If Darwin was correct

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Xin Yu

In my post, singing and drawing were two examples of the unique human behavior associated with art. Do you consider your examples enough to show that other species are able to do arts as well?

Which begs the question: why would you assume that 'art' to a dolphin, or whale, or bonobo would resemble human art?

I mean good grief, cetaceans have a completely different environment to live in.


I was fortunate to go whale watching over a decade ago off Vancouver Island. We were following a pod of killer whales, a mother and her three male offspring. They go to particular beaches, covered in small pebbles, and rub their bellies on the beach.

Scientists aren't entirely sure why- they've postulated that they might be getting rid of parasites, or leaving scent to mark territory, or some such activity. Some scientists have even stated that the whales might simply be having fun.


Certainly, the behaviour of some dolphins and whales could lead one to suspect that they are certainly capable of 'enjoying' themselves- carrying out activities unrelated to basic needs, such as feeding, mating, and so on.


It took humanity an awful long time to come up with single point perspective after all- until Giotto, Masaccio and Piero Della Francesca art in Western Europe hadn't moved on much from late Roman art- in fact, the portraits painted on Roman sarcophagi from Egypt are actually superior (in terms of verisimilitude) to nearly all portraits painted before the Renaissance.


What we perceive and how we portray what we perceive are also bound up with what we conceive the external world to be too.

[Whaleboy]

I do not mind if you disagree with me Whaleboy.
I am just saying before you disagree, make sure you understand what you disagree with.
I know this is used over and over by evolutionists but geez.

And to just pick out every single word and disagree because it is a post from me is just not using your head.
If I am right about something at least have the common sense to say " hmm- you could be right". I mean its not going to bite you or something.

I'm picking out the terms you've used that are relevant. I was nitpicking a bit earlier but when you're debating like this, sloppy terminology is bad news. And I do understand your argument, which is the basis for any refutation though I would not consider it a better argument unless it merits it. I judge each argument by its merits and afford it respect accordingly. Now I respect you as a poster but that's a different thing from your argument I'm afraid. But back to the argument, methinks it will do you no good to cry wolf, so to speak.

[BlackCat]

Originally posted by Xin Yu


Huh? OK, let's say A tried to kill B but get killed by B for self defense.

Whole truth: B killed A on self defense
Half truth: B killed A
Lie: B did not kill A

Which is the worst?

The lie of couse. If you tell the lie you risk that C are executed for something he didn't do.

[beingofone]

Originally posted by Whaleboy


I'm picking out the terms you've used that are relevant. I was nitpicking a bit earlier but when you're debating like this, sloppy terminology is bad news. And I do understand your argument, which is the basis for any refutation though I would not consider it a better argument unless it merits it. I judge each argument by its merits and afford it respect accordingly. Now I respect you as a poster but that's a different thing from your argument I'm afraid. But back to the argument, methinks it will do you no good to cry wolf, so to speak.

As I said , the bulk of my post has nothing to do with you.
At least you address what it is we are talking about and acknowledge common facts. And so far, for the most part, I enjoy our discussions.

Some of your "colleagues" are absolutley clueless however.
Some of the posters on your side of the debate are just not worth responding to because of the lack of logical conceptual thinking and eternal nitpicking. I don`t want to be rude, but man, at least try to understand the other side of the argument before you respond.
They do have their value as
Dr. Seuss said
"I like nonsense; it wakes up the brain cells."

As you said - back to the discussion.

My "sloppy terminology" was because you misspelled a word [solipsism]. I ran it through spellcheck and out popped " solecism" - so I could say
you use sloppy terminology,
you are bad at spelling or like your colleagues
you are completely wrong because I don`t want you to be right. But I won`t do that.

Besides I misspell words all the time - LOL.

[beingofone]

Originally posted by BlackCat


It's easy to take one sentence out and claim "you are mistaken", but isn't it a fact that christianity was strongly opposed to the general rule and thereby political ?

I did not want to post your entire statement which was rather lengthy.
Politics has to do with government. Government by its very nature is force and violence to maintain public order.That is why "love thy neighbor as thyself" is not capable of political power.

Nope. Words MAY be symbols of reality - just because someone has written something and claims it's gods words, it's not nessecary reality.

Let me try to explain in another way. If I say " ice cream" is that the same thing as experiencing eating ice cream?

You don't need a god to have it this way - actually I feel sorry for you if you can't have this without a godfigure.

I do not have a "godfigure" - I have no image of God at all.
That is because God is spirit. Spirit is that which transcends physical reality and thought.

How do you know that ? and no, just because someone has written a book sevaral years ago, that isn't a proof.

How do I know I am real? Let me answer that by asking you a question. Are you real, do you exist?

So what if some people think a frog is a god or that some deity was the father of jesus ? Both are religion, and religion are certainly a manmade fiction either used to explain trees split by lightning or used as a political tool.

That must be your experience of religion. I do apologize for the ignorance of well-meaning religous types that are a bit to superstitous. Or the underhanded that use religion as a catapult to power.
That in no way nullifies the reality of God.
BTW- I have no external God anywhere.

[Whaleboy]

I ran it through spellcheck and out popped " solecism" - so I could say
you use sloppy terminology,

Nope, solipsism... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solipsism

[beingofone]

Originally posted by Whaleboy


That leads to the cosmological/causal argument which has long been shown absurd (a conclusion that contradicts one of it's premises.

Care to show the absurdity and contradiction?
I am going to hold you to this one Whaleboy.

But faith goes back as subjective/hypothetical as the individual consciousness himself therefore, and cannot be communicated, let alone in such a way as an objective god. Secondly, it takes an extra leap to go from faith to god.

Not if I do not believe in some external god out past the Milky Way somewhere pulling all the strings.
If he is the substance of my being then it does not take much faith at all.

No solipsism is just a possibly conclusion if you use deductive reasoning from Descarte's cogito ergo sum. A singularity in that sense is sloppy terminology.

You may apply it to mathmatics all you want. I could say that is "sloppy terminology" because it means nothing or naught and that cannot be counted.
But that would only show that I am not familiar with the concept of zero as used by math.
I assure you, singularity is used quite often in other circles other than science and math. I just don`t point at a black hole in space - so what.

No that goes back to the debate between rationalism and empiricalism. Say faith is based on rationalism which is subjective and empiricalism which relies on a presumption... i.e., that you trust the outside world exists etc. If you didn't you'd just live like Diogenes in his barrel. If you do accept that the outside world exists, then you place science on top of that, but in its own manner, "faith in science" is not a valid attack on scientific method. Solipsism is the most logically consistent yes but as with most cases of deductive reasoning you can't do a whole lot of useful stuff with it. That is if "useful" is to mean application to other people/outside world. Within that, it's possible to create a kind of transcendental "God", but is incommunicable, which therefore precludes religion, social worship or scripture.

I am impressed- you have done your homework. I mean that dude.
The flaw in your thinking is you believe that these two thoughts are mutually exclusive - not at all.

"I want to know God's thoughts,..... the rest are details.."
-- Albert Einstein
"What really interests me is whether God had any choice in the creation of the world."
--Albert Einstein
'The last major breakthrough for mankind will be spiritual in its nature"
-- Albert Einstein
"the Kingdom of God is within you"
-- Jesus the Christ

It may very well be the solution to the dilemma of lack of harmonious well being.

Existence, well your best bet for that is existentialist "existence precludes essense", which lends itself to subjectivity, IOW Wittgensteins "What can be said is different to what can be shown" distinction, which is very useful here. It also allows for our presumption that others exist.

I do not agree at all. It divorces one with reality if taken to its ultimate conclusion. It is attempting to explain existence by believing intellect is supreme.
ie. "I am alone in an alien universe and it is threatening my existence." - That thought leads to the insanity of governments (wars).

[beingofone]

Originally posted by Whaleboy

You do know how singularities work right? Cogito ergo sum -> solisism only works when using solely deductive reasoning, you can induce the existence of others, hence the debate between rationalism and empiricism, but that one might choose empiricism does not render cogito ergo sum false.

Run solisism through a dictionary

[Whaleboy]

Care to show the absurdity and contradiction?
I am going to hold you to this one Whaleboy.

No problem, everything has a cause, every potentiality has something which realises it into actuality, which must have previously had actuality. Go back and back and back, the only way to avoid ad infinitum is to say that something had a first cause, a first mover. Which is a conclusion that contradicts one of its premises.

If he is the substance of my being then it does not take much faith at all.

Fair enough, but that's outside of the remit of science and you cannot use that to make scientific arguments, nor can you claim that God must objectively exist.

I could say that is "sloppy terminology" because it means nothing or naught and that cannot be counted.

But yet (in the sense you have used it) I am here. A statement that would work for you. But you are trying to make an objective argument so you cannot use the properties of a subjective to deduce the objective.

The flaw in your thinking is you believe that these two thoughts are mutually exclusive - not at all.

I think it's a reasonable assumption to say that science is based upon empiricalism. I didn't say that they had to be mutually exclusive, hence the (rationalist) faith in empiricalism -> science.

"I want to know God's thoughts,..... the rest are details.."
-- Albert Einstein
"What really interests me is whether God had any choice in the creation of the world."
--Albert Einstein
'The last major breakthrough for mankind will be spiritual in its nature"
-- Albert Einstein
"the Kingdom of God is within you"
-- Jesus the Christ

It may very well be the solution to the dilemma of lack of harmonious well being.

Suffice that Einsteins views on God were, shall we say, inconsistent with the consequences of his own reasoning, and it's dangerous imo to quote extracts from someone eminent and famous as an argument from authority. As for recognising some kind of faith within, I'm ambivalent. We can only really speak for ourselves in this matter, for sure what works for you is fine, for others that kind of "faith" might not exist, or it's conclusions might be completely different.

I do not agree at all. It divorces one with reality if taken to its ultimate conclusion. It is attempting to explain existence by believing intellect is supreme.
ie. "I am alone in an alien universe and it is threatening my existence." - That thought leads to the insanity of governments (wars).

Not at all. Cogito ergo sum |= sum ergo cogito (forgive my bastardisation of a language I cannot speak). This is to say;
"I think therefore I am" |= "I am therefore I think"

It's not attempting to explain existence by anything, it's attempting to explain essense in that it is preceded by existence. That renders essense and existence subjective, which would lead to your "singularity".

[Whaleboy]

Originally posted by beingofone
Run solisism through a dictionary

Originally posted by Whaleboy
Nope, solipsism... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solipsism

[Whaleboy]

Ah I'll be more generous than that...

http://www.philosophypages.com/dy/s7.htm#solm

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/montaigne/

We find two readings of Montaigne as a Sceptic. The first one concentrates on the polemical, negative arguments drawn from Sextus Empiricus, at the end of the ‘Apology’. This hard-line scepticism draws the picture of man as “humiliated”.[33] Its aim is essentially to fight the pretentions of reason and to annihilate human knowledge. “Truth”, “being” and “justice” are equally dismissed as unattainable. Doubt foreshadows Descartes' Meditations, on the problem of the reality of the outside world. Dismissing the objective value of one's representations, Montaigne would have created the long-lasting problem of ‘solipsism’. We notice, nevertheless, that he does not question the reality of things — except occasionally at the very end of the 'Apology' — but the value of opinions and men.

http://www.iep.utm.edu/s/solipsis.htm

Google ad nausium.

[beingofone]

Originally posted by Whaleboy


No problem, everything has a cause, every potentiality has something which realises it into actuality, which must have previously had actuality. Go back and back and back, the only way to avoid ad infinitum is to say that something had a first cause, a first mover. Which is a conclusion that contradicts one of its premises.

I AM
I am the cause
I am the realisation of potentiality
I am the way, the truth and the life
I am the source and self existent

No contradiction here

Fair enough, but that's outside of the remit of science and you cannot use that to make scientific arguments, nor can you claim that God must objectively exist.

If you look at the experiments with electrons and human observation bringing substance to physical reality. It could very well bring you to the same conclusion.
Such as the Double Slit experiment with photons.
It could be that the 90% of your brain theory is in some sense creating physical reality.

But yet (in the sense you have used it) I am here. A statement that would work for you. But you are trying to make an objective argument so you cannot use the properties of a subjective to deduce the objective.

Are you here? Are you thinking about objectivity?
I hope you see my point without having to spell it out.

I think it's a reasonable assumption to say that science is based upon empiricalism. I didn't say that they had to be mutually exclusive, hence the (rationalist) faith in empiricalism -> science.

That does not do away with your consciousness.which I am sure you will agree is real

Suffice that Einsteins views on God were, shall we say, inconsistent with the consequences of his own reasoning, and it's dangerous imo to quote extracts from someone eminent and famous as an argument from authority. As for recognising some kind of faith within, I'm ambivalent. We can only really speak for ourselves in this matter, for sure what works for you is fine, for others that kind of "faith" might not exist, or it's conclusions might be completely different.

How is it possible for faith in oneself not to work?

Not at all. Cogito ergo sum |= sum ergo cogito (forgive my bastardisation of a language I cannot speak). This is to say;
"I think therefore I am" |= "I am therefore I think"

It's not attempting to explain existence by anything, it's attempting to explain essense in that it is preceded by existence. That renders essense and existence subjective, which would lead to your "singularity".

In the deep South of the United States they say
" I chew tobacco - therefore I am".

God - especially if one understands the scripture as it was written. Explains himself the same way.
Very well said by you I might add.

[Whaleboy]

I AM
I am the cause
I am the realisation of potentiality
I am the way, the truth and the life
I am the source and self existent

No contradiction here

Granted, in the sense in which we are discussing it, however I think that UR was referring to a different context (hence cosmological argument).

Are you here? Are you thinking about objectivity?

Neuomena? Phenomena? If the distinction lies with us then neither of us have to spell anything

How is it possible for faith in oneself not to work?

Depression, borderline personality disorder, PTSD, etc. But more usefully, that one has it need not necessarily mean that another does, the above examples that support that are of course incidental and demonstrative.

God - especially if one understands the scripture as it was written. Explains himself the same way.

Hmmm but what we have with God is an essense in scripture (who's authority and validity is also questionable) but that need not imply an existence.

[beingofone]

I have to sleep - but I will answer later.

CYA - I enjoyed it very much

[Boris Godunov]

I was away for most of the weekend. Did I miss anything worth summarizing? Too lazy to read...