Re: firing up the grill

Lorrill Buyens <buyensl@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Tue, 03 Jun 2008 03:45:21 -0600, intrepid reporter boots <no@xxxxx>, in an
attempt to scoop the misc.writing Herald, stopped the presses by saying:

Lorrill Buyens <buyensl@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Sun, 01 Jun 2008 15:45:02 -0600, intrepid reporter boots <no@xxxxx>, in an
attempt to scoop the misc.writing Herald, stopped the presses by saying:

Alan Hope <usenet.identity@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

boots goes:

Alan Hope <usenet.identity@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

The cases where
the perception did not match the reality are so few as to be negligible.

Perhaps, and perhaps exactly the opposite is true; my personal
experience leans toward the opposite.

Then why are events that don't match our perceptions considered *para*normal,
*super*natural?

Is that what paranormal and supernatural mean?

They mean anything that's out of the ordinary, that isn't a part of the everyday
world. ESP is paranormal, ghosts are supernatural, etc.

Sure, I accept the nomenclature, but I consider it to beg the question
of exactly what qualifies as normal and natural.

We perceive a class of stuff that could be called things. We do it
with our senses. If you can't sense it you can't perceive it.

And yet unperceived events happen in millions of locations around the globe
daily. Just because nobody sees or hears a tree fall, that doesn't mean that it
never happened.

Yes, and there would reasonably be many more events that are
unobserved than are observed.

On the other hand just because a tree is discovered in its fallen
state that does not necessarily indicate that it ever stood erect. We
assume that it went through a process of growth starting with a seed
because that is the process we have inferred from observing trees over
a period of time. Our observation over a period of time is
intermittent, we can't just sit and stare at a seed until it becomes a
Redwood without blinking.

Similarly, just because most people haven't seen a koala today,
that doesn't mean that koalas no longer exist.

Events are a different realm of stuff. We recognize events in a
different way, we recognize change. It seems to have to do with
memory and logic instead of perception.

Of course to recognize change there needs to be something that
changes. And if we recognize change because we have perceived a thing
before and after, we have to ask whether our senses held still or if
they did the changing. It's a large ball of string.

If meat left out on the counter for a day smells bad to you, it's much more
logical and rational to assume that it's spoiled than to assume that your sense
of smell inexplicably changed sometime between yesterday and today.

It's logical and rational, but it might not be true. I've observed
that when I've come down with the flu or whatever, things do not taste
or smell the same. I think that is a fairly common perceptual change.

When you get to the "supernatural" you are assuming that something is
outside the natural, outside nature. Is that even possible, or is it
just beyond our perception?

Unless a divine entity is playing with us, the universe has a certain set of
much-observed, well-defined laws. Anything which contradicts these laws is
highly unlikely to be genuine.

You seem to think these laws are much more well known than I consider
them to be. There is much that remains to be discovered. The most
general principles upon which the universe operates are still the goal
of much scientific research. Certainly we have determined the bulk of
the specific properties of the universe to a point that allows them to
be useful. But that does not mean we have everything figured out, or
even that the principles we use on a daily basis, although they work
for everyday purposes, are universally applicable much less true.

If you accept the idea of evolution you
have to accept mutation as part of it, then you also need to wonder if
there are mutations in the sensory and the perceptual.

No need to wonder. Color-blindness is indeed a sensory mutation. So're
synaesthesia and similar quirks.

Yes, but those seem to be mutations that restrict rather than enhance.
Mutations that enhance, that allow the perception of hitherto
unobserved portions of reality, seem questionable. If someone
posessed such a mutation their claims would be put under serious
scrutiny.

It would be madness to even take them into account,
because you would no longer be able to function.

Then no mystic has ever been able to function?

Even mystics are, presumably, perfectly well aware that you shouldn't cross the
street when the light is red or stick your hand in a tiger's cage or eat tainted
meat or any number of other common-sense beliefs and behaviors.

"Presumably" is a big word.

Many more words have much more difficult definitions, if that's what you mean.

No, I meant that it can be used to gloss over a lot of details. It's
a way of saying "I don't know" in a way that gives the appearance of
knowing.

We cannot go back and
listen to what Jesus actually said in the sermon on the mount, that
event no longer exists.

It's a fictional event to begin with.

It could be. It could also be a very distorted account of some actual
event. This is one of the cases where the "facts" of history are as
unknowable as Gandhi's actual peepee practices. You discard it out of
hand. I don't accept it as factual, but I do look for whatever might
be gleaned. Millions of people accept it as factual...

Millions of people accepted illness being caused by demons or evil spirits as
factual.

And now millions of people accept illness being caused by some germ,
virus, or genetic malfuction as being factual.

This rather misses my point, which was that the truth or falsity of a belief in
no way depends on the number of its believers.

Oh, if that was your point then I certainly agree with it.

You also don't accept it as fact because you don't want to, which
allows you to overlook the overwhelming evidence in its favour.

I have no argument with the face of evolution, but I do find it to be
based on a flat-earth with the sun spinning around it so to speak.
The evidence when examined leads to certain conclusions that are no
more valid than the framework within which they are drawn.

Are you a paeleontologist? No? Then your opinions on what fossils do or do not
prove have no validity in this argument.

So if I had a certificate that said I was a paeleontologist my
opinions about fossils would have validity?

Whom do you tend to believe in a discussion about cancer, an oncologist or the
guy who tends bar at the watering-hole down the street?

1. The guy who has had cancer and is in remission.
2. The guy who has cancer.
3. The oncologist.
4. The bartender.

Many people
accept creationism as fact, but I do not, and I don't think you do either.

More important is the fact that as a theory, creationism doesn't work.

Here we risk getting mired in terminology again. "Creationism" seems
to have very specific connotations related to the Abrahamic God. If
one considers spontaneous... what were we calling it, I've forgotten.
Spontaneous appearance from the void. If one considers that as a form
of creationism, there would be something arguable.

No, there would not.

That's an interesting argument.

You can't prove that the Earth just popped up out of
nothing anymore than you can prove that it was created by God a couple thousand
years ago or by the Flying Spaghetti Monster last Tuesday.

Some things can be proven and some cannot. It sounds as if you do not
accept the "big bang" concept.

The "big bang" concept has a theory and a proposed cause, and is perfectly
scientific, whether you believe in it or not. Your belief that the Earth just
materialized for no apparent reason whatsoever is actually what I was railing
against.

The idea that the universe just materialized for no obvious reason has
equal conceptual value, even if it only has one proponent. In fact,
if you put any stock in Occam's Razor, it is simpler thus more viable
than the concept that the universe materialized for no obvious reason
in a "big bang" and then proceeded to somehow evolve into its current
state.

Let me suggest an analogy. Suppose you wish to have robots that
perform a certain repertoire of functions. There are two approaches
to solving that problem.

First, you can design a robot that performs the desired functions, and
set up a factory to stamp them out.

Second, you can add to the robot's repertoire of functions the ability
to create other robots and improve upon their design as time goes on,
build one such robot, and set it loose.

The first alternative seems clearly simpler. Likewise it is simpler
for the universe to materialize in-toto for no obvious reason than it
is for the universe to materialze for no obvious reason and then
proceed to evolve life from unliving matter and then refine life.

Now, we observe data that leads us to conclude that a process we call
evolution occurs. The question is not whether we observe that data.
The question is not even necessarily whether the process called
evolution occurs or not. The question is whether the process is being
furthered by (going back to my robot analogy) robots that can enhance
the species, or enhancements in the robot factory.

No deity is required in either case unless you have a need to explain
the inexplicable.

We're right almost all of the time, as evidenced by our continued survival.

There is no evidence whatsoever that proves our "continued survival".
Clearly we exist. Whether it is continual or not is an entirely
separate question.

If you mean that we might drop dead tomorrow, that's perfectly true. However,
it's *also* true that we're highly unlikely to drop dead tomorrow if we avoid
risky behaviors and take sensible precautions.

The term "impossible" is useful, and the term "unlikely" is equally
useful. We use the term "unlikely" for justification. It is unlikely
that you will understand that. The impossible never happens, by
definition. The unlikely happens on a regular basis.

It was once considered impossible to walk on the moon, yet it happened. What's
considered to be "impossible" changes as science and our knowledge of the
universe change. As for the unlikely, it comes in differing degrees. Some
unlikely things are much more unlikely than others (getting hit by a meteorite
vs. winning the lottery, for example).

Yes, I expect that in the days of the flat Earth it was unthinkable to
circumnavigate the globe. Certainly until science infers the most
general principles of the universe and they are put to the test, there
is more to be learned. There are however a few things that will
always be impossible, for example it is impossible for God to point to
his progenitor.

for example, to questions of how many bolts are in your
toolbox.

Shall I go count them? That fixes their number, you know. Better to
leave their number general, thus more flexible.

Unless somebody has been adding or removing bolts without your knowledge, the
number will always be the same as it was the last time you counted 'em without
using 'em. Qualities like quantity, size, etc. don't go around randomly
changing just because people haven't measured them.

That Lorrill is what they call a "belief". You do not know that,
because the only way you could know it would invalidate the knowledge.

If I have a package of cookies that ordinarily contains twelve of the little
buggers, I don't have to count 'em in order to be reasonably confident that, in
the absence of any other cookie-eating (or providing) entity, there won't
suddenly be six cookies the next day and eighteen cookies the day after.

No mischief in your house, eh? No children, no burglars, etc. No
mice. Reasonable confidence is bound by the limits of reason innit.

And no, things like that don't "randomly" change because there is
nothing the least bit random about it.

What, precisely, leads you to believe that the amount, size, etc. of a static
object can fluctuate in the absence of measurement?

What precisely leads you to believe that an unknown quantity is fixed
before it is measured?

There are two perspectives from which reality can be approached.

One perspective is that the entire universe is manifest and has always
been mainfest, that its details may be shuffled around by physical
means but they remain the same except for their form.

Another perspective is that the entire universe becomes manifest in an
instant, that our perception of its constancy is no more than a
perception.

If your cookies are packaged by count it is reasonable to expect the
count to be relatively invariant. If your cookies are packaged by
weight it is reasonable to expect the package weight to be relatively
invariant but it is equally reasonable to expect the number of cookies
in each package to vary.

--
Don't read this crap... oops, too late!

[superstitious heathen grade 8]
.

Loading