Re: Humanism in 2006


"Joseph H" <joseph@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1138138476.264690.251740@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> Scott wrote:
>> "Joseph H" <joseph@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>> news:1137969346.650375.166760@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> >
>> > Scott wrote:
>> >> "Joseph H" <joseph@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>> >> news:1137805923.240764.155750@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> >> >
>> >> > Scott wrote:
>> >> >> "Joseph H" <joseph@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>> >> >> news:1137701702.078409.326940@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Roger Johansson wrote:
>> >> >> >> Mani Deli wrote:
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> > > I
>> >> >> >> > >believe the scientific-method all too often channels us down
>> >> >> >> > >a
>> >> >> >> > >particular form of only-verifiable knowledge to the exclusion
>> >> >> >> > >of
>> >> >> >> > >a
>> >> >> >> > >wider understanding, and appreciation, of the complex nature
>> >> >> >> > >of
>> >> >> >> > >existence.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> > Biology tells us more about the complex nature of existence
>> >> >> >> > than
>> >> >> >> > any
>> >> >> >> > mystical speculation or spiritual mumbo jumbo.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> We probably need som knowledge about history and the psychology
>> >> >> >> of
>> >> >> >> religion to understand "the complex nature of existence".
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > I wonder about that. I think religion, as you suggest below, more
>> >> >> > often
>> >> >> > than not muddies the nature of existence. My point, really, was
>> >> >> > that
>> >> >> > we
>> >> >> > need to know about religion to understand the complex nature of
>> >> >> > the
>> >> >> > human being. Why this need for belief? Why the wish for value?
>> >> >> > Why
>> >> >> > the
>> >> >> > attraction for mysticism? Will rational solutions always play
>> >> >> > second
>> >> >> > fiddle to the lure of magic and the transcendant? I hope not. My
>> >> >> > hope
>> >> >> > for the future is dependent on our eventually firming up on an
>> >> >> > acceptance and valuation of our unique place in nature and our
>> >> >> > potential as the eyes and ears and the voice of the universe.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> "unique place in nature... as the eyes and ears and the voice of
>> >> >> the
>> >> >> universe"? You see? Anthropomorphism. There is no unique place in
>> >> >> the
>> >> >> universe. The universe is relative.
>> >> >
>> >> > Relative, relative...that still doesn't mean that we can't have a
>> >> > unique place. What possible relevance is "relative" to that? .
>> >>
>> >> If existence is meaningless as atheists scientists believe then your
>> >> "unique
>> >> place" is fantasy and only exists in your mind.
>> >
>> > I am an atheist, but I do not believe existence is meaningless - which
>> > is not to say that I believe that there is an inherent meaning in life.
>> > Confused? Let me explain: I feel that the search for meaning is linked
>> > with a pre-modern mindset, one that cannot conceive of existence
>> > without either a creator or some preset "scientific" dialectic or
>> > progress. I think even many atheists find it difficult to free
>> > themselves of these preconceptions. There's always a hankering after
>> > inbuilt purpose. I don't believe in any such purpose. For me the
>> > inquiry is pointless. But to say that something has no inherent meaning
>> > or purpose is not to say that it is "meaningless" That particular word
>> > has a pajoritive connotation. It adds something to the neutrality of
>> > the earlier observation. To say something is without inherent purpose
>> > is not to say that it is without value. Life for most of us is full of
>> > value. We cling to it for....dear life! Also, in a wider sense, we are
>> > part of a process. An event occurred some billions of years ago - and
>> > our existence is a consequence of that event. In my view it is a
>> > far-reaching consequence. After some twelve billion years of ceaseless
>> > permutation matter - within our brains - has finally been configured in
>> > a way that allows knowledge of and reflection on the entiure process. I
>> > say, therefore, that we are the mind of matter. It is not, of course,
>> > literally true. Matter is not an entity with a mind. But it is true to
>> > say that we possess the only known configuration of matter with the
>> > properties we associate with "mind". Because of this I also say that we
>> > are unique. I still can't say how this can be seen as mystical. It
>> > might well be wrong. There may be other beings with minds out there. So
>> > what? We are definitely unique on this planet; we are unique in the
>> > solar system; and we seem to be unique in this corner of the universe.
>> > How far do we have to go before we cease to be unique? Where does
>> > mysticism enter into this simple observation?
>>
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle
>>
>> http://www.crisismagazine.com/april2004/feature2.htm
>> "It is almost irresistible for humans to believe that we have some
>> special
>> relation to the universe, that human life is not just a more-or-less
>> farcical outcome of a chain of accidents reaching back to the first three
>> minutes, but that we were somehow built in from the beginning.. It is
>> hard
>> to realize that this all [i.e., life on Earth] is just a tiny part of an
>> overwhelmingly hostile universe. It is even harder to realize that this
>> present universe has evolved from an unspeakably unfamiliar early
>> condition,
>> and faces a future extinction of endless cold or intolerable heat. The
>> more
>> the universe seems comprehensible, the more it also seems pointless." -
>> Steven Weinberg.
>
> Sorry, sorry.......just to make a few things a little clearer.
>
> I don't believe that we have any special relation to the universe. The
> universe certainly doesn't "know" of our existence and we most
> definitely owe our existence to an immeasurable chain of accident and
> circumstance. But then, so do gold and oil and rubber...and all of
> these have been discovered to possess particular properties which do
> immense service to us as a species. My claim is that we also possess
> particular properties, capabilities, in our case - not because nature
> ordained it so but because of a particular series of events or crises
> in the past that favoured these capabilities. Regardless of how the
> universe began and how it is going to end we still at this moment in
> time possess these capabilities. I say, of course, that we are the mind
> of matter. It is a ludicrous claim, is it not? No, not really. Matter,
> as we know it, has, I'm sure, taken countless forms since the beginning
> of our universe. It just so happens that the matter lodged in our
> brains displays the properties and capabilities we associate with mind.

What is *mind*? Is their *really* such a thing? And if so, is there such a
thing as free will?

Scott


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Against Molecular Evolution, a Process of Abiogenesis
    ... Abiogenesis or The Abiotic Origin of Life on Earth ... Matter to aether shall have faded; ... mind than the statical distance-action developed by Poisson. ... of geometrical construction, but by the introduction of the symbol b gave it ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Against Molecular Evolution, a Process of Abiogenesis
    ... Abiogenesis or The Abiotic Origin of Life on Earth ... Matter to aether shall have faded; ... mind than the statical distance-action developed by Poisson. ... of geometrical construction, but by the introduction of the symbol b gave it ...
    (talk.atheism)
  • Re: American Buddhism - Critique of Science - Quotations by Dr. Frederick Lenz
    ... > "Life is not dependent upon our classifications and our categories, ... To think that this is the only universe ... > Mind is not simply the collection of aggregate cells inside your brain. ... > Chaos theory simply suggests that what appears to most people as chaos ...
    (sci.physics)
  • pam, have a magnificent hour. You wont obtain it
    ... description of how life is formed by information. ... The term 'entropy' began life as a subtle measure of energy flow. ... This is sometimes referred to as 'the universe is running down'. ... Instead of just matter ...
    (sci.crypt)
  • Re: Another sort of expansion?
    ... universe, you should read the paper from the Princeton ... You have to think of space in terms of potential energy, ... But the matter involved isn't fundamentally ... With life, when fully niche filled, the next large evolutionary ...
    (sci.geo.geology)