I guess I don’t understand your point then. We argree that evolution explains the complexities of our bodies, such as our brains and eyes. From there, are you claiming that some being created evolution with specific goals in mind (ie: “after 4ga my process of evolution will make the most perfect eyes imaginable”)?
Then you can use “we”, too.
Fair enough. Your point is taken.
This is incorrect.
I have stated that adults have already freely made their choice of their view, and only the real life consequences of their own actions has the power to change their chosen view.
Then why discuss these issues at all? If you believe that only the life course can show which ideas are true and false, and not discussion, why participate in discussion?
I have offered ample logical reasons for my view. I’d just choose not to argue about it, and instead to let whatever contrast to the views of others stand as it is.
Whether or not I’m taken seriously is everyone else’s free choice, so it’s not my place to try to tamper with the volition of others. My approach is to take the ideas of Ayn Rand seriously enough to make them real by using them in business.
How is it that making an argument or attempting to persuade someone is an attempt to violate the volition of others? What makes you think that others here aren’t using Ayn Rand’s ideas in their life?
There are plenty of people who do not believe in Ayn Rand’s ideas who post here.
In my view, you are making my point that the design of the thousand trillion neural connections in the brain is far superior to the computers it designs. And this relationship is born out in reality… for it is the brain which designed the computer.
Okay? The computer is a tool. The brain is an adaptation.
As much as I love to argue against evolution this is hardly the right topic to do so.
The brain is complex. Evolution explains complexity. Evolution explains the existence of the brain.
That’s pretty much as far as this will go…
Then why discuss these issues at all? If you believe that only the life course can show which ideas are true and false, and not discussion, why participate in discussion?
Entertainment.
I don’t watch television as it’s inane, inert, and passive. The virtual world of interactive public television is much more interesting place to visit.
The computer is a tool. The brain is an adaptation.
If the brain is an adaptation… then a computer is a also an adaptation.
As much as I love to argue against evolution this is hardly the right topic to do so.
The brain is complex. Evolution explains complexity. Evolution explains the existence of the brain.
That’s pretty much as far as this will go…
I wholly agree… and evolution follows physical laws.
I guess I don’t understand your point then. We argree that evolution explains the complexities of our bodies, such as our brains and eyes. From there, are you claiming that some being created evolution with specific goals in mind (ie: “after 4ga my process of evolution will make the most perfect eyes imaginable”)?
I wouldn’t bother. He already made it clear that he rejects reason as the means of acquiring knowledge. Whatever evidence you provide, he’ll just reply with the arbitrary assertion that God’s behind it.
If you prove to him that evolution is a natural phenomenon, he’ll just arbitrarily state that God engineered it to be that way. If you challenge that, he’ll just conflate rights with reason and reply that his arbitrary opinions are just as valid as your logic, because he has a right to them.
1 Like
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antropic_principle
If I understand it correctly the anthropic principle states that the Universe is fine tuned for life because otherwise we would not be here asking why the Universe is finely tuned.
It is true that we would not be here if fine tuning was out of sync with life, but that doesn’t mean that that is the cause of the fine tuning.
If the Universe conisted of many ‘smaller universe’ it would makes sense that life would only exist in a universe where the laws and constants are finely tuned, that however does not prove that there are more than one universe, therefore (if no evidence for a Multiverse exists) the anthropic principle is wrong.
Also there is no need to explain any supposed fine tuning of the Universe. It is what it is and that’s all we need to know.
Or am I wrong?
The weak anthropic principle states the obvious that later states of the cosmos logically constrain what the initial states might be given the laws of physics which are really the time evolution or unfolding of the cosmos. On the other hand the Strong Anthropic Principle introduces purpose to the unfolding of the cosmos which makes it very unpopular with physicists. The weak principle is almost a tautology and the strong principle is rejected out of hand because it postulates cause other than formal, material and efficient cause. A physicist while he has his physicist hat one simply rejects teleology as a physical condition or factor.
I read somewhere that if the ‘red shift’ is evidence of expansion and given the rate, that at some point sentient beings would not be aware or have any means to determine the expanse of the universe. They would be ‘cut off’ from the ‘rest’ of the universe due to the event horizon umm thingy(sorry layman here).
If you prove to him that evolution is a natural phenomenon…
There’s no need for that, Nicky.
Evolution is a completely natural phenomenon because it conforms to physical laws.There are two choices regarding the order of specific physical laws which govern the behavior of quarks, and galaxies, and life. They were either designed or they came from random chaos. That choice is a completely open one, and everyone freely chooses for themselves.
In the view I chose, the only logical way order can come come out of chaos is for it to follow prexisting laws. There are specific laws which govern the orbit of every electron around the nucleus of every hydrogen atom.
For example, from the OP:
we see instead a process of selection by which overly abundant neuronal connections are eliminated through a weeding-out process, leaving only those connections that permit the animal to interact successfully with its environment."
Even the “weeding out” selection of what works over what does not work is governed by preexisting physical law. There is also another set of well ordered laws that govern human behavior. And those laws also favor the selection of what works over what does not work by consequences of actions.
In the view I chose, the only logical way order can come come out of chaos is for it to follow prexisting laws. There are specific laws which govern the orbit of every electron around the nucleus of every hydrogen atom.
You posit only two choices for explanation of physical laws, based on a ‘coming out of chaos’(~), could you define chaos? And provide an example of ‘when’ it was?
Laws exist only as concepts. Things that exist move according to their own nature and if many things have the same nature than we may find laws that in a sence govern those things.
There is no entity that we could call chaos. Also the Universe was less disorderely in the past than it is now.
1 Like
Entertainment.
I don’t watch television as it’s inane, inert, and passive. The virtual world of interactive public television is much more interesting place to visit.
If you can’t respect us enough to take us seriously then don’t post here.
Laws exist only as concepts. Things that exist move according to their own nature and if many things have the same nature than we may find laws that in a sence govern those things.
There is no entity that we could call chaos. Also the Universe was less disorderely in the past than it is now.
I agree with first part of the post in the sense, “nature to be commanded must first be understood”, but what do you mean by the second part? Disorderly in what context?
“he’ll just arbitrarily state that God engineered it to be that way.” -Nicky
“They were either designed or they came from random chaos.” -Moralist
You choose design, aka god.
“his arbitrary opinions are just as valid as your logic, because he has a right to them.” -Nicky
“That choice is a completely open one, and everyone freely chooses for themselves.” -Moralist
In other words, reason is not your basis of choice. Choices like this, as you describe, are arbitrary. It doesn’t matter what you choose apparently, because the question is open, meaning it is entirely up to a personal choice based on… nothing. For whatever reason, this appears like valid reasoning to you.
You’ve ceded that you post for entertainment, so I suppose there is actual hard proof now that you really have no interest in discussing Objectivism, or even coming up with reasoned though. Reasoned thought and entertainment aren’t mutually exclusive.
Laws exist only as concepts. Things that exist move according to their own nature and if many things have the same nature than we may find laws that in a sence govern those things.
There is no entity that we could call chaos. Also the Universe was less disorderely in the past than it is now.
The physical processes of turbulence in water and air are chaotic. They are extremely sensitive to initial and boundary condition.
Please see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaotic_dynamical_system
I wouldn’t bother. He already made it clear that he rejects reason as the means of acquiring knowledge. Whatever evidence you provide, he’ll just reply with the arbitrary assertion that God’s behind it.
If you prove to him that evolution is a natural phenomenon, he’ll just arbitrarily state that God engineered it to be that way. If you challenge that, he’ll just conflate rights with reason and reply that his arbitrary opinions are just as valid as your logic, because he has a right to them.
It’s hard to believe that’s even possible.
One of my favorite arguements from those who want to assert a ‘designer’, is the magic contextless adjective:complex.
You posit only two choices for explanation of physical laws, based on a ‘coming out of chaos’(~), could you define chaos? And provide an example of ‘when’ it was?
There is likely a better word than chaos as all matter follows specific physical laws regardless of its form. Maybe “unformed” is better to reflect the time before the formation of stars and planets.
For example, the relationship between an electron and a proton in hydrogen atoms conforms to exactly the same physical law no matter where in the universe they are observed. This is amazing consistent uniformity when you consider the vastness of the universe. This is proof of a literally universal law governing the electron/proton relationship found in the most common element in the universe. Physical law makes the uniform template for all hydrogen atoms possible.
(duplicate)
There is likely a better word than chaos as all matter follows specific physical laws regardless of its form. Maybe “unformed” is better to reflect the time before the formation of stars and planets.
For example, the relationship between an electron and a proton in hydrogen atoms conforms to exactly the same physical law no matter where in the universe they are observed. This is amazing consistent uniformity when you consider the vastness of the universe. This is proof of a literally universal law governing the electron/proton relationship found in the most common element in the universe. Physical law makes the uniform template for all hydrogen atoms possible.
Actually, you have it reversed, the recognition of the workings of the hydrogen atom, is what gives raise to the understanding of the relationship between a hydrogen atom and the universe(the ultimate context, remember no contradictions).