Dec 20 2007
I know you believe
The most distinguishing aspect of belief is that there is the possibility that the thing one believes is false. We all believe a few things, especially what we’ll have for dinner tomorrow. In an astonishing display of denial, many supernaturalists insist that evolution is a belief. It’s true that we’ll never have a complete fossil record of every generation of every species, thus we are forced to speculate and thus believe certain specific scenarios took place. But we don’t have to believe in evolution as a whole. We know that mutations take place and we know that nature provides pressure to select the most adapt individuals, thus we know evolution is a fact.
The two main arguments about knowing things from science and philosophy come from the quantum and matrix worlds. In the quantum world, pundits claim that since we can not know where a particle is or how fast it’s going with absolute certainty we are forced to believe in its existence. Luckily most of the particles we interact with are clustered up into atoms and molecules. We don’t have to believe they’re there, we just have to except that our knowledge of they’re exact location will always remain undetermined.
In the Matrix multiuniverse adherents claim that we can only believe because we interpret the world through our senses and our senses can be fooled. Therefor, we can never know what is real and what is being feed into our brain by a master programmer. And for that matter, we might not even be humans. We might be independent programs in a massive virtual reality program run by gamers one flight up in reality. Although I know that thinking is proof of being, we are not dependent on ourselves for proof of reality. The entire objective universe is proof of existence and it reveals a constancy through cause and effect. But I can hear Morpheus whisper, “The matrix has laws like gravity and stuff like matter…”
The belief in gods led naturally to this computer simulation version of dysfunctional disbelief in the natural world. And just as so many theologians claimed that they are spirits stuck in a fleshy imperfect body, todays sci-fi matrixlanders subordinate to computer operators, a sentient program thinking their self human, will says to their self, I believe this reality is not real. It’s an evasive argument because it’s relatively impossible to disprove and assumes that artificial computer simulations exist and can be self aware. It, along with the pink unicorn and god argument, demand that total knowledge of everything be achieved to discredit it’s assertion. These people, or spirits/programs, “ought” to recognize the belief aspect: It is very possible (actually relatively infinitely probable) that they are wrong. The reason is simple and revolves around reason. In both scenarios there is a master agent, a being of some sort that has intent. The reason a master agent would create sub agents (programs/sheep) that lack the information of their true situation, would be for the entertainment of watching them try and discover the truth. But seeing as though the master agent would be the one setting the rules it would be they who allowed the sub agents to discover the truth. Or as in the movie The Matrix, we would be powering the process of fooling ourselves. Thus, the sub agents (people) would simply be extensions of the master agent (god) or a completely ridiculous redundancy which will eventually burn itself up. And that would mean that not only are we not real, but the agent that created us is also not real.
Obviously we are. To believe that we need to constantly believe that we are to be is ridiculous. Programs and spirits may be useful tools in describing the complex identity we have, the only thing we’ll ever have, as we rent this body and dart around in a storm of fired synapses. But there is no reason to doubt reality. I know, therefor I am.
Where to start. Well, first off, not bad. I like some of the stuff here. Like the first sentence. And the last sentence too. But as seems to be my problem, I want to work through a couple of thoughts you put up.
1. So if I made, say, an AI. And I allowed it to perform within certain parameters as it saw fit and it adapted and did things outside those parameters and thought to itself that it wasn’t really there, then I as its creator would cease to exist? I know that isn’t exactly what you’re trying to point out, but it does come across that way. Or are you saying that if we think that this life is like the frosting on a cake, that we think this life isn’t real?
I think that this life is real, Robert. It is as real as the frosting on the cake. It doesn’t mean there isn’t more. But that is part of your problem with my thoughts on this. Oh well. I can understand where your coming from.
2. Evolution. I have heard a theory that explains the fossils and the carbon 14 dating and the whole thing without evolution. Its called a canopy theory. Is it true? Heck if I know. But so much points to the possibility that it could very well be true that it strikes me as true.
Darwin allowed for evolution of species. I know that. Did he (since he came up with this idea) allow for evolution between kingdoms? i.e. Rock to vegetable to animal? I haven’t read all his stuff, so I’ll let you add to my info on this.
A great flood over the whole world allows for the things evolution does, but also allows for human footprints and dinosaur footprints fossilized at the same time. Evolution, as its laid out right now, does not.
Evolution does not allow for the sealacamp.
Evolution cannot explain the oceans getting saltier at the rate they are now, and still existing eons ago. (Unless negative saltiness were possible)
Evolution cannot explain why mutations (errors) in our genetic codes happen to be improvements. Okay, I’m kidding. That is what it is based on. Errors being beneficial. It’s possible. As one scientist I heard put it, you have just as good a chance to roll 13 on a pair of dice. (I’ve tried and tried, but can only get to twelve). Of course you could cheat. And that cheating would infer someone is behind the 13 on the dice. Which would infer an intelligence that helped things along. Which might be the Flying Spaghetti monster. But then again, maybe someone has been subtly hinting at their existence and we refuse to even consider it. Why? Because it would mean we are actually responsible for our own actions. Why? Because if we were created, there must be a purpose. What would it be? Now that is a good question, isn’t it?
Questioning the frosting is redundant when the cake obviously and objectively exists.
“Rock to vegetable to animal?”
My assumption: Rock to vegetable, probably only happened once; Vegetable to animal, easily done.
“A great flood over the whole world allows for the things evolution does”
????????
“Evolution cannot explain the oceans getting saltier at the rate they are now”
Biology is not geology.
“Evolution cannot explain why mutations (errors) in our genetic codes happen to be improvements.”
It’s common knowledge that 99.9999999…% of the mutations that occur are detrimental. It is not the mutations that cause a species to adapt, it is the pressure that exists within the environment.
“As one scientist I heard put it, ‘you have just as good a chance to roll 13 on a pair of dice’.”
Wow, what a wonderful counter argument! I bet he’s been peer reviewed.
This life is very much like the frosting on a cake Robert.
If you refuse to believe that there is something holding the whole thing up, who am I to deny in your belief that there is not cake. For all I know, you think it is a air-filled ziploc bag covered with frosting. I still like discussing these things with you. You don’t believe in what you do without good solid reasoning. We all can reason faulitly at times. Myself included. I have changed my beliefs more than once throughout my life. Not just on a whim, but because the preponderence of evidence was so overwhelming, I realized that I was wrong.
Have a Merry Christmas. Truly.
I don’t believe the cake Roland. I know the cake and love the frosting. The religious are the people who insist there’s fairy dust in the recipe. Why they aren’t satisfied with flower and sugar is beyond them and doesn’t make any sense to me.
I know you don’t want it, but “Frohe Weihnachten!”
My mom makes the best cake in the world, for me.
I bet if you tasted it, it would be no better than, or perhaps worse than, the product of a competent pastry chef.
But then again Robert, that is because you can’t taste my mom’s special fairy dust in the recipe.
Like water for chocolate, love is the best seasoning. God used atoms, and photons, and forces and magical instantaneous action at a distance… but the cake and frosting have subjective meaning because of His love.
My god uses imagiphotons and lovejuice. He’s an all organismic god.
Your not even using a “christian” argument. Your argument should be that the cake and frosting have objective meaning because of The Almighty’s love. I surely don’t need god to have meaning in my sugar.
Quite. It was a slip of the fingers. Objective reality is what I meant.
Having said that, an objective meaning puts quite a different spin on my subjective meaning.
Your first sentence reminds me of this song:
http://www.lyricsdownload.com/talking-heads-the-facts-of-life-lyrics.html
I wish I could find a link to a performance. If you haven’t listened to Naked then you haven’t listened to the Talking Heads.
I feel sorry for you thimscool. I know that you believe that being a “child of the lord” gives your life infinitly more meaning than knowing that we’re just simple human beings. For some reason I’ve never had to have a spin on the meaning in my life. Even a little meaning down here is infinitly more meaning than the amount meaning on the moon.
Thanks for the Christmas wish Roland. It came true, I’m goin’ back to Cali.
Well that’s what I call progress. A couple of days ago you were shouting your frustration, and now you feel sorry for me.
So tell me… how meaningful is the life of an impoverished Indonesian that got snuffed out by the Boxer Day Tsunami three years ago? Prior to their watery death they lived an illiterate life, in a day to day search for food… they never made any lasting art, or any contribution to science, literature, or the global economy.
You are worth more than them, aren’t you Robert? Your life has more meaning, doesn’t it? But to put it in perspective, your life will probably have less meaning than Mr. Darwin…
~~~
If you believe that meaning is objective and love comes from God (Holy Spirit), then the differences between humans all pale in comparison to God’s majesty and capability… so we are all equal from a God’s eye view.
Do you embrace your subjective valuation of each human’s worth, or do you think that there is an innate objective value in every human, independent of any God’s judgment?
If so, what is your objective standard? If not, then given your stance on over population, did you cheer on the tsunami as it killed all those useless eaters?
Am I censored now, or is it a glitch? If I am censored, then we all have another reason to pity me…
Well I guess it was a glitch in Wordpress… so much for my opportunity for self pity.