable thumb is an example that comes to mind. It is definitely an evolutionary benefit, but if you cut off my thumbs do I fail to survive? Opposeable thumbs were never "critical to survival," they simply gave one group an edge over the other, making it possible for them to reproduce more, and thus leading to the natural selection of the opposeable thumb. That is the very definition of an "evolutionary benefit." Now, I can see where you might make the argument that religion COULD be evolutionarily beneficiary, though I disagree with you and have told you why. But to make the jump from evolutionarily beneficiary to "critical to survival" as you now are claiming is flat out ridiculous.

[Jim__]

126. Do you even read your own posts?

Opposeable thumbs were never "critical to survival," they simply gave one group an edge over the other, making it possible for them to reproduce more, and thus leading to the natural selection of the opposeable thumb.

So, any of our ancestors who did not have opposeable thumbs have no surviving descendants? Even those non-thumbed ancestors who lived in segregated communities? But, thumbs weren't critical to survival? So, where are our thumbless compatriots?

If religion was critical to the survival of our ancestors, it probably wasn't critical to any one generation. But, the major surviving human cultures all have something in common, sort of like all (or very nearly all) current humans have opposable thumbs.

[darkstar3]

129. My statement stands on its own.

Advantage is all that natural selection provides. If you have a unique trait that makes it possible for you to out-reproduce those who do not possess said trait (an evolutionary advantage), then that trait will grow in the population generation by generation until eventually it becomes nigh impossible to find someone without it.

Again, you can make the case (just not to me) that religion might be evolutionarily beneficial, but NOT that it is or has been critical to survival. The two are mutually exclusive, and one does not necessarily lead to the other.

[omega minimo]

138. speaking of "authoritarian, group-think"

"Aside from that, this discussion is not about the fact that we here cannot KNOW the answer to this question. It is instead about the fact that your argument is baseless."

:wow:

[tama]

148. The best evidence

available points that "shamanism" - practice of trance or altered states of mind - has been highly beneficial in evolutionary terms. Shamanism in some form seems to have been the universal norm before civilization, organized religion and materialistic science, and still continues where left undestroyed by imperialistic civilization.

Same thing about evolutionary advantage cannot be said about materialism and technological society based on ideology of continuous growth - except for developing potential to thwart big meteorites.

[darkstar3]

157. You must be joking.

You think that the creation and usage of technology does not confer an evolutionary advantage?

[iris27]

159. Yeah, nothing at all advantageous about heading in a direction that may

eventually let us expand off-planet... :)

[darkstar3]

160. Aside from that, the term technology also applies to tools.

Tools like spears, shaping instruments, and other things that helped bring us out of the fucking stone age...sheesh.

[tama]

172. When I was younger

I read a lot of science fiction. Vogon poetry and their bureaucratic respect for "rights" of tellarians in way of expanding their galactic road network made an impression.

[iris27]

186. Wouldn't it make all the more sense for us to get off-planet then? ;)

The loss of Earth, while still devastating, wouldn't be a species-killer if we had colonies when the Vogons showed up with their space-backhoes.

[tama]

191. Species-killer

with the record on species killing, is in your view becoming the interstellar planet and species killer Vogons the best that humans can be? From a mere planetary cancer to galactic cancer?

[tama]

170. Either-or again

But no, I don't think "us against nature" is evolutionary advantage. It's sad wannabe sky-daddy attitude of a poor and lonely cancer tumour.

[darkstar3]

171. Who said anything about technology being "us against nature"? n/t

[tama]

174. Heidegger

Nietzsche. Zerzan. In self-criticism.

Mechanized agriculture. Corporate masters. Meme of "selfish gene".

[darkstar3]

177. And technology has something to do with corporate masters or a "selfish gene"??

Did you forget your :tinfoilhat: this morning?

[tama]

182. Technocracy

dream of technological control over nature. Seeing nature as nothing but resources for consumption. Growing blindly until the host organism is eaten up and cannot support the technological matrix anymore.

Cancer tumours materialistic attituce, 'more is better'. Cancer tumours are not really very well adapted to evolution.

[darkstar3]

184. Talk about running away with a premise...n/t

[ChadwickHenryWard]

128. I think they call tha "panadaptationism;"

the idea that if some phenomenon exists, it must be evolutionarily adaptive. It can't be neutral of maladaptive - it must be adaptive. I think it's pretty self-evidently fallacious. I don't think that just beucase religion is everywhere, that it necessarily promotes reproduction of an organism or population or species. The religions that have existed over our history are so diverse that I'm not sure they have enough in common with one another to say they all exhibit the same adaptive influence (if any.)

[Jim__]

130. Here's Dawkins' quote from page 166 of "The God Delusion"

Though the details differ across the world, no known culture lacks some version of the time-consuming, wealth-consuming, hostility-provoking rituals, the anti-factual, counter-productive fantasies of religion. ... Universal features of a species demand a Darwinian solution.

I believe Dawkins is a recognized expert on evolution; and that's his claim.

As clearly stated above, I'm not claiming that it's adaptive; just that no one knows whether or not it is. And, that's a pretty strong argument against trying to eliminate it.

[Silent3]

131. We'd be very hampered as a species if we held back on changing anything at all...

...just because we were worried that maybe, just maybe, it might be beneficial in some way we don't understand.. and oh boy, will we be sorry when we change something and it's too late!

Aggression and violence are clearly understandable in terms of evolution, but we don't worry overmuch that trying to reduce the incidence of murder and rape is going to have some terrible, unforeseen consequence.

Since I don't know too many atheists proposing draconian pogroms against religion, with most merely hoping to convince a greater number of people to leave religion behind, I think we'll easily be able to catch any ill effects from such a thing as reducing religion as the process (hopefully) goes along. Given current statistics comparing social conditions in the most and the least religious countries, current evidence suggests that reducing religiosity has an overall positive effect.

[Jim__]

132. We've had this discussion before.

Aggression and violence most certainly do appear to be adaptive, murder and rape do not. In-group murder and rape are most likely side-effects of the out-group aggression that has been beneficial.

[darkstar3]

133. Ergo, you admit that side-effect behaviors happen.

Can you convince anyone that religion is not one of these?

[Jim__]

134. I've never denied that.

No one knows whether religion is beneficial or not. science is studying the question. As before, the answer to the question is not known.

[Silent3]

135. What is or is not beneficial changes with time and circumstances

In the harsh view of evolution, murder and rape certainly can be "adaptive".

Those who kill, so long as they survive the opprobrium of their social group, reduce the incidence in the gene pool of those who are less aggressive, favoring those who are more aggressive like themselves in the long run. Similarly rapists obviously can pass more of their genes to the next generation, forcing those genes along using a rather direct approach.

There are obviously, of course, contexts where those behaviors will be maladaptive, such as a modern society that will jail you or kill you for those behaviors. There are also circumstances where a once-beneficial heavy fur coat becomes a liability when climate warms, or large physical size, once beneficial in catching prey, becomes a liability when food supplies diminish and smaller peers survive better on fewer calories. Adaptation can be a fleeting thing.

There are genetic traits that from the start are tough trade-offs, like the genetic resistance against malaria provided by a single copy of a gene that turns into sickle-cell anemia when you get two copies of that gene, one from each parent.

Most other species simply have to sit back and let the brutal forces of natural selection decides which once-beneficial traits have ceased to be beneficial. We humans, on the other hand, have the option of looking at the bigger picture and changing traits that have become maladaptive without waiting for massive die-off to do the job.

I see no reason to accord religion any more benefit of the doubt as an adaptive trait than other unsavory human practices which might also be explained as evolutionary adaptations.

[Jim__]

136. Human survival is closely tied to the survival of the group.

Human morality is largely based on group coherence. While an individual may benefit from rape and murder, if he spawns children who rape and murder,and this continues over generations, the group will be very weak and unlikely to be able to unify to fight off other, strongly bonded, groups. It's unlikely evolution would select for humans who rape and murder and pass this activity on to children. Human morality indicates that evolution did not select for rape and murder.

[Silent3]

139. Evolution doesn't select for everyone murdering all the time, of course not.

It's good to be able to run when something scares you, but if you run at the slightest concern, you'll waste a lot of energy and may draw unnecessary attention to yourself. It's good to be able to talk, but not when a dangerous nearby predator might hear you.

When it comes to murder, or killing other humans in warfare -- speaking in evolutionary terms, not moral terms -- being willing to kill when you can get away with it has obvious survival benefits. The problems we have today with crime, war, and other aggression are quite understandable in evolutionary terms. The cooperative spirit has certainly often helped groups of our ancestors survive, but so has being the brute. Trace your family tree back, and there will no doubt be many invaders of other people's territories, ancestors who killed someone who just killed a deer, then took the deer and didn't starve when otherwise they might have, great-to-the-Nth grandfathers who raped our great-to-the-Nth grandmothers, passing on their genes rather than the genes of kinder men.

At any rate, the most important point here is that no inherited trait is forever useful or beneficial. The world we've created for ourselves through technology has changed so fast there's been no way for our genetic evolution to keep up. We're bound to be bristling with maladaptive behaviors, distorted by environments utterly different from the environments in which they evolved.

[Jim__]

154. You have to differentiate between out-group killing and in-group murder.

Technically, murder is illegal killing. Out-group killing was definitely selected for. I strongly suspect that murder was not. The Golden Rule is spread throughout human societies.

[Silent3]

163. Even if we take in-group vs. out-of-group into account...

...my original point still stands then, even if you'd then prefer different examples of bad behavior: would you worry about the "danger" of eliminating war and factional and ethnic violence simply because those things have a perhaps clearer evolutionary adaptive advantage compared to in-group rape and murder?

Or would you just as happily promote peaceful relations and let any "problems due to peace" occur as problems you'd happily rather deal with instead of war and factional and ethnic violence? Since we humans are pretty good at divisiveness, plenty of ordinary crime, crimes that we'd call murder and rape, can be cast as out-of-group violence when it crosses ethnic and economic classes. Would you worry about preventing those types of crimes, or once again "recklessly" pursue and promote more peaceful human conduct?

You've still provided no good reason for worrying about some possible terrible unforeseen side effect if (gasp!) the human population as a whole becomes less religious.

[Jim__]

164. From post 118: there is a definite possibility that religion is critical to the survival ...

... of a society. That's the good reason for not trying to eliminate religion. Religion is found in every major human culture that we know. That is a strong indication that it may be extremely important.

As to your claims about in-group and out-group, at the current time, the effective definition is the in-group includes all people within a political jurisdiction.

And, the comparison to eliminating religion is letting down our defenses because we've decided to eliminate war. Eliminating war is a good idea; unilaterally letting down our defenses, not so much.

[Silent3]

167. What does quoting your own post back to me prove?

Yes, in post #118, you said "there is a definite possibility that religion is critical to the survival of a society". Am I suddenly supposed to take you as an authoritative resource on the subject because you cite your own previous posts as reference?

As for "...at the current time, the effective definition is the in-group includes all people within a political jurisdiction", that very modern distinction is far too recent to have had much impact on human evolution. As far as evolved behavior, and any adaptive value it might have, "us" and "them" is about as subtle as group inclusion distinctions are likely to be.

As for your comparison, I'd say the closest equivalent to maintaining a defense while trying for peace when it comes to religion would be studying it, but not practicing it. Regardless, by your own standards, you have no way of knowing how much unprovoked aggression has been integral to human evolution, so what you propose would still be a dangerous, risky thing.

It's not like religion is going to suddenly vanish anyway, so your whole point in this subthread seems pretty pointless. It's hard for me to imagine that you aren't just arguing for the sake of argument at this point.

Is your message really, "Be careful, outspoken atheists! You might be imperiling humanity with your risky rhetoric!"?

[Jim__]

169. I cited the sources in post #120.

[Silent3]

173. Those sources only back the idea that religious behavior...

...likely is either an evolved trait, or that religion is a side effect of an evolved trait, and your sources cite societal benefits (without consideration negative effects which clear exist) that can follow from religion.

It's still your own very flimsy conclusion to make from the above that attempts to discourage religion are risky, and you're still being inconsistent about which possibly evolved behaviors you worry about interfering with and which ones you don't worry about.

Again I ask, is your message really, "Be careful, outspoken atheists! You might be imperiling humanity with your risky rhetoric!"?

Even if I give you for sake of argument that some terrible thing could happen to humanity if the number of religious practitioners fell below some as-yet-undetermined critical level, what would you recommend as a solution? Make sure enough people get religiously indoctrinated, any old BS will do, so as long the indoctrination offsets some as-yet-unnamed danger? Do you have a particular favorite religion you'd like to promote for maximum avoid-the-unnamed-danger efficacy?

[darkstar3]

175. I just love the way your mind works.

Well done on that last paragraph. :thumbsup:

[omega minimo]

199. Even though

it doesn't make any bloody sense.

And that last paragraph really is dripping with venom.

It's as if every discussion HAS to be turned to fit some bizarre nonsensical scenario like that one and you WON!!! :freak:

[Jim__]

180. Those sources back the fact that religion is present in every major surviving society.

Whatever the negative traits may be, survival is the be-all and end-all of traits.

Again I ask, is your message really, "Be careful, outspoken atheists! You might be imperiling humanity with your risky rhetoric!"?

No. My message is really that people should be aware of the world around them.

Even if I give you for sake of argument that some terrible thing could happen to humanity if the number of religious practitioners fell below some as-yet-undetermined critical level, what would you recommend as a solution? Make sure enough people get religiously indoctrinated, any old BS will do, so as long the indoctrination offsets some as-yet-unnamed danger? Do you have a particular favorite religion you'd like to promote for maximum avoid-the-unnamed-danger efficacy?

Once again, you miss the point. First, if religion is really an inherent trait, we're unlikely to get rid of it. But, we could confuse the issue sufficiently that we lose some (or even all) of the benefits.

Even if I give you for sake of argument that some terrible thing could happen to humanity if the number of religious practitioners fell below some as-yet-undetermined critical level, what would you recommend as a solution?

Oh, I don't think humanity is about to fall below some critical level of religious practitioners. From post 164: And, the comparison to eliminating religion is letting down our defenses because we've decided to eliminate war. Eliminating war is a good idea; unilaterally letting down our defenses, not so much.

[Silent3]

190. Warfare, rape, and murder are also present in every major surviving society.

No. My message is really that people should be aware of the world around them.

What does awareness have to do with singling out religious behavior among all of the other things that are present in every major surviving society? With only a few exceptions, usually found only in smaller hunter/gatherer groups, male domination is nearly as ubiquitous as religion. Do you think we should be careful about messing with that?

What I'm "aware" of is that you're trying to put religion is a special category, and no matter how much you try to move the goalposts now, you've been making special effort to make people "aware" that messing with religion might somehow be riskier or more worrisome than messing around with any other human behavior, and still haven't done a good job of justifying that particular focus for concern.

[omega minimo]

200. Rubbing up against it

This is just mental masturbation, whatever the other says will do ........ speaking of moving goalposts .......


And you're missing your own connection b/w male domination and religion? :wow::spray:

[Silent3]

214. Anthracite minimum detachment, waving at the borders

You'd have to be clockwise to absorb the spectrum of the ulterior motivation. Yet again, sunlight and compound fractures, if only for a moment, set the pattern of our eventual demise.

[iris27]

248. Oh, yeah, OM, not at all insulting or condescending...

:eyes:

[omega minimo]

252. please go

follow someone else around.

[tama]

227. "few exceptions"

Perhaps, then, these exceptions to "major" surviving societies should be given more attention, also in regard to their religion/worldview.

One well know exception to warfare (and possibli also rape and murder) is !Kung people of Kalahari. They are probably among the oldest unbroken cultural lineages, with material evidence of culture that the people are still able to interprete and in fact continue to practice - rock drawings - dating back 50 000 years. One interesting fact about "religious" practice in !Kung culture is that about half the males and one third of females learn the art of shamanistic trance - instead of just one induvidual specializing into tribal shaman.

[Silent3]

228. Interesting aside...

...but not germane to which tendencies to different behaviors, good and bad, are likely to have been passed on genetically through the process of natural selection.

[tama]

229. Coding areas of DNA

Reduction of behaviour to coding areas of DNA does not sound plausible at all.

[Silent3]

232. Of course behavior doesn't reduce to genetics and nothing more.

Much of behavior is learned and cultural, but genetics certainly plays a strong part. The "nature vs. nurture" battle that people sometimes engage in is a pretty absurd one, because clearly both play a role in the development of all living creatures, humans included.

If you look at studies of twins separated at birth, however, it can be amazing the similarities that develop between people with the same genes but raised by different parents in different homes. It's enough to give you pause about too quickly dismissing how strong the influence of genetics on behavior might be.

At any rate, I can't tell if you're arguing against the impact of evolution on human behavior, or just spinning off on tangents for the hell of it.

[Jim__]

243. You object when I refer you back to previous posts.

I do that because you ignore what is said and then say I haven't addressed an issue that's addressed in that post. For instance, I am hardly singling out religion. See the bolded part of post #180 (also noted in post #164). I get tired of having to repeat arguments you haven't refuted, but simply ignore and then claim that I haven't addressed the issue.

[darkstar3]

246. #168. n/t

[omega minimo]

253. "I do that because you ignore what is said and then say I haven't addressed an issue that's address"

Appears to be the case to other readers, also. And you seem to be making every effort to keep discussion civil, despite the random and nonsensical reactions to your posts. (for the poster pestering and trying to insult me above, this is AKA "mental masturbation" and arbitrary)

" I get tired of having to repeat arguments you haven't refuted, but simply ignore and then claim that I haven't addressed the issue."

Indeed.

Thank you for trying. It is appreciated.

[Jim__]

254. Thanks for the kind words.

I was reading a magazine last night (Philosophy Now) that was comparing the thoughts of Habermas to the thoughts of Lyotard with respect to the problems of communication. Habermas believes that an understanding between parties can be reached if the parties are reasonable and want to reach an understanding. Lyotard thinks that some systems are incommensurable and that discussion is barely possible and agreement can't be reached unless one party agrees to submit to the other party's system.

I'm not sure if the impasse in this Forum is best described by Habermas or by Lyotard. we are all speaking English, and most of us come from an American background. It seems like we should be able to reach some understanding. But, I don't think agreement is possible here.

[omega minimo]

255. agreement and/or discussion

depend on intention. Unfortunately, some don't view a discussion board as a place for discussion, but an opportunity for competition and aggression.

[darkstar3]

168. Read #125-#129 again.

Your argument about the prolific nature of religion is baseless, and I have shown you why.

[Name removed]

201. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[omega minimo]

137. What evidence do you have for this specious claim?

"Similarly rapists obviously can pass more of their genes to the next generation, forcing those genes along using a rather direct approach."

Does it occur to you to reflect as you did re: murder:

"Those who RAPE, so long as they survive the opprobrium of their social group...."

[Silent3]

140. I was applying social opprobrium to all of those negative behaviors...

...but as you know, social opprobrium doesn't always stop such things. In times of war, in fact, men have often been encouraged to rape the women of conquered territories. Even in non-war situations, I'm sure you've heard of news stories just as I have where a crowd, rather than calling the police, has cheered on gang rape.

My point is that evolution is a terrible guide for the "ought to's" of human behavior. Evolution is a great lens through which to understand human behavior, but if we aspire to better than the ugly struggles of the natural world, I don't think it's a good idea to be held back worrying about whether any behavior -- religious or otherwise -- once provided an evolutionary advantage.

[omega minimo]

141. If you're talking about the "harsh view of evolution" why focus on the "social oppobrium" of modern

times? What evidence for your comments and anthropological, biological assumptions about rape do you have, in modern or prehistoric times? What record, science or evidence, are your presumptions -- which you try to make sound "obvious" -- based on?

[Silent3]

149. Social opprobrium is not a purely modern thing...

...it has applied to humans for a very long time, enough to be an evolutionary factor, and it's a factor in other primate groups too. It's just not an all-powerful factor, now or in our past.

As for "evidence", I'm not trying to provide any, I'm just reasoning aloud about what seems obvious to me about evolutionary survival. For example, I've heard it said that giraffes evolved long necks as an adaptation for eating leaves that other animals couldn't reach. That makes sense when you think about it, but I don't know if anyone has ever "proved" it. I think about animals with heavy fur coats, an obvious advantage in cold weather (I'm not leaping too far by calling that "obvious", am I? Do you want a citation for a study proving the advantages of warm fur in cold climates?), and then I think about what happens if their habitat gets warmer, it seems obvious that the fur coat becomes a liability, not only by making it harder for an animal to shed excess body heat, but by providing more shelter to parasites without as much of a compensating advantage as when the climate is colder.

If the evolutionary advantages that I see in humans doing some occasional killing and raping (I emphasize "occasional" in light of Jim___'s reaction) doesn't seem as obvious to you as it does to me, then just say so and explain why. So far, instead of offering a counterargument, all you've done is express a kind of "How dare you even suggest such a thing!" disgust.

Do you believe the opposite, that any behavioral propensity in humans whatsoever for rape and murder have always been maladaptive, that they couldn't possibly have been selected for by evolution? If a band of our human ancestors with a very low propensity for rape and murder encountered a band of our ancestors with a higher propensity for those behaviors, how do you see that playing out such that the less brutal band passes on more of its genes to future generations?

[omega minimo]

202. Specious

"As for "evidence", I'm not trying to provide any, I'm just reasoning aloud about what seems obvious to me about evolutionary survival."

Obvious to you. Based on really twisted imaginings of the past, apparently, and from an entirely malecentric POV.

"Those who kill, so long as they survive the opprobrium of their social group, reduce the incidence in the gene pool of those who are less aggressive, favoring those who are more aggressive like themselves in the long run. Similarly rapists obviously can pass more of their genes to the next generation, forcing those genes along using a rather direct approach."

Your premise is flawed and your musings about rape of women are truly bizarre.

[Silent3]

209. I have no idea where you're trying to go

Instead of merely insisting that I have a "flawed premise" and "twisted imaginings", why don't you offer your own alternate description of how you think the course of human evolution has gone, and which human behaviors do and don't get reinforced by natural selection?

Do you imagine that evolution only favors of the development of kind, nurturing, selfless and community-oriented traits, and that anything negative is just some bizarre non-evolution-based anomaly that somehow sprang out of nowhere during the last few thousand years?

[omega minimo]

210. I don't share your flawed assumptions, cliched perspective, bizarre fantasies

or black and white thinking.

[Silent3]

211. So, in other words...

...you don't have anything to offer except broad, sweeping criticism, free from specific flaws that could be debated, or alternatives to even give a hint about what you're going on about.

[darkstar3]

213. Sounds like SOP. n/t

[Name removed]

217. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[omega minimo]

216. Why would anyone argue your flawed premise?

[Silent3]

218. Generally one argues with a flawed premise...

...in order to correct it and offer an alternative. Why would anyone just vaguely shout, "Flawed premise! Flawed premise!" then make excuses for not having anything more to say than gainsay?

It's positively teabagger of you the way you conduct what might only very loosely be called an argument.

[omega minimo]

219. Your assumptions are repulsive

[Silent3]

220. Please then, grace the forum with your alternatives.

If not for my unworthy self, for the general enlightenment of all who are reading these posts.

[tama]

151. brutal forces?

Evolution is much more about symbiotic cooperation than brutal rivalry and "survival of the biggest bully". The notion of evolution and nature as "brutal" is just cultural projection of capitalistic culture based on brutal rivalry and alianation from nature.

Alpha male chimps that do not behave well enough to be accepted by females and don't have strong allies among males do not survive long. And bono bonos, our closest relatives, are very different story from chimps.

[Silent3]

158. Watch a few nature documentaries, for deity's sake

Watch what penguins go through surviving the Antarctic winter. Watch what happens to the slower caribou in a caribou migration. Count the survival rate of a large batch of spider eggs, many young being eaten by their own mother.

Cooperation and symbiosis certainly play a role in evolution, and I'm glad for that, but the real brutality of nature is far more than a "cultural projection of capitalistic culture". Capitalism is gentle compared to mother nature.

[tama]

166. Yes

I've seen the penguin movie, it's very touching.

What is interesting about nature documents is that they reflect strongly the "zeitgeist" in what aspects they emphasize. Nature documents in 70's were quite different from the nature documents from the age of "reality TV". It's in the eye of beholder - the mirror.

[Silent3]

178. This isn't just "emphasis" or "zeitgeist"

Once again, you're absolutely desperate to obliterate any objectivity and turn everything into "cultural narrative".

The terrible things that living creatures go through to survive are always there, no matter how much you emphasize or ignore them, no matter how many symbiotic relationships and examples of cooperation you can find that might happen along with all of the brutality.

My memories of 70's nature documentaries are a bit hazy at this point, but I'm pretty sure, even in those more sanitized versions of nature, I saw things like lions picking off zebras who wandered too far from the herd. Whether it's 2010, 1970, 2010 BC, or 2,010,000 BC, the size of herds of grazing animals have long been regulated by predation (at least when it isn't being regulated by drought or disease).

The only "zeitgeist" that's going to change that is a zeitgeist of willful naivete.

[tama]

187. Of course

Universal objectivity IS your cultural narrative. And especially "universal objectivity" as defined by your culture. Every organism is a cooperative symbiosis of life forms, so competition is rather the exception than the norm but of course also part of natural balance.

Curiously, I don't find predators killing for food "brutish" or "terrible thing". Industrialized meat production is another thing, therefore I prefer game and organic when I eat meat, which is not often.

[Silent3]

189. If you start defining lions killing zebras as "symbiosis"...

...then by that crazy definition, sure, there's a whole lot more cooperation in the natural world.

And in defining cooperation that loosely, you've pretty much eliminated calling much of anything competition. Why call capitalism competitive then? Are you going to limit the word "competition" to merely something modern humans do, and everything that happens in nature -- starving when another species has depleted the food you depend on, predators killing your babies, dominant males in a herd getting most of the females while weaker males may never get to mate, being ravaged by disease until just a few resistant members of your species are left -- all of that is the beautiful, loving, kind embrace of the balance of mother nature?

[tama]

192. But I dont n/t

[ironbark]

195. Wondering if you see the universe/nature as benevolent, indifferent, hostile/perverse?

Looking at #178, #189….and curious.

[Silent3]

196. Indifferent.

Of course, indifferent can be pretty hostile -- not in the sense of actively, willfully hostile, but very harsh and lacking in mercy.

[ironbark]

197. Then to re run a pov from 'Investigating atheism'-

I live in a universe in which matter can move from mineral to vegetable to animal kingdoms and can endlessly transform. Matter can also be transformed (revealed?) as energy….but the ‘stuff’ of the universe, the matter and/or energy cannot be lost/destroyed. …….?...

All the matter and energy that make up the material world I live in has some form of transforming eternal existence. The atoms comprising the things I care the very least about will move from dog poo, to soil, to tree, to toilet paper and so on into…eternity?

At the same time the things I value the most have no material substance or supporting (enduring) energy-
Life, love, laughter, friendship, consciousness, intelligence, courage, courtesy, creativity….all the things that make humans valuable/precious are more ephemeral and less enduring than the wind...or the constituent components of a dog fart.

As an analogy…This is a universe which produces ‘bodies’ like GMH produces cars…built to last and everything is recyclable for the next range of vehicles. But the driver/consciousness
only gets to sit in the vehicle in the Show Room for a nano second of cosmic time and imagine what it might be like to be on the open eternal road that unconscious matter gets to travel. Whatever the driver/consciousness thinks, feels, imagines, loves, does or becomes in the Show Room is lost/destroyed entirely or faintly recalled as dimming memory of others…no more significant or enduring than the scent of the last person that sat in a car.

I don’t have to believe that there is a conscious GMH- (God Most High ;-) to recognize that this would be beyond a universe simply indifferent to the preservation of consciousness…but a universe that perversely teases with infinite possibility then shuts the door on all.

If such is the state of the universe then I take it to be hostile to the potential of conciousness and imagination.

[Silent3]

206. I also think the universe is pretty amazing and wonderful, don't get me wrong.

If your aren't talking about a "conscious GMH", however, how can an unconscious process be said to be anything but indifferent? I suppose you could say that the laws of physics are amendable to the development of life happening somehow, somewhere, and in that sense you could say the universe is supportive of life. At this point we just don't know how much life the universe contains, however, so we don't know on a large scale exactly how supportive of life the universe is. My guess would be there's lots of other life out there, but we just don't know yet.

The hostile indifference I speak of is still there, however, particularly in regard to individual life forms, and even to life on the planet as a whole. While it worked out great for us humans over time, the asteroid that slammed into the planet some 65 million years ago didn't care how much death its impact caused, or what direction life would take afterward. Another asteroid could be headed for us right now, much bigger than the one that killed the dinosaurs, and I don't see any evidence of a cosmic principle or physical law that would kick in and tell that asteroid to change course simply because the preservation of life requires it.

For most of the history of the earth, life on earth was no more complex, as far as we can tell, than bacteria. It wasn't until about 250 million years ago that complex forms of life arose. That's not a very long window for life as we know it, and we don't know how much longer that window will last. Even if we avoid devastating astronomical impacts, the Sun itself will turn from a friend of life into an enemy of life here on Earth as it heats up over time, eventually developing into a red giant star that will swallow up an already-long-dead cinder of our planet.

That will be the end of humanity (if it hasn't happened much, much sooner) unless either we've either managed to spread out onto other worlds and/or developed such a staggeringly powerful technology that we can do things like change the orbit of our planet or regulate the temperature of the Sun.

Stepping back from that grand scale, back down to more immediate time frames and individual living entities, the beauty and wonder of life on Earth is a harsh beauty, containing much suffering and death, full of lives lived on the barest edge of survival. Life goes on, but lives do not.

[omega minimo]

208. A projection of deity

"how can an unconscious process be said to be anything but indifferent?"

[ironbark]

221. What’s “amazing and wonderful” about the 100% obliteration of everything that really matters?

“If your aren't talking about a "conscious GMH", however, how can an unconscious process be said to be anything but indifferent?”

I don’t envisage or perceive any conscious hostility in nature/universe…but if there is no consciousness at all the indifference and imbalance does strike me as hostile and perverse.
As you yourself said-“ The hostile indifference I speak of is still there”

As explanation I can only repeat the prior analogy-
But the driver/consciousness only gets to sit in the vehicle in the Show Room (Earth)for a nano second of cosmic time and imagine what it might be like to be on the open eternal road that unconscious matter gets to travel. Whatever the driver/consciousness thinks, feels, imagines, loves, does or becomes in the Show Room is lost/destroyed entirely or faintly recalled as dimming memory of others…no more significant or enduring than the scent of the last person that sat in a car.

And add
This is, to me, an imbalanced and perverse universe giving its entire weight to the preservation of matter (that doesn’t matter) and the endurance of every energy (excluding those that really count- intelligent curiosity, creativity).

If there was some kind of ‘balance’ of preservation in this indifferent universe then it would be neutral indifference. Even 60/40 in favour of preserving the material over consciousness… 80/20 or 999.99% in favour of matter and a miniscule fraction of consciousness , intelligence, creativity surviving. But the universe permits not a jot of what really matters to us to go on…it is 100% inclined to the preservation of matter/energy and 100% opposed to the survival of personality, character, identity, intelligence, laughter, memory, creativity.
It makes the former indestructible and all of the latter a nano blink in time.

“Stepping back from that grand scale, back down to more immediate time frames and individual living entities, the beauty and wonder of life on Earth is a harsh beauty, containing much suffering and death, full of lives lived on the barest edge of survival. Life goes on, but lives do not.”

Oh I have no problem identifying the balance between the beauty and the harshness of nature…that is a (pretty balanced) pendulum swing dependent upon time, place and circumstance.

But take ALL the material beauty the world, take ALL the ocean and thunderstorm and volcanic energy, take every single beautiful enduring THING and terrifying ongoing ENERGY in the universe... hold them conceptually in one hand ……..and in the other hold the conception of a >single< consciousness you love. Child,mother,partner or even self.

Would you trade all of the former for the preservation and continuation of the latter?

I certainly would.

In a universe that preserves 100% matter/energy that ultimately doesn’t matter and obliterates 100% everything we hold most precious and important…..that aint indifference…that’s just perverse.

[Silent3]

222. I don't try to judge the universe by human values

When I say "hostile" and "indifferent" I mean to invoke the feelings of humans, and of other creatures who are self-aware to at least some degree, when being subjected to the vagaries of living in this universe. I'm not trying to use those words as if I'm scolding the mean ol' universe for not being nicer to us.

Would you trade all of the former for the preservation and continuation of the latter?

If it were my choice, yes, but I am not the universe, just a brief phenomenon occurring inside of it. That is not my choice to make.

In a universe that preserves 100% matter/energy that ultimately doesn’t matter and obliterates 100% everything we hold most precious and important…..that aint indifference…that’s just perverse.

Why should what we hold "precious and important" have any particular standing in how the universe operates? Preservation of mass/energy isn't a value judgment -- it isn't a conscious mind deciding "Oh, this is good stuff! Better hang on to all of it!" -- it's just an impersonal law of physics. The second law of thermodynamics isn't a conscious value judgment either, but it is a law that bodes ill for the long-term preservation of life and consciousness.

What’s “amazing and wonderful” about the 100% obliteration of everything that really matters?

The obliteration part isn't what I'm calling "amazing and wonderful". What's amazing and wonderful is that there's any life at all, even if fleeting, that field mice and galaxies and stalactites and ringed planets all take shape from the same basic building blocks of wave-like particles, or particle-like waves, and a few rules that govern how they interact. And that creatures like us arise who can look at all of this and at least grasp some small part of how it works and where it all came from.

Maybe creatures like us, if we don't kill ourselves off, will ourselves be the agency that figures out how to preserve more than just matter and energy. If we do that, then, in a sense, the universe will have done that for itself, but I'd still view that as simply a very fortunate outcome, not an intrinsic character or quality of the universe that it absolutely must have.

[ironbark]

233. Not judging the universe, but exploring and calculating probability.

“ The second law of thermodynamics isn't a conscious value judgment either ”

We can speculate that this is the case, but we do not know that this “law of physics” did not originate with a lawmaker/lawgiver. It is indeed quite possible that it arose quite by accident in a random and indifferent universe.
As you previously pointed out the conditions for life are rare and life itself even rarer…there is always the calculation of the odds…probability.
Is our Rolls Royce planet and the life thereon an accident of physics? The calculation of the odds here is subjective and more often based on the colour of the horse.

“The obliteration part isn't what I'm calling "amazing and wonderful". What's amazing and wonderful is that there's any life at all, even if fleeting, that field mice and galaxies….”

>IF< there is no continuation of consciousness and nothing beyond this life on what basis can we conclude "amazing and wonderful" for anything but the tinniest fragment of the lucky to be here at all humanity? Even the most casual glance at humanity reveals that the vast majority of human beings have lived in degrees poverty, hunger and disease…never having the opportunity to ‘self actualise’ and reach their potential. Billions have died well short of even reaching consciousness and billions more are wage slaves with less security than field mice.
The proportion of humanity that has been able to develop, explore, know and understand "amazing and wonderful" is a drop in the ocean of humanity…and even for many of these the projections conscious imagination expand unfulfilled beyond the parameters of life. The ‘galaxies’, unknown to the vast majority of humanity, are revealed when Hubble dropped the veil as beautiful swirling pole dancing teasers that whisper “You will never reach me, you can only sit in your Show Room vehicle and perv and imagine, make Avatar and pretend, but you will never know me….oh your grandchildren might…but you will never know”.

The calculation of ‘probability’ is not conducted exclusively on the basis of mathematics or physics or facts….the calculation of probability is also conducted on the basis of having encountered theatre, tricksters, showmen, carnies, merry pranksters.

It could well be that the vast vast majority of humanity blinked into and out of existence without ever even knowing let alone beginning to reach its potential and that all that we all truly are is transitory and ephemeral….

Or it could be that someone is pulling your leg ;-)

[Silent3]

250. Calling the universe "amazing and wonderful" is my subjective judgment...

...nothing more, although certainly many scientists share that sense of awe about the universe and the way it works. I should also point out that "wonderful" here means "full of wonderful", not "wonderful" in the sense of "having a wonderful time, wish you were here".

>IF< there is no continuation of consciousness and nothing beyond this life on what basis can we conclude "amazing and wonderful" for anything but the tinniest fragment of the lucky to be here at all humanity? Even the most casual glance at humanity reveals that the vast majority of human beings have lived in degrees poverty, hunger and disease…never having the opportunity to ‘self actualise’ and reach their potential. Billions have died well short of even reaching consciousness and billions more are wage slaves with less security than field mice.

I've partly responded to the above comment of yours with the way I started this post, but just to reiterate, the way I mean "amazing and wonderful" is not at all a denial of the horror life can be for many, nor is it at all connected with how few or how many intelligent beings ever get to experience amazement and wonder for however short or long a period of time over the time span of the universe.

We can speculate that this is the case, but we do not know that this “law of physics” did not originate with a lawmaker/lawgiver.

We do not know, true, but without rehashing things like the unsolved infinite regress of postulating an intelligent designer of the universe, it seems the best default assumption is that physical laws like the second law of thermodynamics aren't expressions of moral value. :)

[tama]

225. Preservation and continuation

In order to learn and experience new wonders - to participate in creation - it is necessary to let go, to forget. Eternity of no change is not life.

Brahman and Shiva - principles of creation and destruction - are not mutually exclusive enemies, they complete each other.

We smoke pot in order to forget so we can experience world as new. Munchies, tasting like never before. If a mother could not forget the pain of giving birth, she would never do that again.

[ironbark]

234. Sounds like Trippy Hippy Permaculture Duck Talk to me tama

;-)

“In order to learn and experience new wonders - to participate in creation - it is necessary to let go, to forget”

Yea…that’s called ‘sleep’…..or having a ‘Nanna Nap’.

>IF< death is the cessation of consciousness I doubt there is much “learning and experiencing new wonders” after forgetting to breathe.

“Eternity of no change is not life.”

Matter/energy are not bound to “Eternity of no change”…can’t imagine why life/consciousness would be.

When Churchill was asked what he would do with an eternal afterlife he responded that he would- “Dedicate the first ten thousand years to learning the basics of oil painting”.

I understand the sentiment completely. There are human capacities, capabilities, creativities, that could not be explored, developed or expressed in a thousand life times.

And those who never even got the opportunity to so much as scratch their initials on the cave wall cannot ‘forget’ that…and live in hope and hope to live. “What Dreams May Come”


“We smoke pot in order to forget so we can experience world as new.”

Not me mate. I smoked pot to remember and relive the giggling play of childhood…to get “the Munchies” and venture into the kitchen only to see the shaft of dust mote light fall directly on the black blotch on the fruit…then to run screaming down the hallway and under the bed with the giggling others- “IT’S A VAMPIRE PAW PAW! IT’S A VAMPIRE PAW PAW!”.

Again I refer you back to my post in your Mind over matter thread…for in both pot and acid it may well not be “forgetting” and “experience world as new” but rather remembering, seeing the world as it actually is, the way we saw and giggled enthralled in playful wonder in childhood.

“If a mother could not forget the pain of giving birth, she would never do that again.”

Perhaps not. But there are those for whom the months of endorphin glow are a drawcard.

In the context of this sub thread exploration perhaps the question should be- “If parents fully consciously calculated the odds of an actualised life in an indifferent/hostile universe with no prospect of afterlife….are they justified in the god act of creating life”?

[tama]

236. As in

forgetting to lock the doors of perception. There are many layers and kinds of memory.

In West the wish of an afterlife is predominant, in East the wish to liberate from cycle of birth and death. Go figure. I want neither and accept all.

Wannabe parents seldom if ever consciously calculate anything - except menstrual cycle. They are hormone monsters who selfishly want to experience human condition more fully because thats the human condition. Then they find out that their selfish degrees of liberty have gone mostly puff and there's new sense of responsibility, something even more important than their own lives. Then they can do grazy things like start studying trippy hippy permaculture.

Newborns are so very very old... with all the stars in their eyes. So who are we to judge their wisdom and will to come into this world?

[Silent3]

237. Please... we don't want any trouble...

Just step away from the bong... slowly. :)

[darkstar3]

238. Well,

when someone has an avatar that says "hemp victory," I don't think you're going to successfully separate them from their drug of choice.

[tama]

239. Funny that

It's been a week since the last puff, just happened to be in a time and place where spliff went around. Not that you need to care, but there's some quite heavy emotional burden behind the post you responded to.

I'm genuinely curious, what about the post gave the impression of "posting while high"?

Have you ever been present at birth and looked into eyes of a justborn?

[Silent3]

241. It's another case of you speaking matter-of-factly...

...about totally wild conjecture.

[tama]

244. When did you lose your soul?

Were you allways like that, even as a child, feeling no poetry in life?

[Silent3]

247. I remember it well: May 1, 1995

I was one of those freak soul-loss accidents. I was waiting for a bus, stood up too quickly when the bus arrived, and my soul was left behind on the bench. Before I could retrieve it, a strong wind came along and blew it away.

Of course, even before that terrible accident, I'd probably still have thought you were smoking something after reading some of your posts. :)

[beam me up scottie]

240. ZOMG! That newborn must have been an indigo!

:rofl:

[tama]

245. You make me sad.

Does that make you happy?

What did they do to you to make you so insensitive and rude, bully boy?

[omega minimo]

251. whatever

it was, it's unhinged. :scared:

[tama]

224. This is getting interesting

"how can an unconscious process be said to be anything but indifferent?"

It can be said to be compassionate without consciouss effort based on conceptual thinking.

"I suppose you could say that the laws of physics are amendable to the development of life happening somehow, somewhere, and in that sense you could say the universe is supportive of life."

Are you familiar with anthropic principle? Cosmological study concludes that "laws" of nature, out of all possibilities, are very finely tuned to allow observers like us observing them. Which is sort of duh, of course there is codepentent relation between the fact of our existance and values of constants and other "laws" of nature allowing our existance. But what is interesting is the very fine "tuning", even very tiny difference in values of constants etc. would produce an universe that didn't allow us.

"While it worked out great for us humans over time, the asteroid that slammed into the planet some 65 million years ago didn't care how much death its impact caused, or what direction life would take afterward. Another asteroid could be headed for us right now, much bigger than the one that killed the dinosaurs, and I don't see any evidence of a cosmic principle or physical law that would kick in and tell that asteroid to change course simply because the preservation of life requires it."

That evidence could be staring at you in the mirror. The speculation that Gaia is using human technological civilization with nukes and rocket science to develop antidote against asteroids is very interesting - and also comforting, giving a higher purpose for all the mayham that technological civilization has caused. The hypothesis that there are only lower forms of intelligence than humans but no higher forms can be doubted on good grounds. ;)

"That will be the end of humanity (if it hasn't happened much, much sooner) unless either we've either managed to spread out onto other worlds and/or developed such a staggeringly powerful technology that we can do things like change the orbit of our planet or regulate the temperature of the Sun."

Or managed to grow out from the materialistic presuppositions and found spiritual evolution to work better.

[omega minimo]

207. What about culture?

"to recognize that this would be beyond a universe simply indifferent to the preservation of consciousness"

[omega minimo]

205. "dominant males in a herd getting most of the females while weaker males may never get to mate"

"dominant males in a herd getting most of the females while weaker males may never get to mate"

:shrug::scared:

[ironbark]

212. Yea, what’s wrong with that? I want my Ferrari, my Armani suit, the Chateau with the pool

and all the trappings that ensure dominant male status and the privileges thereof….

Oh shit.

I’m having a mid life crisis aren’t I.

[Name removed]

204. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ChadwickHenryWard]

179. I'm not sure what you're trying to argue.

You don't believe it's adaptive. I don't believe it's adaptive either. I agree wholeheartedly with Dawkins's assessment that it requires an explanation; I further agree with his proposition that it is most likely a non-adaptive side-effect of an adaptive trait.

[Jim__]

188. You believe its most likely non-adaptive. Based on what?

[ChadwickHenryWard]

231. Same reason I think there's probably no life on the moon.

We've studied the moon extensively and found no evidence for life there. People have studied religion extensively, and so far nobody has presented a compelling argument, to my knowledge, that it's adaptive.

[Jim__]

242. Well, the first argument is that it's universal across human cultures.

No one knows why. If you've read Dawkins on this, you know that his "arguments" are pure hand-waving and wishing. No one has presented any compelling argument (never mind evidence) as to whether religion is adaptive or not. Your arguing that the lack of a compelling argument "for" is an argument "against," cuts both ways.

[tama]

150. "Religious experience"

The common factor in shamanism or shamanhood is altered states of mind, systematic practice of them, and it can be argued that all organized religions are originally based on some experiences during altered states of mind, even though some religions have stopped the practice of trance and even grown hostile towards it.

[ironbark]

143. No Jim, religion was not central or critical “to the survival of a society”

Religion was and is stupid superstition embraced by entirely ignorant human beings
right up until the Enlightenment when intelligence was invented….or discovered…I can never remember which…anyway…everyone prior to us was stupid and nasty and didn’t even possess the common sense to know what was good and or useful to them.

[Jim__]

153. You're right, of course. I should have known :) - n/t

[omega minimo]

203. and they didn't bathe often or use floss

fuckin wankers.








so glad you're 'ere! :toast:

[ironbark]

215. Hey, that's a bit harsh....settle down.

;-)
Have always loved that image.



Likewise glad.