Human Evolution

[SelfSim]

OK SelfSim, I am responding to a number of posts that I found addressed to me this morning. I saved the best for last.

Glad you found the time for it .. I appreciate that (you are obviously busy combatting with others). Personally, I find our sub-discussion as being way more interesting than the others, as they just boil down to 'my belief vs your belief'.

You describe yourself as a non-"ist" (quotation marks yours). I really don't know what that means. But your writings seem to indicate that you interpret all reality as just a figment of human imagination. And I simply cannot agree with that. There is a real objective world out there. We humans can and should be seeking to understand it.

No .. I don't 'interpret all reality as just a figment of human imagination'. That's just you misunderstanding (or not recognising) the abundant objective evidence supporting the concepts I'm presenting. It'll take time and mental effort for you to see that though.

You also identify as a Humanist. I will assume that means you identify with at least much of the philosophy of life at Humanism and Its Aspirations: Humanist Manifesto III, a Successor to the Humanist Manifesto of 1933 - American Humanist Association . So that certainly gives us something in common. Now lets look at your post.

Don't much care for how philosophers might view what I'm saying. They've confused themselves about so much, for so long, and added so little practical utility value in the process, I choose science over what they have to say about these matter any day.
I don't have too many issues with the 'affirmations' provided in that link on Humanism. They however project these values as what they believe .. which is a self-declaration of yet another belief basis .. which makes it just another religion.

This document is part of an ongoing effort to manifest in clear and positive terms the conceptual boundaries of Humanism, not what we must believe but a consensus of what we do believe. It is in this sense that we affirm the following: ..

They lost the plot and the main point with that declaration of what is tantamount to their articles of 'faith'.

The "Non -'ist' " tag represents my quest to distinguish my own beliefs and put them aside for the purposes of getting on with the science. (Ie: I try to neutralise any '-isms', (or '-ists'), including my own, where they don't support science's goal of maximising practical utility value

The whole description underneath the Avatars was forced upon us all when we signed up at CFs. That act was the administration's way of forcing people to elevate their beliefs, which is the exact opposite of what I stand for. (I joined because this site is a major source for inappropriate web propagation of pseudoscience. I have since found that scientists are actually persecuted here in the moderation applied at CFs).

If there is objective reality out there, then no, one cannot simply make the existence of God happen simply by believing it to be so.

To which I'd respond with 'objective reality' is defined as the product of the scientific objective method .. which is a process followed by humans doing science. When humans follow the other process, (ie: the belief way), the term 'reality' there, acquires a completely different meaning. My evidence for that, is the obvious non agreement you're encountering with those folk, in this thread (as an eg).

No sir, objective reality exists, even if there is nobody there to observe it.

The term 'reality' (or 'exists') would carry no meaning at all in the complete absence of any other human minds. Therefore the term reality depends on human minds - this is an evidenced position .. not my opinion, (where my opinion may, somewhat surprisingly, differ considerably from that position).

For instance, NASA has recently photographed galaxies 4.6 billion light years away that had never been seen before. There were no humans around when the light left those galaxies.

Yes .. that's what 'galaxies 4.6 billion light years away' means alright. With no evidence that phrase implies anything other than a testable model in science (and one which produces abundantly repeatable evidence supporting the inferred conclusion of 'no humans being around when the light left those galaxies'). There is no evidence there, (nor in the NASA link), for any of that truly existing independently from the human minds who devised that testable model, however.

When I use the word "quantities", I am referring to the amount of anything in that objective reality.

When I refer to "numbers" that are used to calculate those quantities, I am referring to the human construct to enable our minds to understand the objective reality of quantities.

All of science's definitions are operational defintions, which means they are testable or, have already been well tested ... with the 'quantities' model, being no different from that.

I do not exclude the person who claims that 2 + 2 =10. I will disagree. And I will explain why I disagree. But no, if somebody says 2 + 2 =10, I will not cancel that person out.

Ok.
I might add, that if you weren't countering with your own belief-based arguments, you could deny 'disagreement' as what you're doing in those situations. All that then remains is the evidence, consistency-in the form of independently repeatable observational/testing data and human inference/conclusions .. with no need for agreement/disagreement.

No sir, the planets were never attached to some kind of rotating spheres. Humans built models that described them this way. Their models did not change objective reality. Objective reality still did what it did. As a result, people started to realize that their models did not perfectly reflect objective reality. So, they built better models that do a better job of describing how that objective reality works.

The model is the objective reality. The idea of that model 'describing some reality which stands independent from it', is a belief, which never gets tested because everything which gets tested in science is operationally defined (see above for more details).

 

[Bradskii]

By, "How do I know they are doing what God wants them to do?", do you mean, "How would I know whether they are doing what God says is the right course?"? You may not know. Why would that matter to you?

I'd like to think that there are reasons to do something or hold to a position other than 'God has shown me the way'. If God also gave some good reasons for it then I've no problem discussing them.

 

[Mark Quayle]

The "Non -'ist' " tag represents my quest to distinguish my own beliefs and put them aside for the purposes of getting on with the science. (Ie: I try to neutralise any '-isms', (or '-ists'), including my own, where they don't support science's goal of maximising practical utility value

Whoa whoa wait what? I thought the goal of science was accumulating knowledge and understanding of actual (presumably epistemic) things, whether it takes us to any practical uses or not.

 

[Mark Quayle]

The term 'reality' (or 'exists') would carry no meaning at all in the complete absence of any other human minds. Therefore the term reality depends on human minds - this is an evidenced position .. not my opinion, (where my opinion may, somewhat surprisingly, differ considerably from that position).

Just curious, here. If you were to admit to other intelligent, self-aware, minds, would you include them with human minds here?

 

[Mark Quayle]

To which I'd respond with 'objective reality' is defined as the product of the scientific objective method .. which is a process followed by humans doing science. When humans follow the other process, (ie: the belief way), the term 'reality' there, acquires a completely different meaning. My evidence for that, is the obvious non agreement you're encountering with those folk, in this thread (as an eg).

Are you familiar with the idea of Primacy of Existence vs Primacy of Consciousness? (Maybe it was you who brought this up earlier today? —I'm thinking it might have been @doubtingmerle ) I wonder where you see yourself between these two. —Ayn Rand Lexicon (aynrandlexicon.com)

 

[SelfSim]

The ones identified by a question mark in post
replied to.

Perhaps evidence of my mind querying whether or not I was following the rules of logic, maybe. No evidence of anything independent from my mind in that though ..

Can you elaborate on your 'or a sign' comment?

 

[Mark Quayle]

I'd like to think that there are reasons to do something or hold to a position other than 'God has shown me the way'. If God also gave some good reasons for it then I've no problem discussing them.

Not entirely relevant to what you are after, I suppose, but there is a reason for the saying, "Cleanliness is next to Godliness."

Most of what the Bible says God tells us to do is demonstrably good for us to do. In many places the Bible say God tells us why they are good for us generally to do, and in a few places God gives specific reasons for what he tells someone to do.

 

[SelfSim]

Whoa whoa wait what? I thought the goal of science was accumulating knowledge and understanding of actual (presumably epistemic) things, whether it takes us to any practical uses or not.

.. a bunch of philosopher's views of science behind that question .. as opposed to the evidenced conclusion of science's everyday practical use (eg: such as the computer you're using).

 

[SelfSim]

Just curious, here. If you were to admit to other intelligent, self-aware, minds, would you include them with human minds here?

I understand the question ..

I would respond however with, (words to the affect of .. many 'likes' to Cassidy Hutchinson ), that the evidences of human minds being at play, are all over the hypothesised existence of other intelligent, self-aware minds, of types highly similar to our own. There's no need for the 'if' hypothetical your question.

 

[SelfSim]

Are you familiar with the idea of Primacy of Existence vs Primacy of Consciousness? (Maybe it was you who brought this up earlier today? —I'm thinking it might have been @doubtingmerle ) I wonder where you see yourself between these two. —Ayn Rand Lexicon (aynrandlexicon.com)

Yet even more philosophical mumbo-jumbo ..

There's no need to rule out 'existence' or 'consciousness', as they do in that description. Doing so, serves as a demonstration of seeking a presupposed 'truth' of our situation .. which must be sorted out at whatever the cost, (.. a bit of my figurative rhetoric there). Its not science.

The scientific thinker however will seize upon anything they see which can be turned into practical usefulness, as in 'forming testable hypotheses from' such ideas. There's no assumptions that things have to be ruled out before starting the scientific method .. no matter what you may have been led to believe about that (eg: the presupposed materialism nonsense everyone seem to love talking about here at CFs) .. there's no assumptions spelled out whatsoever in that method description. My evidence for that, is just look at any simple (baggage-free) reputable references to, (or widely taught), steps in the scientific method. There is nothing that says: first rule out 'that the universe exists independent of consciousness (of any consciousness)' or, 'that the universe has no independent existence' in the scientific method, is there?

PS: Here's one:

 

[Bradskii]

Not entirely relevant to what you are after, I suppose, but there is a reason for the saying, "Cleanliness is next to Godliness."

Most of what the Bible says God tells us to do is demonstrably good for us to do. In many places the Bible say God tells us why they are good for us generally to do, and in a few places God gives specific reasons for what he tells someone to do.

Indeed. I follow most of what Jesus told us was the right thing to do. His Father though? Not so much. I'm more a New Testament kind of guy.

 

[Mark Quayle]

.. a bunch of philosopher's views of science behind that question .. as opposed to the evidenced conclusion of science's everyday practical use (eg: such as the computer you're using).

I don't disagree that science has practical results. But that is not the purported goal of science, or so I have thought til now.

 

[Mark Quayle]

I understand the question ..

I would respond however with, (words to the affect of .. many 'likes' to Cassidy Hutchinson ), that the evidences of human minds being at play, are all over the hypothesised existence of other intelligent, self-aware minds, of types highly similar to our own. There's no need for the 'if' hypothetical your question.

Haha! I need to save that for those who propose multiple self-existent things.

 

[SelfSim]

Haha! I need to save that for those who propose multiple self-existent things.

It takes a human mind to communicate what is meant by 'existent' in that statement. All one has to do is ask what is meant by the word and then watch the evidence being produced by that obviously human mind. (Even AIs are based on human characteristics and functions distilled by a human mind somewhere).

'Self-existent' (or 'self-evident'), requires a human observer ... or; a human thinking, human communicative alien, I suppose .. (which is a pretty dicey proposition, although it's testable).

 

[SelfSim]

I don't disagree that science has practical results. But that is not the purported goal of science, or so I have thought til now.

Arguably, the most frequently evident and possibly the most useful output of science, are predictions.

Most other 'goals' I've seen are how philosophers view what science is about (from their own, usually specifically chosen, philosophical stance). I don't think a scientist, doing science, would be too concerned by what philosophers have to say about what they're up to though(?)

 

[Mark Quayle]

Yet even more philosophical mumbo-jumbo ..

There's no need to rule out 'existence' or 'consciousness', as they do in that description. Doing so, serves as a demonstration of seeking a presupposed 'truth' of our situation .. which must be sorted out at whatever the cost, (.. a bit of my figurative rhetoric there). Its not science.

Well, I'm glad to see you agree with me here!

 

[AV1611VET]

Arguably, the most frequently evident and possibly the most useful output of science, are predictions.

Like Y2K? SETI? overpopulation? running out of food? ecological imbalances? Earth-rending syzygies? climate change? meteor/asteroid/comet impacts? sun spots? the Kessler syndrome? doomsday clock? tsunamis? volcano eruptions? killer bees? killer hornets? WW3? earthquakes? and a host of other stuff?

 

[Mark Quayle]

It takes a human mind to communicate what is meant by 'existent' in that statement. All one has to do is ask what is meant by the word and then watch the evidence being produced by that obviously human mind. (Even AIs are based on human characteristics and functions distilled by a human mind somewhere).

'Self-existent' (or 'self-evident'), requires a human observer ... or; a human thinking, human communicative alien, I suppose .. (which is a pretty dicey proposition, although it's testable).

At best, such notions are presented as "it is possible that there are..." by mere fiat, followed by "you can't prove me wrong".

 

[Mark Quayle]

Arguably, the most frequently evident and possibly the most useful output of science, are predictions.

Most other 'goals' I've seen are how philosophers view what science is about (from their own, usually specifically chosen, philosophical stance). I don't think a scientist, doing science, would be too concerned by what philosophers have to say about what they're up to though(?)

I should hope not!

 

[SelfSim]

At best, such notions are presented as "it is possible that there are..." by mere fiat, followed by "you can't prove me wrong".

The physical constants and the various physical laws constrain what's 'possible' from a scientific viewpoint.
The 'you can't prove me wrong' thing is likely to be a challenge to the philosophical stance one is adopting. Proofs can only be valid in relation to assumed (or logical) truths.
(As I mentioned before, there are no such going-in 'assumptions' in science). Science isn't about proving or disproving anything. Its about testing, predictions and utility value.