That apparently common-sense conclusion is just what Bell addresses. — Andrew M

Oh! I thought God and mind were no-go zones for physicists. How come they don't come up with regard to the EPR paradox vis-à-vis Bell inequality?

On the off chance that my "explanations" for quantum entanglement is accepted by the scientific community, we would have to deal with:

1. Some observer who already has information on the state of entangled particles. God???

2. Psychic phenomena since the experimenters know beforehand the state of entangled particles, it's just that they don't know that they know.

Great question. An exposé of an underlying inconsistency - at times, you're deemed capable of saying, "no" to external influences and at other times you're considered incapable of doing that - at the core of responsibility for one's actions, speech too, and on occasion even one's thoughts.

For my money, the inconsistency reveals a bitter truth about us viz. we're thoroughly confused on many fronts, hence the inconsistency you were so kind to bring to our attention. I suppose it all boils down how strong the external influence in question is. Charles Manson was, to my knowledge, almost a godlike figure to the people who went on to commit the crimes he was held responsible for.

Since, Manson's followers were in in thrall of him, they could be viewed as virus-infected computers - their minds hijacked as it were by Manson and running code installed on them by none other than Manson himself. In essence, Manson's disciples were following his instructions or their corollaries.

Could Manson's "family" oppose Manson? In other words, were they capable of saying, "no" to Manson's influence? I don't know. I believe all of them were 18+ years old but then Manson was a god to them.

This, intriguingly, takes us back to Athens, roughly 2000 years ago, to Euthyphro's dilemma - is an action good because god commands it or does god command it because it is good? The dilemma suggests/indicates everyone has a mind of their own in a manner of speaking and won't/shouldn't act out of mere faith in god. By that token Manson shouldn't be held responsible. However, the dilemma cuts both ways since one of its horns makes it explicit that once god enters the fray, people might just be willing, even eager, to do god's bidding even if it means committing the worst of atrocities.

The main problem with my thesis of an intentionally created universe is this : why? And why leave us, the apex creatures, in the dark about where & why the world is evolving as it does. Toward what end? — Gnomon

Maybe our creator is a die-hard fan of detective novels who wants us to figure it all out on our own. He must've left clues all over the place, not just on earth but throughout the universe, and we have to find them, piece them together and hey, presto!, a coherent story may emerge that'll not only prove God's existence but also give us his location. :joke:

Ancient sages also pondered that question, and came up with a variety of solutions. As you noted, the fatalistic Greeks, among others, concluded that humans are slaves or "tools" of the gods, who do things the gods can't, or won't, do for themselves. So, it was common for those slaves to believe that they were doing "god's work", when they offered sacrifices of food, incense, and sometimes, human blood. They assumed that the gods needed those things, but without physical bodies, had to rely on semi-autonomous humans to do the actual laborious & messy work. — Gnomon

Sounds ugly! Slavery ain't something one aspires too but oddly, this entire story of the search for some kind of transcendental purpose/meaning, divinely bestowed as it were, is nothing but slave mentality of, quite literally, cosmic proportions. I suppose the fact that religious folks talk of serving God is a big clue in this regard.

Omega Point — Gnomon

Indeed, if the Omega Point becomes a reality, all that would be missing would be Jesus and if a clever person or a group of highly intelligent people play their cards right, they might just manage to pull off a convincing Jesus impression. Everything would fall into place and Christianity would be, even if fraudulently, vindicated as the one true faith.

I rest my case.
— TheMadFool
:rofl: — 180 Proof

:smile: Laughing, ok! Laughing all the way to the bank, better!

Stop being so lazy! That's what Google, wiki & SEP are for. Pro tip, Fool: search "random" "chance" "chaos" "natural selection" "intelligence" & "mind" so that you can correct or entirely rewrite your pseudo-whatever OP. — 180 Proof

Are Mutations Random?

The statement that mutations are random is both profoundly true and profoundly untrue at the same time. The true aspect of this statement stems from the fact that, to the best of our knowledge, the consequences of a mutation have no influence whatsoever on the probability that this mutation will or will not occur. In other words, mutations occur randomly with respect to whether their effects are useful. Thus, beneficial DNA changes do not happen more often simply because an organism could benefit from them. Moreover, even if an organism has acquired a beneficial mutation during its lifetime, the corresponding information will not flow back into the DNA in the organism's germline. This is a fundamental insight that Jean-Baptiste Lamarck got wrong and Charles Darwin got right.

However, the idea that mutations are random can be regarded as untrue if one considers the fact that not all types of mutations occur with equal probability. Rather, some occur more frequently than others because they are favored by low-level biochemical reactions. These reactions are also the main reason why mutations are an inescapable property of any system that is capable of reproduction in the real world. Mutation rates are usually very low, and biological systems go to extraordinary lengths to keep them as low as possible, mostly because many mutational effects are harmful. Nonetheless, mutation rates never reach zero, even despite both low-level protective mechanisms, like DNA repair or proofreading during DNA replication, and high-level mechanisms, like melanin deposition in skin cells to reduce radiation damage. Beyond a certain point, avoiding mutation simply becomes too costly to cells. Thus, mutation will always be present as a powerful force in evolution. — www.nature.com

Nature

As you can see, there's no recognizable pattern in mutations that are either beneficial/harmful to an organism in the sense beneficial mutations aren't favored over harmful ones - both are equiprobable. Put differently, that aspect of genetic mutation that matters to this discussion (good/bad for the organism) mutations do occur randomly.

That part where the excerpt above refers to nonrandom genetic mutations can be safely ignored as it's basically talking about certain segments of the genome where mutations are more/less frequent. Though such regions in the genome do exist, as pointed out above, whether the mutations in them favor/disfavor the organism is, I'm afraid, random and that's what matters if survival is the main concern, no?

As for the issue of intelligence and mind, you said that the relationship between the two isn't one of necessity - we've successfuly separated the two as in AI (intelligence sans a mind). Evolution is intelligent but, as you so kindly pointed out, that doesn't warrant us to infer a mind at the helm of evolution. FYI, that isn't my aim at all. If there's any conclusion to be drawn from the OP it's that given something (here evolution) displays intelligence, it can't be determined whether there is/there isn't a mind that had a hand in its development. Thus mind - no mind equivalency.

Think about it. Imagine yourself interacting with something hidden from you by a curtain. It seems intelligent. Can you tell, based solely on that information (intelligence), whether what's behind the curtain is a mindless AI or an actual human who has a mind? No, of course not. Hence, mind - no mind equivalence. Put simply, evolution, if only with respect to intelligence, passes the Turing test with flying colors. I rest my case.

hmmmm .... thoughtful ! — No One

Nothing that isn't obvious. "Love" in French means zero I believe.

To be fair though, if I were to look at it with rose-tinted glasses, I'd say love is a way of letting the mind know how big it really is. In love, suffering & death, formidable foes in their own right, are reduced to minor inconveniences, either totally ignored or faced with admirable indifference and sometimes...even with paradoxical deep yearning. Figure that out! In love then the otherwise sharp and painful divide between life and death, between joy and pain are blurred to a point at which you don't know the difference between life and death or that between joy and pain. I suppose that counts as a liberation of sorts, breaking free of the shackles that bind us to the mortal plane as it were, but not in the sense we've been given some kind of assurance of eternity but in the sense that we no longer care about death or its messenger, suffering.

If consciousness is a function of complexity then, yes, it could be a phenomenon that arises from the myriad ways complex structures/systems can be permuted in re to their constituent parts. This isn't a new idea though and nor does it seem to be something which would evoke the response, "that's not obvious" but then,

There's nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact — Arthur Conan Doyle

A government, as far as I can tell, is supposed to run the country; a country is nothing without its people, from infants to senior citizens; people have needs and wants that need to be fulfilled; to fulfill the needs and wants of the people, a good plan needs to be formulated, implemented, monitored until the goals set out in the plan are achieved; we need a good team of intelligent and dedicated people to do that and that team is what a government is. To cut to the chase, a government is simply a body of people whose raison d'etre is to take the country in the right direction and, I almost forgot, foreign relations may play a huge role in internal affairs. Too, a government must also participate in world affairs with the aim of contributing to global peace and prosperity ( :grin: ). That's how it's supposed to be any way. Reality tells a different story.

Love is, as I once said, an illusion created by the mind to make it itself look bigger than it actually is but you can't blame the mind for doing that; after all, look around you - there's nothing out there in the real world that hasn't already or isn't trying to inform the mind of the bitter truth which is that it has, in the grand scheme of things, a net worth of zero, in fact a case can be made that our net worth might be negative :sad:

Clearly, you don't have an adequate conception of 'random' (or randomness). — 180 Proof

Educate me! What is randomness to you? For me randomness is a state of a system consisting of a set of possibilities in which each is as likely as any other.

Big whup. "Somehow" is not grounds for doubting what I've said. "Your "references?" — 180 Proof

I don't doubt your erudition and powers of reasoning. It's just that while "to forgive is divine", "to err is human." You are human, no?

Where have you found intelligence without[/u] a mind? :chin:
Beaver dams & beehives. Viruses & neural nets (e.g. AlphaGo Zero). DNA & cellular automata ... — 180 Proof

My question was a genuine inquiry i.e. I, at the moment I asked it I truly believed intelligence without a mind was not possible.

As you correctly pointed out, intelligence sans mind is possible, not only that, it's actual and that takes us back to what I've been trying my best to convey - insofar as intelligence is concerned, one can't tell the difference between mind and no mind. In other words, that evolution displays intelligence, as inferred from the way it deals with the unpredictable nature of the environment (random mutation), could mean either that there's no mind behind it or that its the work of a mind. The latter possibility, by token of your own reasoning, can't be excluded.

No, I think that argument fails. People might believe all kinds of nonsensical claims with complete conviction. Trump has been making incredible claims for months and millions of people believe them. — Wayfarer

All that I can say is that I must, sadly, disagree with you. Compare Trumps statements to those of the "witnesses" of Christ's resurrection, the former can't hold a candle to the latter in terms incredibility.

To all empirical claims. I asked, what could be the empirical evidence for the claim that 'it is better to give than to receive?' How you could test that empirically? — Wayfarer

I'll agree to that although non-empirical claims too can be extraordinary e.g. "I don't exist", pace Descartes.

The problem with this is that it begs the question - you're assuming that there is 'extraordinary evidence'. Otherwise, no catch? Right? — Wayfarer

No, not begging the question. Take a look at my argument below.

1. Someone making an incredible claim is either telling the truth or lying.

2. There is no point lying using an incredible claim because everyone knows it can't be true.

Ergo,

3. Someone making an incredible claim is telling the truth. [it can't be a lie, so it has to be the truth. from 1, 2A]

4. If an incredible claim is true then necessarily there's evidence for it (how else can it be true?)

Ergo,

5. Incredible claims are only made when they have evidence to back them up and demonstrates they're truths.

This is ignorance. Random events are not repeatable, yet DNA is a discernible pattern of repeatable nucleic events. — 180 Proof

References? Somehow I don't believe you.

Hasty generalization. Cite evidence that evolution "strategizes" (i.e. is purposeful or has goals). Finalism aka "teleology" is demonstrably false and pseudo-scientific (like e.g "Intelligent Design"). And why do you (seemingly) equate "intelligence" with "mind"? — 180 Proof

Is random mutation not a good way to handle extremely variable environments if the purpose is to perpetuate life? I'm not making a teleological argument here. All I'm saying is random mutation is a very ingenious gameplan given how unpredictable the environment can be.

Where have you found intelligence without a mind? :chin:

There's no need to "concede" anything, Fool. False dichotomy. Another plausible (highly probable) option is, for instance, "no mind behind evolution" and our minds are products of natural selection (yet opaque to themselves since minds were evolved to adapt to external environments and N O T to the internal environment of brain-CNS) . — 180 Proof

I fear you haven't understood me. I'm firmly behind you on the "no mind behind evolution" standpoint. However, imagine yourself as being given a world full of random chance events and then you're asked to come up with a good plan for life, the goal being life has to survive everything chance throws at it. If I were you, I'd design life to randomly mutate at the level of DNA if only because that's the only option I have so that, in essence, I introduce a wide variety of life-forms each with its own set of steengths and weaknesses so that even if not all make it, a few will. Mind (you and I, our intelligence/mind) = No Mind (behind evolution).

Indeed there's a possibility that Tertullian, Aristotle was quoted out of context but the statements that he makes, "credo quia absurdum" and "certum est, quia impossibile" are statements on claims in general i.e. they're so broad in scope that taking them out of context isn't possible. To ilustrate, if I say assertions are to be believed when evidence for them exists, I'm referring to all assertions and there's no context that would make that apply to only some statements and not to others. I hope this is clear.

Secondly, the domain for Sagan standard is, for certain, universal i.e. it applies to all claims; therefore, it also applies to Tellurian's and Aristotle's belief that more incredible the things that are said, the more credible those things said. So, even if what Tellurian said may have been interpreted against a backdrop inappropriate for it, the Sagan standard still has a hold over it in a manner of speaking.

If you'd like a succinct formulation of my views, it's this: True, "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" but the catch is "extraordinary claims are only made when there is extraordinary evidence." The whole notion of miracles rests on two statements: 1. It is impossible and 2. It is true. The usual response from skeptics is to label those who believe in miracles as - Laurence Krauss once said - "iron age peasants" and that "they didn't know better". This immediately stacks the deck against the faithful as if they were simpletons who swallowed every line thrown in their direction hook, line, and sinker. Incorrect! Look at the definition of miracle vide supra: 1. It is impossible and 2. It is true - they knew miracles were/are impossible/incredible/extraordinary.

No Christian would say that. — Wayfarer

Sorry, my bad. It should've been, "the son of God died." Thanks for pointing that out.

Are you suggesting that humans can do what the bible-god couldn't — Gnomon

Not exactly. God achieves faer aims through humans, us. To cut to the chase, we are the means with which God achieves his ends - we're essentially tools for God with which, if all goes well, god can create paradise/heaven (transhumanism).

Yes. The traits that survive are the fittest available for the local conditions at that place & time. The apex dinosaurs had traits that were quite fit for their place & time, but the asteroid impact changed the conditions of the environment, and the rules of the fitness game. So little furry creatures -- and dinosaurs with feathers -- were more fit for the new milieu, than the old dominant species with cold blood and/or scaly skin. Was it just the luck of the draw, that creatures had already evolved with the necessary traits for the next phase of evolution? — Gnomon

My thoughts exactly. By your logic, the definition of fit/unfit depends on the environment. If the sickle cell trait can be fit at one time in a certain region and unfit at another time, in a different location, fit/unfit are the wrong concepts to use since the same thing (here the sickle cell trait) can be both fit and unfit depending on time and place. This would cause unnecessary confusion. Thus my insistence that evolution should be viewed as "survival of the fittest luckiest".

Natural selection, like other chaotic systems, is not random. — 180 Proof

This is a myth. There are no discernible patterns in genetic mutation i.e. DNA events are random. If so, even if natrual selection is, in a way, a phenotypic pattern brought about by a constant selection pressure as exerted by a stable environment, the genotype phenomena that makes this possible is all chance.

"Survival of the fittest" applies to species broadly and population groups narrowly, and is never applicable to individuals. Re: eu-social neo-darwinism (i.e. E.O. Wilson & Richard Dawkins).

An "anthropic principle" is a self-serving, self-flattering cognitive bias that anthropocentrically, and without sufficient warrant, violates the mediocrity principle.

The OP's "paradox" is merely an artifact of inadequate, or false, premises. — 180 Proof

All I'm saying is if we believe we have intelligence, as evidenced by our ability to strategize, evolution too must be treated as a product of a mind since it too is a strategy, a good one at that. Either that or insist there's no mind behind evolution and concede the possibility that our minds could be an illusion.

I don't see where the anthropic principle comes into play in my argument. I neither affirmed or denied that consciousness had to emerge in the universe.

These refer to different kinds of inquiry. Tertuillian was a theologian, and his position is essentially preaching.

Aristotle is more referring to an ontological idea, that even fantastic claims must be in some way real, because the human mind cannot fabricate something from nothing.

Sagan, on the other hand, is referring to empirical enquiry specifically. — Echarmion

Somehow, I'm unable to differentiate between these various interpretations of what each - Tertullian, Aristotle, and Sagan - meant.

To me, all are essentially claims to truth/fact. Tertullian, drawing from Aristotle, believes that more impossible/absurd an assertion, the more likely it's true.

Sagan, on the other hand, thinks the exact opposite - more impossible/absurd what is being said, the more unlikely it's to be true.

Perhaps we need to take a close look at the arguments involved in each case.

Aristotle's & Tertullian's take on the issue are as following:

1. Aristotle: If x is truly incredible, no one would assert x. Ergo, the contrapositive, if someone does assert x, x isn't truly incredible.

My own interpretation of Aristotle's position is that it's very unlikely that someone would invent an impossible story precisely because it's impossible. It's impossible and so no one would believe it to be true i.e. impossible stories are useless to a deceiver/liar - the lie is too obvious to be missed. Ergo, if someone asserts an impossibility has occurred, its unlikely that this someone is a liar/deceiver and so, likely too that this someone has good evidence to support faer assertion. i.e. (warning! paradox) "...something is more credibly true if it is an incredible claim..."

2. Tertullian frames Aristotle's position on incredible claims in a theological context, specifically Jesus' as the son of god and some of the miracles attributed to Jesus. Tertullian states, 1. The son of God died (absurd), 2. Christ rose from the dead (impossible) and then he declares, from the absurdity and the impossibility therein, that he believes these to be true. The reason for this is, according to him, let's just say, the infinite wisdom of god that to mere mortals like us appear as absurd and impossible. Theodicy might find Tertullian helpful but that's another story.


Let's now look at the Sagan standard: Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. Surely, if a certain claim is out of the ordinary, its evidence is unlikely to be found in the ordinary. Thus, the Sagan standard. That's that!

The first question to ask is whether there's a conflict between Tertullian-Aristotle and Sagan that needs to be resolved?

Tertullian and Aristotle are saying that incredible claims are to be believed precisely because they're incredible. The reasons offered are different though. Tertullian takes a theological route. Aristotle's is hard to describe with onex word but if I were to hazard a guess it involves the psychology of a liar (see vide supra).

Sagan is saying withhold belief of incredible claims unless evidence, itself incredible, is offered.

Ergo, there seems to be palpable tension between the two - one (Tertullian & Aristotle) recommends belief when faced with incredible statements, the other (Sagan) counsels against taking such a step.

One way of looking at the issue is Tertullian & Aristotle are making their inferences, "credo quia absurdum" and "certum est, quia impossibile" based on the nature of incredible statements themselves - incredible statements are unlikely to be made unless there are good reasons to make them - while Sagan's position has to do with the quality of the evidence, stressing that, "extraordinary evidence requires extraordinary evidence". What this boils down to is, in my humble opinion, Sagan is right in saying, "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" but Tertullian and Aristotle are of the view that "extraordinary claims are never made without extraordinary evidence." We've achieved conflict resolution.

P.S. Sorry for the disorganized writing. I was thinking and writing at the same time - a bad idea if the aim is to make reading and comprehension of the text easier.

Anyone who denies the law of non-contradiction should be beaten and burned
until he admits that to be beaten is not the same as not to be beaten, and to be burned
is not the same as not to be burned. — Ibn Sina

:fire: but I don't see the relevance. Do you mind going through my reply to Echarmion above?

Which will you follow? — Banno

See my reply to Echarmion above.

@Wayfarer, kindly go through my reply to Echarmion

Atheist = God — Gnomon

That's it! Theists and atheists have been fighting for nothing. Reminds of the situation where two people are talking about the same person but they think they're talking about two different persons. This happens, right?

Credo quia absurdum — Tertullian

The meaning of the phrase (above) may relate to 1 Corinthians 1:17–31, where something foolish to a human may be a part of God's wisdom — Wikipedia

The only problem with his 17th century equation is that in order to explain the 20th century Big Bang, "god or nature" must have existed prior to the beginning of our current space-time universe. — Gnomon

The Big Bang doesn't seem to be an issue since god is seen as somewhat of a supreme creator and if the universe is self-created, as it is in an atheist's mind, god, again, equates with the universe. God creates the universe, the universe creates itself; ergo God = the universe. What do you think?

Thanks for the fairly detailed exposition on "spooky action at a distance". Before going any further, a few points:

1. Nothing can travel faster than light. Check!

2. Bell's inequality experiments show that there are no hidden variables i.e. quantum mechanics, at least one interpretation of it, is complete i.e. quantum entanglement does entail that knowing the state of one entangled particle gives us instantaneous knowledge of the state of the other entangled particle. Conclusion: information travels faster than light or, as per the OP, spooky action at a distance. This violates Einstein's speed limit (1 above) or so it seems...more on this in a while

3. The socks analogy is very illuminating and the only difference between the superposition states of entangled particles and it is that in the case of the socks, my hunch is, someone already knows the color of the socks as they were placed in the envelope i.e. an observation occurred beforehand but in the case of entanglement no one knows the states of the entangled particles...or so it seems (see vide infra).

This is probably going to sound crazy and it is. What if we...someone...already knows the state of the two entangled particles just like someone already knew the color of the socks when they were put in the envelopes? Einstein's speed limit isn't violated in this case because nothing instantaneous actually happened at all.

In short, I'm offering an alternative "solution" to the EPR paradox viz. that...someone (god? :smile: )...knows beforehand what the states of the particles are, we just don't know about it. The way the situation will evolve is that the experimenters who make the observation will erroneously infer that faster-than-light or instantaneous transmission of information had occurred but this is an illusion just like in the socks analogy.

Another avenue worth exploring would be the possibility that the experimenters know the states of the entangled particles, it's just that they don't know that they know them. This line of inquiry will probably open up pandora's box.

What say you?

Get rid of God as traditionally conceived and things simply are the way they are. — Ciceronianus the White

Interesting point! If evil persists in the absence of god and atheists affirm that god is absent, it follows that we are the problem - the source of evil. So, atheists have, in a way, shot themselves in the foot: granted that no god exists, evil still persists; ergo, we're evil and if so, whence the problem of evil?

You can try to rescue yours by saying what evil is. Then the omnis. A few sentences. I invite you to try. — tim wood

There's no point going back to trodden territory. That would be pointless. My point is that if one factors in the potential for supperhappiness as opposed to actual suffering as proposed by transhumanists, the problem of evil ain't an issue. It's like when people buy flower seeds for their garden. The seeds in themselves are plain and dull but the flowers are a beauty to behold. People are willing to pay for seeds (actual past and present suffering are endurable) because of the gorgeous flowers that grow out of them (potential superhappiness re: transhumanism).

I’ve met some very Scottish people, more Scottish than I could have imagined, before I met them. — Punshhh

:up: Hard to not like a man in a kilt playing the bagpipes :smile:

I suppose there are very good reasons why the distinction the soft sciences (psychology, sociology, etc.) and the hard sciences (physics, chemistry, etc.) exists in the first place. The former are recent entrants into the sciences - expect as many slip-ups from them as possible - and the latter are highly experienced veterans - expect of them a sterling performance in a manner of speaking.

I suggest we cut the soft sciences some slack if only because its harder to put them on a firm foundation of mathematical precision. Its one thing to quantify mass, speed, etc. and another to put emotions, thoughts, etc. on numerical scale. I suspect it all boils down to the fact that the soft sciences deal with matters that have a more subjective component to them, making measurement, if that's possible in the first place, harder and imprecise. Reminds me of the hard problem of consciousness somehow.

After the English, I thought there were no Scots left. :grimace:

Sure Tmf!

Feel free to embellish in that reasoning. Thanks for your thoughts! — 3017amen

By the way, a case can be made that if god doesn't exist, intelligence and even consciousness has to be/could be an illusion. After all, if pure random chance can produce wonders (universe, life) that some sections of the population believe could only have been the handiwork of a conscious intelligence (god) - the two can't be told apart - it follows, right?, that conscious intelligence and unconscious non-intelligence are indistinguishable and Leibniz claimed the identity of indiscernibles. :smile: So, is consciousness an illusion? Daniel Dennett should take a look at this argument.

Tmf!

Sure. Hence my view:

Evolution that depends on random mutations, genetic accidents, and natural selection requires complex initial conditions. This so-called evolutionary argument depends on nature being able to select from a collection of similar competing individuals.

But, when it comes to the laws of physics and the initial cosmological conditions to support life there is no ensemble of competitors. The laws and initial conditions are unique to our universe. If it's the case that the existence of Life requires the laws of physics, and the initial conditions of the universe to be fine-tuned with high-precision and complexity, then the suggestion of an Anthropic design is far from absurd. — 3017amen

I think we need to be as cautious as we should be open-minded about this.

Cautious because beliefs - theism included - have consequences that permeate all aspects of life and living.

Open-minded because we neither can, nor can afford to, disregard the possibility of a creator-deity. That said, what we discover might not match up to our expectations and that would be liking killing a dragon to save a princess only to find out you don't like the princess at all (the game's not worth the candle).

1. Culture in a broader sense is every experience/tradition of a social group.
Not just to specify what is commonly known as culture within a identified social group.
Say the culture within a group of friends, or a culture with an army unit. — Tiberiusmoon

My definition was broad enough to include subcultures.

2. A bit of a misconception, a bias is more to sway judgement rather than to ultimately favor something, for example: you cant use emotional bias to state your feelings are strong but are also right/correct. — Tiberiusmoon

To the extent that I'm aware, "...to sway judgment..." and, by extension, to "...favor something..." we need a "good" reason and that, I feel, is to be found, illusory though it may be, in the belief (false/true) that a certain culture is correct/right in re our understanding of reality.

So, I must agree that an intelligent designer wouldn't create a world as imperfect as ours, but might possibly create a world that could mature toward a more perfect state in the future. — Gnomon

Transhumanist Theodicy

where the fittest individuals are selected for reproduction in order to produce offspring of the next generation. — Gnomon

I changed my mind about the Darwinian apothegm, "survival of the fittest". You're in the know about how randomness is what evolution is all about - it's the lifeblood of evolution - and given the unpredictable nature of the environment to which organisms must adapt to, there's an element of chance involved. This means that those who survive major upheavals in the environment aren't actually the fittest life-forms around; it's just that a particular set of traits help them ride out the storm.

To illustrate, sickle cell anemia is a dangerous genetic disroder that makes life painful and short i.e. it definitely isn't a physician's idea of physical fitness but the sickle cell trait is found in unusually high numbers in malaria-stricken regions of Africa where it confers a survival advantage to those who have the sickle cell gene (it makes malaria less lethal). This is a good example of evolution but it also casts doubt on whether evolution is really about survival of the "fittest." I prefer "survival of the luckiest", acknowledging the chance factor.

In Enformationism theory the Prime Programmer is portrayed as a creative deity, who uses bottom-up mechanisms, rather than top-down miracles, to produce a world with both freedom & determinism, order & meaning. — Gnomon

:up:

We can see that natural evolution is circling around some future state, like a moth to a light. — Gnomon

Well said!

I feel we need to be very clear, from the get go, what we're putting up for discussion. As far as I can tell there are two important issues that we need to be very careful about, they are:

1. Culture: To my knowledge the set of beliefs and attitiudes, practices based on them that distinugish various groups of people from one another

2. Cultural bias: To believe that one's culture - beliefs, attitudes, practices - is the culture as in my culture is not only the best but also right/correct in the sense that it makes the most sense given how reality is.

To me, there's nothing wrong with culture per se unless some aspects of it are morally suspect in the eyes of, or are cringe-worthy to, a well-educated, well-informed, and sensible person (e.g. a philosopher worth faer salt).

Cultural bias, however, is a different story. I believe it's one of the shortest routes to bedlam and mayhem due to its power to ignite and fuel hatred. However, before we go on to condemn cultural bias, we need to answer the question, "are some cultures really better?" or tackle the query, "is there a culture that's truly the best?" If the reply to these questions is "yes", cultural bias is an illusion, it has no meaning for it isn't a bias at all; it's a truth other "lesser" cultures would do well to accept and make haste to adopt the "best" culture out there as their own. Speaking for myself, a culture that lays strong emphasis on education, learning, science, equality, to name a few, is going to spread like wildfire for the simple reason that the values innate in these are close to people's hearts.

"Quotation, n: The act of repeating erroneously the words of another." ~Ambrose Bierce — 180 Proof

This has now been included in my quotation collection :up: Thanks a megaton!

schadenfreuide — Benj96

I'm more than familiar with that one :smile: I think it's schadenfreude

/ˈʃɑːd(ə)nˌfrɔɪdə,German ˈʃɑːdənˌfrɔydə/

noun

pleasure derived by someone from another person's misfortune.

"a business that thrives on schadenfreude"

"Quotation, n: The act of repeating erroneously the words of another." ~Ambrose Bierce — 180 Proof

Not impossible but truth be told, Occam's razor ain't about the truth is it? It's got more to do with how sleek and easy to use a theory/hypothesis is - the idea being to avoid clunky hypotheses/theories. Put simply, Occam's razor is more about convenience and aesthetics (to a certain degree) than the truth and H. L. Mencken is referring to the latter. As you said a few days ago, "my two bitcoins worth." I quote you too. :grin:

For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong. — H. L. Mencken

Wtf :confused: — 180 Proof

:lol:

If nature+g/G can't be distinguished from nature-g/G – according to every theistic g/G religious tradition extant they must be distinguishable (re: "revealed") – then, at the very least, Occam's Razor cuts your preacher's lying throat. — 180 Proof

You're correct of course 180 Proof - Occam's Razor would neatly consign the god hypothesis to the scrap heap - but...I've been meaning to relate a story to anyone who cares to listen. It goes like this: On a cool, starlit night John was looking out the window of his apartment at the nearby mountains. He could make out a row of streetlights in the distance, all in a perfect straight, extending from one side of the mountain to another. He thought to himself, that road the streetlights are for must be pretty straight. He went to sleep on that thought and soon forgot all about it.

A couple of months later, John had to make a trip to another city and that meant he had to take the same road he saw earlier. He did and what did he discover? The road was winding, hugging the natural curves of the mountain. The straight line of streetlights was an illusion. Moral of the story: It's complicated. So much for Occam's Razor!

You said the discussion between us reached an end.

You were doing better with emoticons. — TonesInDeepFreeze

You resumed the "discussion", not me.

Thanks for the compliment Unfortunately I can't seem to be able to say the same about you. You seem to be bad at everything! :smile:

Initial Conditions--->Laws of Physics--->Organized Complexity — 3017amen

Matter--->Laws of Physics---> Mind — 3017amen

Primates--->Value Systems--->Humans — 3017amen

You've outdone yourself! Such profound simplicity indicates you've done your homework well. A+ for you 3017amen.

The issue it seems is not whether the ends [Mind, Humans, Organized Complexity] can come about with/without an intelligent agency (god/creator) working on the beginnings [Matter, Primates, Initial conditions] but whether the two possibilities - a god-created universe vs a universe without one - can be distinguished from each other in the first place!

See: Mind-No Mind Equivalency Paradox

As if 'obtuse' is seriously "mudslinging". — TonesInDeepFreeze

Here's a logical puzzle for you.

IF I am obtuse THEN you're facing an acute shortage of intelligence

I am obtuse!

I'm asking if you're bothered by any of it.
Remember, my point that started this was that happiness and value "need to come with a sense of being apriori or else they lose their lustre", ie. a person must have a sense that happiness and value must have something inexplicable about them, must be perceived as axiomatic, otherwise, there's a sense of unsatisfactoriness about them. — baker

If I catch your drift, you mean to say that the the question, "why is x of value?", paradoxically, diminshes the value of x; after all, if it has an answer, x is only a means of acquiring the value attributed to it and x isn't an end unto itself. If that's what you mean, you forget or overlook the fact that the "luster" x possesses is given to it by the very thing that makes it "lose luster". A paradox in its own right. It's like Caesar and Brutus: Caesar loved Brutus as a dear friend and drew strength from the friendship between him and Brutus but his last words, according to Shakespeare, were "et tu Brute!"

My question was: Can you complete the sentences in a way that doesn't feel like something is lacking or remiss?
You've completed the sentences. Are you fully satisifed with the way you did it? — baker

In a way yes but get to the point, what about it bothers you?