Thanks to Fixed Cross for attempting to bring this discussion back to the propositions of its OP.
Run away from the scary truth!!!
=D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D>
Oh well, what a shame, never mind!
Not really.
The idea of god is inherently stupid.
If the subject statement of this thread is true, we’d have no natural understanding of the distinction between nouns and verbs, and the appreance of this feature of our language would be superfluous.
This feature of our language is not superfluous. Ergo; what is does is not what it is.
Thanks for your post.
Not necessarily. The action of a thing demands a thing to do the action and provides a description of what the thing is. If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck—specifications of which a noun is suggested. There is no isolated verb. The action or state of being has to point to something that does or is.
Early English was replete with noun/verbs such as “milk”.
If you see a man shitting in public, and you run away, it is not the scary truth you are running away from.
Many lurkers following Ierrellus, thanks for the deep thoughts on possible correlations between the content of human experience and the otherwise not-necessarily-human fact and dynamics of evolution.
They are not easy to formulate, and we appreciate it.
When you bring up the peacock tail, which itslef doesn’t strictly follow Darwin’s criteria for selection, because the energy input and output equation of what is invested versus what is gained in terms of mating rights doesn’t correlate to the adaptation he described, modern scientists will say that, in any case, evolution is a random succession of fortuitous events and one would not expect the pull of adaptation to produce a perfect equation. But they do, by conjuring the adaptation principle in the first place, name a non-random and non-fortuitous dynamic that does, regardless of and without contradicting the mechanical succession, affect the course of evolution.
There is no reason Darwin’s adaptation would be the only possible ‘pull’ determining the course of evolution. There is no reason coherent patterns cannot be read into evolutionary change. And, indeed, a failing of Darwin’s selection principle as the only pattern present in the dynamics of evolution is that it does not account for certain things, like the peacock tail, or subjective experience. Regardless of the nature of experience, whether individual or generated by factors not unique to any individual animal, it is a fact that it exists. There is no reason it should, Darwinian adaptation would not predict it. This does not mean that we should not be able to trace it, even from amoeba, even from amino acids. This is so obvious it makes one fearful for the integrity of the religiously Darwinian mind. It is what evolution is, the description of all change. It simply means that it does exhibit patterns, and Darwin’s selection mechanism is not inclusive of all change.
Hawking didn’t. Unfortunately, he did pass in 2018. But I do believe he did have that feeling of wonder that Einstein had, a feeling of reverence. I believe a feeling of reverence is required, in the first place, to bring yourself to listen for what the universe is doing, rather than attempt to dictate it. Specially to the degree that those two gentlemen did.
And I believe that a belief in God, such as you exhibit, is simply a manifestation of that reverence. To name some great thing outside yourself, to acknowledge that it is not you who dictates it. Or that it is you, but as part of a great thing that goes beyond your daily chores and the limitations of your day-to-day bodily experience or understanding. Some thing that includes more than just you, and is creative, and has entity.
Though I personally hold there to be more than one such entity, I believe I understand the feeling that it is you describe.
In any case, a competent theory of evolution should account for that reverence, not only its subject, but its object. Because it exists. And if it exists, it must be part of evolution. Because there is nothing that exists that is not part of evolution. That is the singular genius of the theory, and the way it brought science down from the life-denying towers of the anti-naturalists to the actual factual world.
And, for fuck’s sake, ‘what it does is what it is’ is a genius way to formulate it.
It even respects Nietzsche’s dictum that there is no ‘thing in itself.’
Aventador,
Thanks for your support. This is a difficult subject mainly because evolution is personal and the subjective feel of belonging to the whole is often denied in favor of the objective as if what is real must lie beyond what is fully human. Deep existential awareness suggests that we belong, which is the ethical third of our trinity of Being. ( Being, becoming, belonging.) This trinity is characterized by change.
I have often wondered how such complex organs as eye and brain could have developed from random, fortuitous occurrences in a natural world of which we are an integral part. That, to me, is counterintuitive. Dawkins rebukes the notion of proof of design of “irreducible complexity” simply by stating that there are other ways this could happen. Unfortunately, he is short on explaining these developments and can only offer the notion of random fortuity.
I am a part of you and both a part of God.
And genomes suggest that all life is interconnected. Our biosphere is an ecosystem. “Every thing that lives is holy.”–Wm. Blake.
God does not play dice–Einstein.
If only you knew what that meant!!
It means the universe it utterly deterministic. Nature is what nature does. There is nothing else.
That is what he meant.
Both Spinoza and Einstien rejected typical views of god.
In Sponoza’s time, had he replaced “god” with “nature” as he would have wished he’d have been hung by the neck.
Not things I did not know. Please honor my wishes and absent yourself from this thread.
Your approach to the matter at hand is severely limited. Your posts, never without ad hominem. If you could only have posted on subject at hand and not about me—oh well. Please be gone.
You are ignorant.
Read Ethics, or fuck off
Please honour my wishes and learn something before you speak of it.
Bye Sculptor.
What it does is what it is.
You must be “farewell”.
:-"
“This argument is amusing and seductive, but for all I know, the Lord may be laughing over it and leading me down the garden path.” – Albert Einstein in a letter to a friend
A theory that addresses the object ‘science’ in this sentence but not the object ‘Lord’ is lacking.
Is there determinism without a purpose? Give me an example in Nature.
All of it.