It's evolution, baby!

[danbaron]

[font=courier new][size=8pt]The older I get, the harder it is for me to not be troubled by the thought that we exist for a period of time, and then, we cease to exist. When I was younger,
I was absolutely convinced that was the truth, and, it didn't seem to bother me (for instance, I read books by Ernest Becker, e.g., "The Denial of Death"). It
still does seem to me that the simplest explanation which satisfies the available data, is that, there is no God. In that case, my opinion is, that the idea of
God is a biological adaptation, for the purpose of reinforcing the desire to survive. It seems to me, that humans are so smart, that they are able to override
the survival instinct - generally they need to think that their lives have meaning, and that the future will be better. So, from that perspective, God would be
a biologically rooted psychological trick, written into the code for constructing human beings. And, in that case, as a group, humans, generally being
religious, are deluded by biology to hope for something that does not exist, so that they will be willing to have offspring and continue their genes into the
future. For people who do not believe in God, it is difficult for me to understand their logical thinking in having offspring. Maybe they are dedicated to the
ultimate perfectibility of the human race, sometime in the hazy distant future. They reassure themselves by imagining that their genes will contribute to an
abstraction that they and their offspring will never see. However, I view that as a rationalization. In other words, I think they are biologically driven not to
be satisfied unless they have children, and they resort to idealisms, in an attempt to deny the fact. It seems to me, the alternative is to admit to themselves
that they want children for self-gratification; or to plead that they couldn't help themselves, that, they are like robots, controlled by the "demands" of their
genes. Especially, in the Western world today, when, as time passes, it appears, that, on average, children will have more difficulty surviving than their
parents did.

(No time to improve this now, I have to get the train.)

Dan

[JosephE]

Those are some good observations.

As far as whether or or not God exists, Dan, that's a whole different story. Let's take God, as in the God believed in by Jews and Christians (the only god ever known to die for his creation [believed by Christians], by far the most popular throughout history, and the one I'm most familiar with).

According to the Christian Bible, you can't please God without faith. So if you could prove God exists, it wouldn't matter to him. That defeats the purpose, according to the Christian Bible. I don't think anyone would believe you if you did prove the existence of any God...

Now, I am a Christian. But I try not to be biased, as I can understand where everybody is coming from.

Most people believe what they want to, even if it has less supporting evidence. But if you are already biased to Creationism or Evolution (or some other belief/theory) then you will probably twist the evidence around in your favor. Thankfully, a smarter Christian told me not to ever try to prove God's existence a long time ago. Anyone trying to prove God's existence has already lost touch with God, or is ignorant with good intentions.

Now, some people mention things completely unrelated as a logical red-herring fallacy to try to avoid having to prove their point. And I get frustrated when people do that. But we seem to have our heads on straight at this programming forum. Programmers do seem to have more logic than the average person...I wonder why.

Even if I wasn't a Christian, I would still have a heard time believing in evolution, just because of the reasons I mentioned above, and some of the concepts in the article Dan posted.

Creationism and Evolution does make for a good debate. You might be able to prove the evidence favors Creationism, but I don't think it's worth a person's time to prove the existence of God.

Anyways, that's just my little rabbit trail about God, Creationism, and Evolution haha.

[Michael Clease]

So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.

So does the God concept only work if it is a shape shifter or are we an aliens experiment in a petri dish.

[LanceGary]

[font=courier new][size=8pt]
In that case, my opinion is, that the idea of
God is a biological adaptation, for the purpose of reinforcing the desire to survive. It seems to me, that humans are so smart, that they are able to override
the survival instinct - generally they need to think that their lives have meaning, and that the future will be better. So, from that perspective, God would be
a biologically rooted psychological trick, written into the code for constructing human beings.

You might be interested in the following book:

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Supersense-S...8924243&sr=1-1

Lance

[danbaron]

[font=courier new][size=8pt]"trillions of little 'experiments' over millions of years"

Sounds good, makes sense.

"we are part of the reflective nature of the universe"

I can go along with that. Now we could start down the long road of, what "consciousness" is.

-------------------------------------------------

From what I've read, "in the image of God", means, that, like God, we are fundamentally spiritual beings.

We in America learned on Coast-To-Coast (radio) from your David Icke, that the Royal Family is actually composed of reptilian shape-shifters.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/s/ref=nb_sb_...159_169&fsc=-1

If we are the science experiment of some higher species, then, I'd give anything to get my hands around their throats.

-------------------------------------------------

I read all of the reviews for the book, Lance. Once again, you are right on target. The only problem is, that in this case, I would prefer if my conjectures are
disproved, not verified.

I like beavers. I love crows.

I have wondered before about why chimps are so strong.

That's a good point about intelligence and self-destruction. As you probably know, Michio Kaku has speculated that is one of the reasons our galaxy does not
seem to be teeming with advanced life, most civilizations destroy themselves.

-------------------------------------------------

I like Joe's view. He expresses what I want to believe. I'm not saying that he is correct. I'm saying that unless I commit suicide, then, like everyone else, I
have to find a way to make it to the end of this life. If a belief in religion helps me to do so, then, so be it. On the other hand, I'm not saying that I would
attempt to believe in something (God) that I know to be untrue. I don't think that God can be either proved or disproved - at least, no one has done it so far.
And, probably even if God could be disproved, it would not matter much. Apparently, humans are "wired" to believe in God, so they will as a whole, ignore any
disproof. To me, my life seems hard. That makes the question of God more important. When things are going good, the fundamental questions are easy to repress. When
things are hard (or, as you get old), they demand to be examined (at least they do for me). I don't have any "faith" in God. I only have hope. And the scale is
so evenly balanced, that the slightest "breeze", puts me under a "black cloud". I know people who have what I would call a "simple" faith. You could bombard
them all day every day with scientific facts that contradict their belief, and they remain unaffected. I am not like them.

I see the Christian point that if people knew for certain that God exists, and is judging their actions, then, many would alter their behaviors, but, only in
order to maximize their ultimate "profit".

I absolutely agree with Joe, that people believe what they want to believe. In almost every case, the feeling comes first, then, the logic to support the
feeling, follows. I think that is the case with Richard Dawkins. I don't know, but my guess is that from a very young age, he disbelieved in God. As time
passed, he used evidence of evolution to strengthen his arguments. Finally, he plainly revealed his "hand", by writing, "The God Delusion".

Even if evolution accounts for all life in the universe, I don't think it disproves God. If you read the quote from David Darling (a very smart English guy, by
the way - you can find his books at Amazon), in my post from yesterday, you will see that no physicist has the slightest idea where the universe came from. They
say, "Nothing existed, and then there was a quantum fluctuation, and the universe began.". But, if nothing existed, then how could there be a quantum
fluctuation? A quantum fluctuation of, or in, what? Or, you could look at it this way. If nothing existed, and then, a quantum fluctuation occurred, wouldn't
that be an apparent miracle? A quantum fluctuation is "something", right? So, saying that, "Nothing existed, and then a quantum fluctuation occurred.", would
be the same as saying, "Nothing existed, and then, something existed.", yes? Additionally, I think there is something else wrong with the statement, "Nothing
existed, and then, something existed." - besides the fact that it doesn't explain anything. Maybe here, human logic breaks down. If nothing existed, there can
be no, "then". There can only be a "then", if time exists, and "time", is "something". In other words, there can be no "previous" to the existence of
"something".

I've said this before. To me, almost everyone has a "religion". For some, it is God. For some, it is sports. Other religions include, gambling, drugs, sex,
music, money, power, acquisition, science, technology, evolution, and atheism. For those whose religion is atheism, they have zero chance of ever verifying
their core belief.

One more thing about evolution. I guess, the Earth is approximately 4.5 billion years old. Assuming evolution is true, I wonder if anyone has calculated how long
it should take. In other words, starting with nothing but chemicals 4.5 billion years ago, should there be life as advanced as humans are, now? (Maybe that
calculation remains in the future.)

-------------------------------------------------

(This is my hypothesis.)

Atheists use their intelligence to realize that belief in God is a genetic adaptation designed to strengthen the survival instinct, and therefore, to increase
the likelihood that people will transmit their genes into the future. In this case, they refuse to cooperate with their "programming", they refuse to believe in
God.

But, if I am correct, atheists, as a group, have children, they procreate. It seems to me that in this case too, they should use their intelligence to realize
that the desire to have children, is also a genetic adaptation with the purpose of transmitting their genes into the future. However, in this case, they do
cooperate with their programming, and, either, they don't see their inconsistency, or, they use all kinds of reasons to justify it.

Therefore, my conclusion is that, no matter what they say, the primary reason that atheists (as a group) do not believe in God, is not because of science or
logic, but rather, is because of feeling. They get no emotional gratification from believing in God, they get emotional gratification from disbelieving; so,
they disbelieve. They also get emotional gratification from having children, and so, they do that.

My speculation is that, Richard Dawkins gets a lot of emotional gratification from disbelieving in God, and much more from writing books which covertly attempt
to demonstrate that believers are primitive and stupid (and that he knows, just about everything).

-------------------------------------------------

One thing that is once again obvious to me, is that, humans are social animals. Otherwise, we would not be using our time to communicate with each other about
these topics. Also, humans are fundamentally similar. Otherwise, all of us, from different parts of the world, would not be interested in the same basic
questions.

:P
Dan

[zak]

of course when a biologist or biochemists focuses only on the molecules and that our origin is from crocodiles or whatever the situation will lead to the absurdity of existence, no reason to continue living in this case.
in my opinion an indirect proof that a super entity is behind the existence is simply in front of us all like a miracle, it is simply the consciousness phenomena, somehow the neurons or microtubules or whatever in the brain form exactly a kind of key teeth which pluged in correctly to the cupboard of mysteries, then a big surprise: an undescribable, unreachable, can't be described something appears : the people call it consciousness ;(awareness); (feeling of existence),
suppose a robot have consciousness someday, it is not the scientist who endow it the consciousness, it appears because the circuits inside it trigger something in nowhere so a gift (the consciousness) appears.
if our feeling of existence can't be described by formulas,
just make this experiment: try to teach a blind man how the orange color looks like; can he feel that color by knowing that its wave lenght is x angestrom, never, it is impossible to convey your awareness of the orange color to anyone else. so then we have the miracles all around us, but because it is attached to us from our childhood we forgot it.
there is some research that a consciousness appears due to quantum correlation in the brain especially the microtubules; look at an excellent site by anesthesia doctor (Hameroff) and a physicist (Penrose) here: www.quantumconsciousness.org
anyway if it is correct it is describing just the key teeth configuration and not the bizzare entity wich appears when that key open the mystery door.
i swear that 90% of the biologists while they are talking do not know that they have consciousness at all ; else they will focus more contemplation on this important subject which without there is no value to the human.

[danbaron]

[font=courier new][size=8pt]zak always has very smart ideas, expressed very imaginatively - "cupboard of mysteries", "it triggers something in nowhere", "90% of the biologists while they are talking do not know that they have consciousness at all" <-- :P, "mystery door". He puts a lot of perceptive information, in a little space. He cuts right through the bullcrap, to the heart of the matter.

I have a book by a pretty famous philosopher, Colin McGinn, who I think exactly agrees with zak. I admit that I haven't read it all. The title is, "The Mysterious Flame - Conscious Minds in a Material World". If I remember correctly, his proposition is that we can study the brain everyday until the end of time, and we will never understand the mechanism of consciousness. We can start at the tiniest scale in the brain, and then work up to the biggest scale, and, its location will elude us. We can study all of the voltages, the currents, everything, and we won't be able to find it.

Maybe, part of what he is saying, is that our inability is due to the fact that we are on the inside looking out, not on the outside looking in. Or, the observer and the observed, are the same things; humans, using human brains, attempting to understand the functioning of human brains. There seems to be sort of a circular logic.

I've thought about it like this: would it be possible for a microscope to study another microscope, and determine the functioning of microscopes?

Or, here is a conjecture - "No mechanism can fully understand the functioning of itself".

[zak]

thanks dan

Or, here is a conjecture - "No mechanism can fully understand the functioning of itself"

i guess this is a valuable big subject which can be extended to mathematics and computer science.

[LanceGary]

thanks dan

Or, here is a conjecture - "No mechanism can fully understand the functioning of itself"

i guess this is a valuable big subject which can be extended to mathematics and computer science.
i want only to say something about an idea plagued me always:
after death what prevents our feeling of entity to be reappear in other new born creature like (the worst Rat) or a cockroach or a fish or a child of bill gates!!, nothing can prevent this, and no clue that i was x man before. why not we will not reappear again , we are already making this feat after sleep
more bizzare possibilty: a man which his entity feeling transfered to his dog, and his dog entity transfered to him, in a sudden quantum flush so in the morning the daughter called her dad to solve an algebra equation for her, and the (dogy father) will solve that equation because his experience is printed in the molecules of the brain and the previously dog will not suspect there is something wrong, same same for the dog now will not remember he was the true father before. and the happy daughter will not suspect anything wrong, and every one are happy, as if nothing happened. indeed this is a dreaded idea.
if the super entity wants to punish someone i think this is one of the possibilities. so my hope is that good persons whatever their religion may not subjected to this top secret fate.

You might be interested in this article:

http://www.naturalism.org/death.htm

[danbaron]

[font=courier new][size=8pt]I looked at the article. Maybe, I didn't read it closely enough. Here is my crude summary, maybe too crude. It reminds me of the theory of reincarnation. I
guess his basic idea is that consciousnesses jump from one body to another into the future. There is no memory of previous existences. And, all existences, are
exactly subject to the laws of this universe. In that case, there is no guarantee that succeeding existences will be better than preceding ones. But, it won't
make any difference, because, a consciousness will have no notion of previous existences. So, my consciousness may have existed for billions of years, maybe
initially in the underdeveloped form of an amoeba.

Therefore, for a person, there is no functional difference between a consciousness which ceases forever at death, and one which continues as long as the
universe continues. Either way, when you die, everyone and everything you know, will be gone forever. Similarly, when a loved one dies, that person is irrevocably
gone.

I guess, if you follow the "path" of what he is saying to the end, then, as long as there is at least one consciousness in the universe, somehow, all previous
consciousnesses will be forced into it, or some will be waiting in the "aether", for the appearances of new brains to inhabit. When the universe ends, so will
all consciousness. It seems like his idea is that the universe has a law of "consciousness conservation". Why make new consciousnesses, when you already have
perfectly good ones available?

There is no happy destination as the major religions say there is. I don't see anything profound in his outlook. To me, he is saying that when you die, others
will still exist, and when they die, still others will still exist, ad infinitum. So, somehow, we should find that abstraction, comforting.

I agree with his point that there is no "positive nothingness". If we are only our bodies, then, the "we", we perceive, is only the functioning of our brains.
When our brains stop functioning, we will then have the same consciousness as a rock. However, we won't feel bad about what we have lost. But, apparently, we
surely are able to feel bad, in anticipation.

My suspicions are raised when authors don't plainly and clearly state their points. Instead, they meander back and forth, and, too and fro, because, it seems to
me, that they have no clear or new points to make. They quote others, and recount what famous people have thought about the subject. They use big words. They use
a lot of space telling what they are going to show. The result is something large in size, which could be reduced to a few sentences. (Incidentally, many books
do that.)

Many people have previously made the point that if atom by atom, the brain of Person A, was changed into the brain of Person B, then Person A would have no
indication of the change while it was occurring. At the end of the process, Person A would be Person B. But, then, he would think that he always had been. And,
he would not regret the fact that he was no longer Person A.

Many people have also said, that on the starship, Enterprise, a person using the transporter would cease to exist, and, a new copy of him would begin to exist.
Of course, the copy would have no indication that just previously, he did not exist.

(Maybe, I'm too harsh.)


Dan