In other words, it's questionable what he's really committed to. — praxis

It's called "philosophy". You could look it up on Google if you wanted, pretty interesting stuff really. :smile:

Think nothing of it - you wouldn't have stopped Jake banging his drum of doom if you'd ignored it. I tried that. — karl stone

Well, it's true that only the mods can stop me from banging this drum, agreed there.

But is the drum a "drum of doom"? (catchy phrase, points for that!)

Would it be a "drum of doom" to realistically recognize that our eight year old child is not ready to drive the family car? Would such a recognition be negative defeatism?

Or would it perhaps be...

Common sense, backed up by extensive evidence from the real world?

No. Absolutely not. I consider it (nuclear weapons) an ideologically driven misapplication of technology. — karl stone

Do we agree that nuclear weapons exist, and that so far, we've found no way to get rid of them?

Could we maybe agree that you actually have no credible plan for how we might arrive at a utopian fantasy world where we don't get sucked in to "ideologically driven misapplication of technology", and that nobody else has such a credible plan either?

Yes, of course, there are many wonderful theories about human transformation. We should all meditate, we should all become good Christians, we should join the Marxist revolution, we should accept science as truth, etc etc. We've been working on these projects for literally thousands of years, and guess what, we still aimed a bunch of huge bombs down our throats.

Your intentions are excellent, and you pursue them with determination and durability, which merits our respect. But as an engineer, you've fallen victim to sloppiness. You've failed to think holistically, and thus you've failed to account realistically for a very important component of the situation you are attempting to address. Us. Humans.

As wannabe engineers we should be looking for the weak link, the single point of failure which will cause our invention to crash. If we don't identify that single point of failure, then all the fantastic work we've done on the rest of our invention is for nothing.

The group consensus you are speaking on behalf of wants to strap a rocket to a bicycle so the bike can go 300mph. The group consensus is very proud of the rocket and the speeds it can reach. And it's forgotten all about the 10 year old kid who will have to steer the bike.

Good intentions.

Sloppy engineering.

As is true of most great sages :smile: I've way over complicated the above.

Why do we typically not experience an intimate relationship with reality? Because we're typically not paying attention to reality, but to the symbolic realm between our ears.

If we agreed that evolution is a totally random process with no goal or direction, what would this tell us about the possible existence of gods?

Nothing.

It could be that some higher form of intelligence wished for life to be part of reality, but didn't want to be bothered managing it.

And where, you might ask, is the evidence for this higher form of intelligence? I have none. Just as throughout the history of science we had no evidence for a million things, until such evidence appeared. So what does this current lack of evidence tell us about the possible existence of gods?

Nothing.

The God debate is not powered by reason, but instead by enthusiastic folks on all sides of the question who desperately need to have "The Answer". And so these good folks, on all sides of the question, make up an answer out of nothing to serve that need. When competing answers threaten the imaginary answer which works best for them personally, they often respond to the threat in earnest, further fueling a conversation which rarely goes anywhere except to more of the same old stuff which has been endlessly repeated for thousands of years. And what does this tell us about the possible existence of gods?

Nothing.

What the God debate might accomplish if we were willing to look at the evidence of it's persistent and consistent failure to get anywhere at all is that in regards to questions of such enormous scale....

We have nothing. This seems like useful information, and it would be a shame to casually toss it away after so much work has been done. The vast majority of reality from the smallest to largest scale appears to be nothing. Maybe nothing is not such a bad thing? Maybe our state of nothing in regards to such questions puts us in to alignment with the nature of reality? Maybe this ignorance which we've discovered has some practical use which we could explore, if we weren't so very busy pushing it away?

Maybe the God debate could be redeemed if we would simply accept what thousands of years of evidence are shouting at us, that we're ignorant? Maybe it's not necessary to go endlessly round and round and round in the same small circle to nowhere? Maybe there's another way?

The idea that "human beings" are a fallen species has a lot to recommend it. It accounts for a lot of bad things that happen. — Bitter Crank

Yes, this seems an interesting line of inquiry.

PREFACE #1: One of the good things about holy books that don't seem to totally nail things down is that such inconclusiveness opens the door to many interpretations, which can inspire us to think about such fundamental subjects in an interesting variety of ways. This might be compared to the skilled philosophy professor who always answers a question with another question so that we think, instead of just memorize.

PREFACE #2: We might keep in mind that the Bible was written a long time ago and the original audience was largely uneducated peasants living short hard lives. So for example, you would probably explain love to a child in a manner quite different than you would discuss it with your grandmother. The point here is that many of us are rebelling against ancient stories which are ever less appropriate for modern audiences, but which may still contain some truth about the human condition which is worth considering.

With that out of the way, here's just one more interpretation of the "fallen species" and "being saved".

In my typoholic opinion, the short cut path is to skip over religion, philosophy and psychology etc, which might be seen as being just symptoms of the underlying mechanical process we call thought.

If we observe thought directly, we can see that it operates by a process of division. Observing our own thought directly, instead of observing what somebody says about thought, is the key, imho. Thus, don't read this post, watch your own mind.

You ignored that advice, so let's continue...

If we observe our own minds we will see that there is a division between the thinker and the thoughts. As example, consider the common phrase "I am thinking XYZ". "I" is experienced as one thing, the thoughts are experienced as another thing. "I" is experienced as the observer, while the thoughts are experienced as something separate being observed. This division process is built in to the nature of thought, and is thus a universal property of the human condition.

As this division process evolved in human beings we began to lose the intimate connection with reality we once had as primitive humans, and before that, animals. As example, consider your dog with his head out the car window as you travel down the road. Your dog's attention is totally focused on each moment that unfolds. Your dog is united with the here and now of reality, which is why he is such a compelling friend.

As we began to lose this intimate connection with reality religion emerged as an attempt to "get back to God", or put another way, re-establish the lost intimate connection with reality. Regrettably, religions are often thought based, thus fueling the very process which has caused the experience of division which religion is attempting to solve.

"Original sin" or "the fallen species" can be seen as the phenomena of thought diluting a previous intimate connection with reality, much like a baby separated from it's mother's breast. "Being saved" can be seen as "getting back to God" or if you prefer, restoring a lost connection with reality.

All of the above is primarily a very personal emotional experience, which is why generally speaking, on average, philosophers tend to suck at such inquiries because emotion is typically not our area of expertise. We want to think about this, analyze it, a process which takes us farther away from the experience we are attempting to investigate.

Now that you've wasted a bunch of time reading this post, let's get serious with a few practical suggestions...

1) Turn off the computer.
2) Go outside, ideally somewhere beautiful and peaceful.
3) Spend a lot of time there. A LOT of time.
4) Maybe smoke a bit of weed. Or maybe not.
5) Open yourself up, and ask to be saved.

Ask who? That doesn't matter. Forget about the who part. If the God concept appeals to you, ask God. If the God concept makes you puke, ask the vast mechanical reality, or whatever you perceive to be beyond yourself. It's the asking that matters. The opening up. And NOT where you direct your request.

The above way of looking at things could be religious, or it can have nothing whatsoever to do with religion. Don't waste a lot of time here, you already know whether you like religion or not. Which ever is the case for you, be serious, and work with what you've got.

The winter hiking season is just underway here in north Florida, so I'm spending a LOT Of time in the woods as I do every winter. To the degree we are able to dial down the volume of thought, that which is separating us psychologically from reality, the real world can be experienced as the Garden Of Eden. Or whatever you want to call such an experience.

I had an experience a few days ago which was fun. I'd been standing still for about an hour watching some sunbeams come down between two trees. Just about the time this experience began feeling like I'd traveled back in time to the dawn of man in Garden of Eden, a jet came over the horizon behind me and flew directly between the trees and through the sunbeams, from my point of view. The dawn of time meets the space age. Ok, ok, so you probably had to be there... :smile:

I don't care about that, just because I think all your gods are fake, that does not mean I actually believe I will be able to change your mind on such a topic. I have little desire to actually convince believers that their gods are not real. I understand how fruitless that task is. — Jeremiah

FYI, I'm not a theist.

Where is Reverend Crank to ask if this conversation is giving us an ego hard on???

Gee, now that I've typed that sarcastic barb, I'm starting to feel a bit, um, you know, inflated. Hey, this just might work. Somebody yell at me. Let's get this party happenin!!!!

That is not evolution. Evolution is not progressive, it is not designed, it is a random process. You are talking about something entirely different. — Jeremiah

All I'm saying is that the reality of evolution, which we all agree on, says nothing at all about the possible existence of gods. Evolution neither proves or disproves gods. At the best it only debunks primitive stories about God's little workshop etc.

So God created the universe for sharks, then? — Harry Hindu

You should be looking for theists to aim these arguments at.

The fact that species are no longer suited is because the environment changes, and continues to change. — Harry Hindu

Agreed. And this proves exactly nothing about gods.

More or less, but I don't agree we are unable to adapt quickly enough. — karl stone

We have thousands of hair trigger hydrogen bombs aimed down our own throat. Do you consider this a successful adaptation which increases our chances of survival? We see climate change threatening to spin out of control as a result of the industrial revolution. We're risking everything so that we can have iPads. Do you consider this evidence of our ability to adapt?

You're saying that scientists are at the same time myopic specialists with a somewhat stereotypical lack of knowledge of the real world - and also the salesmen of a more is better paradigm? — karl stone

Yes, that's it, you get it now. To be more precise, they (as a group) have a lack of knowledge about the HUMAN reality, just as you do. The "more is better" paradigm assumes that humans can successfully manage any power which arises out of that process, irregardless of what rate that power emerges. That's simply false.

Knowledge can be developed faster than maturity. The mismatch between these two rates is dangerous. That's simply true.

Something you've said 20 times already - without taking on board a single devastating criticism offered by anyone else. — karl stone

There have been no devastating criticisms. I understand this particular issue (not all issues!) better than the rest of you. Sorry, not trying to be insulting, just providing a reality check.

Praxis showed there's no adult in the room to govern we so called children. — karl stone

Praxis showed he has no interest in trying to meet that challenge, because he's not actually interested in this subject at all. As is his right.

I've put it to you that, because people have needs and wants - there's no stopping progress, yet here we are again. — karl stone

Yes, and one of our "needs and wants" is for a stable civilization which can well serve our descendants, instead of blowing up in our face due to arrogance, greed, and philosophical stubbornness.

Talking about your ideas to the exclusion of my own. — karl stone

Sorry, you don't own this thread. Not going to bother to explain that again. The mods own this thread. If they find my posts inappropriate they will delete them. Nothing for you to do!

Science isn't about faith - it's precisely the opposite. — karl stone

Science is not about faith, agreed. Your RELATIONSHIP with science is faith based, and you are in very good company, as many smart people also embrace that faith. It's a common logic mistake to assume that because we've rejected religion that automatically equals rejecting faith. It's closer to the truth to say that we've transferred our faith from one target to another.

But you don't even understand this. — karl stone

What so annoys you about me is that I understand all of this far better than you do, which is publicly denying you what you most want here, recognition as a technological sage. My apologies, I have no personal beef with you, and I'm not unsympathetic to your personal ego situation, as I have one of my own. But again...

THIS IS A PHILOSOPHY FORUM....

...and relentlessly challenging is what happens in such places. You are challenging certain philosophies as well, which is good.

Most of the species ever to exist are now extinct. — Harry Hindu

Yes, those species no longer well suited to the current environment are removed, to be replaced by other better adapted species. And god, should there be one, doesn't have to lift a finger because the system is automated. Intelligent.

I don't think it does. That sounds more like politics. — unenlightened

Ok, I'll rephrase. Science culture tells us that we should obtain as much knowledge as possible, and we buy this proposal because we and our politicians understandably want things to get better, better and better, faster, faster and faster.

Sure it does. It shows that there is no intelligent design. We are not intelligently designed. — Harry Hindu

I'm sorry, but evolution proves no such thing. As example, if there is some highly intelligent agent operating over our heads, evolution would be a highly intelligent way to manage life. Instead of trying to intervene in every particular situation, a system is implemented which automates the management.

Again, not trying to prove there is such an agent. I'm just trying to challenge atheism with the same enthusiasm that others reasonably challenge theism. This process is called....

Reason.

I'm trying to explain that we don't have to back down, have less, go vegan - and see everything fall apart anyway, only slightly less rapidly. — karl stone

The problem here is that there is no limit to how much more we want. We're already the richest people ever to walk the face of the Earth, but the thought of not always having more and more and more frightens us. And that fear interferes with our ability to make rational choices.

To make rational choices we the rich should first achieve a state where we are content with what we already have. In that circumstance, further enhancements would be a choice, and not a NEED. When it is a choice and not a need, then we can observe the situation in a much more detached and objective manner, which it seems is much of what you're arguing for.

Evolution by natural selection is one theory, and one I believe is accurate. — Harry Hindu

Me too, but evolution neither confirms nor denies the possible existence of gods.

That is very strange being that we are made of the same stuff and share many features, and even share parts of our genes. Humans ARE animals. — Harry Hindu

Yes, humans are animals. But the proper comparison is to compare human ability to the scale of the question being investigated.

We just exist. There is no "why". — Harry Hindu

This is a common widespread belief....

...which requires as much speculation as the God idea.

How could you possibly know "there is no why"? Are you a god? Do you have extensive knowledge of all properties of reality?

I think what you're really saying is that nobody has provided a "why" which you personally find to be credible. I have no argument with that.

We don't understand why that is for reasons that we don't understand, but can infer are the same reasons for which squirrels don't understand those things. — BlueBanana

Yes. Human beings are limited, like every other creature. It's logical to assume there are aspects of reality which are beyond our ability to grasp.

What does it even mean to say that the "scale of gods" is beyond our understanding? — Harry Hindu

We are a single half insane species only recently living in caves on one little planet in one of billions of galaxies. This is very small scale, in comparison to....

The god proposal, which concerns itself with the most fundamental nature of everything everywhere.

BTW, I'm not trying to prove there is a God. I'm trying to prove that it's absurd that any of us could answer such a question. Yes, theists too.

But you were the first to compare us to animals - namely squirrels. So, I'm not suppose to take you seriously now? — Harry Hindu

Don't take me seriously. That will save me a lot of typing.

I am not the one playing with imaginary friends. — Jeremiah

Correct. You are playing with imaginary knowings, whom you seem to have become quite friendly with. Hey, welcome to the club. :smile:

Pain is not transformative; it's not even much of an aid to learning. — unenlightened

Aha, you've given me an easy target! :smile:

I would agree that reason is sufficient for many things, primarily easy things that we want to hear. Reason starts to reach it's limits when we arrive at realities we don't want to face.

Science culture tells us that things can get better, better and better, faster, faster and faster. Of course we'd like this to be true. It's a great story which as you can see is quite difficult to dislodge, just as the story of eternal reward in heaven has had long legs.

I do agree that things can get better over the long run, but not at speeds which exceed the human ability to adapt. And by "human" I mean humanity not particular individuals.

An engineering approach looks at the system as a whole, and seeks out single points of failure, weak links, which have the potential to crash the system. As example, your car may have the very latest most powerful engine, but if you blow a tire on the highway death may still be the result.

As the Trump phenomena should illustrate, if any sizable percentage of us go off the deep end that has the potential to ruin things for everyone. And so it's not enough that brilliant huge brained philosophers such as ourselves get it (and we don't) the understanding has to be fairly widespread for reason alone to be sufficient to accomplish any major paradigm shift. Again, the horror of WWII brought the insanity of war home to European culture, not centuries of reason and philosophy.

Thus, my typing on the subject is likely an irrational waste of time, as few are going to be willing to give up the "more is better" without limit dream until something forces them to.

I am 40. — Jeremiah

Oh dear, how sad. Hope you feel better soon!

I command thou to send me money. — Jeremiah

Oh no you don't. I refuse to comply because according to the all knowing 22 year old prophet Jeremiah, gods are just made up nonsense. So forget it! Nana nana na na! :smile:

Considering all this god crap is made-up human nonsense... — Jeremiah

Aha! Proof!!! We have found God!! His name is Jeremiah!! All hail Jeremiah!!!!

Why would a god create beings incapable of understanding it and not being able to prove its existence like we prove the existence of so many other things? — Harry Hindu

An amoeba asks, "How could there possibly be something like this human being thing you are describing?? I don't see any!!!"

Also, our ability to reason says nothing about whether or not gods exist. — Harry Hindu

Agreed. Our ability to reason is relevant in that it impacts our ability to do a meaningful analysis of questions the scale of gods.

I don't really think it's a useful question to ask 'what's the opposite of depression?', but if I'd have to guess I'd say mania. Unipolar depression has a lot of things which are inverted in mania: — fdrake

Well, yes, ok. So the opposite of one kind of malady can reasonably be said to be another flavor of malady. Fair enough.

To clarify....

Is the question, what is the opposite of depression? Or is the question, what is the opposite of an unhealthy mental state?

The world is becoming an increasingly scary place as we progress down the wrong path — karl stone

The wrong path is changing the environment we inhabit faster than human beings can adapt to that environment.

If you can reflect on this a bit, I think you will see this premise is actually not in conflict with your own premise. You feel we must align ourselves with reality or we will perish, for this is the law of nature. I agree with that.

The problem, as seen from here, is that the group consensus you are speaking on behalf of doesn't have a very sophisticated understanding of reality, specifically human reality. You observe the landscape and see a technical problem, because you like technical challenges. But fundamentally what we face is not a technical problem, but a human problem. Unlimited free clean energy would simply empower us to do more of the stupid stuff we are already doing.

The next problem, as seen from here, is that the group consensus has shifted the blind faith we used to have in religious clerics in to a blind faith in what I call the "science clergy". The obstacle here is that while scientists are indeed expert in the technical aspects of reality, they are really no better at understanding the human reality than any of the rest of us. And, the human reality is a very important component of the reality equation.

Nor does science culture have a superior understanding of reason, given that they are still selling us an outdated "more is better" paradigm from the 19th century in spite of clear compelling evidence (thousands of hydrogen bombs) that we simply aren't ready for more and more power without limit. You can blame the weapons on religion or politicians or whoever you want, but the REALITY is that they exist, and we don't know how to get rid of them. And that "we" includes the science clergy.

Thus, blind faith in science or scientists is not warranted, just as it wasn't warranted in regards to religious clerics.

I would argue that human reasoning isn't "small". So far, humans have the greatest capacity to reason than any other animal. — Harry Hindu

Apologies, but comparing ourselves to animals is a very common logical error, in regards to God questions.

As example, a 12 year old would be more capable of mathematics than a 3 year old. But that doesn't automatically equal the 12 year old being capable of advanced particle physics.

The God idea is a proposal about the most fundamental nature of everything everywhere. And...

We don't know what "everything everywhere" refers to in even the most basic manner such as size and shape etc.

When it comes to ideas the scale of gods, we're like the squirrel who can see the computer monitor and the blinking lights on the screen, but simply doesn't have the ability to grasp the level of abstraction involved in the Internet.

Well, more philosophy, more reason, more cooperation, more knowledge, less greed, less competition, less material accumulation. That sounds like a plan. — unenlightened

That's something we can work on, but it probably won't be enough on it's own. A big dose of pain is likely going to be required too.

But I would argue that by correcting the mistake we made way back when, we can multiply resources exponentially - tackle climate change and alleviate those fears. — karl stone

How do we correct the mistake...

At the scale necessary...

In the time frame necessary?

I generally agree with you that IF human beings could be fundamentally transformed for the better by some method or another, that would make us much more capable of successfully managing the ever greater powers to emerge from the knowledge explosion. IF that were to happen, I would be happy to agree to more knowledge and power to the degree it could be proven that we can manage it.

But given that aligning ourselves with reality is one of your key points, a point I agree with, I have to remind you that there is no credible plan currently available which would accomplish the needed human transformation on the needed scale.

To compare humanity to teenagers, we may someday grow up, mature, evolve and become more sophisticated and intelligent beings. If we survive, that is likely over the long term, just as it is with teenagers.

But we aren't there yet. Evidence: thousands of hydrogen bombs aimed down our own throats.

We give our teenage son the keys to the car when he is ready to successfully manage that level of power. We adults aren't ready for more power yet. Maybe someday, probably someday, not today.

We should say to our teenage son....

"Get rid of nuclear weapons, solve climate change, and then come back and we'll have this conversation about you driving the family car again. But first, prove that you are ready."

I vote this is an excellent question. Yes, "what is the healthy state of being?" What is the optimum psychological state which we are reaching for in so many different ways? Where is it that we're trying to go?

Away from depression obviously, and towards "normal" as a first step. If we keep going in that direction, what lies beyond "normal"? Normal is put in quotes because normal is hardly a state of perfect sanity.

Please prove that something as small as human reason would be able to meaningfully analyze something of such enormous scale as gods, should such a thing exist.

As example, please prove that squirrels are capable of understanding the Internet in even the most basic manner.

Paragraphs are a nice feature.

I appreciate - it's not much fun being poor in a capitalist economy - but that's why one has to develop skills, or specialist knowledge - required by the market. — karl stone

Except that in a "more is better" knowledge economy characterized by accelerating social and technological change, whatever skills you develop are likely to go out of date before you're done needing them. As example, I just watched a documentary showing how robots are taking over many surgical tasks. It's not just factory workers who are at risk.

What this accelerating change does is infuse the society with considerable uncertainty, which generates fear, which eventually leads to masses of people doing stupid things like voting for President Dumpster. Dangerous right wing wackos are rising to power all over the world, which illustrates that at least some of the forces at play are global, and not the result of local conditions.

Some of us will be able to develop skills that aren't quickly made obsolete by the market, that's true. That doesn't matter if large numbers of other people can't keep up, and thus become susceptible to persuasion by crackpot ideologues promising to "make America great again". Example, some of us are indeed thriving in this economy, while those who aren't thriving give us a leader who pulls us out of the Paris Agreement, humanity's best hope to avoid catastrophic climate change.

I agree with this, but I do not understand what you think might be done about it. — unenlightened

For starters, what we're doing now, philosophy. Using reason to examine and challenge the "more is better" group consensus to see if it can withstand scrutiny. If we can come to understand what the price tag will be for continuing on the "more is better" path we'll stop endlessly repeating "nothing can be done" and start applying ourselves to the challenge. We're currently chanting "nothing can be done" because we don't want to do anything, and think we can get by continuing the patterns of the past.

Let's consider examples of "what might be done".

Gun Control: Although we endlessly argue about what the exact nature of gun control should be, there is wide agreement that civilians should not be able to buy surface to air missiles at the Army Navy store. That is, the group consensus has rejected "more is better" in regards to the lethal powers available to civilians (and many other issues).

The Paris Agreement: Most nations of the Earth, except those currently being led by stupid people, have perceived the threat from climate change and have agreed to implement sweeping changes in order to respond to it. A very imperfect process, but a step in the right direction.

The Amish: The group consensus keeps saying that modifying "more is better" is impossible, while blatantly ignoring the real world evidence that some among us have already long ago done so, and continue to do so successfully. While it's very unlikely that we'll all become Amish, what the Amish have proven is that it's possible to have fulfilling human lives without totally surrendering to the dangerous pursuit of more and more and more without limit.

However, to argue against everything I've just typed above....

The evidence also clearly shows that the odds that we'll adapt to the new reality of the knowledge explosion era through reason alone are quite slim. It's too big of a philosophical paradigm shift to be accomplished with just philosophy.

So the best that "can be done" for now may be to educate ourselves to the limited degree possible while we await some huge historical event(s) which will blast us out of our philosophical slumbers. The example I've used here is to point to the European relationship with warfare, which changed only when the price tag for repetitive warfare became too high to bear. Philosophy alone was not sufficient to reveal the insanity of repetitive warring, it took mass doses of pain to get the job done.

But, for now at least, it appears the Europeans have indeed learned the lesson. So if the coming calamity doesn't kill us off, we will learn the lessons we need to learn as well.

The continuing existence and/ or proliferation of nuclear weapons is not the result of a lack of ability of scientists to figure out alternative technologies. Scientists can only research what the political economies within which they work enable them to. — Janus

The fact remains..

We built them.

And can't get rid of them.

Thus, it's not logical to give ourselves ever greater powers at an ever faster rate.