Evolution and Wisdom of Crowds

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(ShellyT @ Nov 28 2007, 10:37 AM) [snapback]545205[/snapback]</div>

Its the substitution of logical thinking for faith.

This permits statements like "Resurrection of humans is scientifically impossible so far. However, my faith allows me to believe that a human was resurrected 2000 years ago".

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Alric @ Nov 28 2007, 10:51 AM) [snapback]545212[/snapback]</div>

Alric~

What happens to you when you die? I mean what happens to your soul/spirit....? Do you just cease to exsist?

My faith has me believing That my soul will go to heaven.

I saw the bait in the headline and thought since I was hooked in the trolling lines, I would add my two cents :mellow:

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(hycamguy07 @ Nov 28 2007, 11:09 AM) [snapback]545221[/snapback]</div>

You decompose and your component chemicals are reused by other living organisms.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(hycamguy07 @ Nov 28 2007, 11:09 AM) [snapback]545221[/snapback]</div>

You are making an assumption and putting faith in that assumption without proof. That's kind of the point the original poster was trying to make. What makes you so sure you have a soul/spirit?

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(hycamguy07 @ Nov 28 2007, 11:09 AM) [snapback]545221[/snapback]</div>

I think I need an explanation for the question. The component matter doesn't cease to exist unless it eventually ends up as part of a nuclear reaction (and even then it doesn't necessarily cease to exist, it is converted to energy). But certainly you cease to exist in in form you do right now.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(hycamguy07 @ Nov 28 2007, 11:09 AM) [snapback]545221[/snapback]</div>

No logical thinking or scientific process in that. Just a decision that you want it that way, so it must be so. Followed by another decision to accept your first decision as ultimate truth without any proof to support it.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(hycamguy07 @ Nov 28 2007, 10:09 AM) [snapback]545221[/snapback]</div>

Having a permanent soul is not connected to evolution, I don't understand how you made such a jump.

The wisdom of crowds works when the law of averages is beneficial - estimating the number of pounds a bull weighs or judge the popularity of a particular movie. If you have other methods of performing the same thing that are relatively straightforward and produce a clear result, then it makes sense to use them directly, such as using a scale to weigh the bull.

I'm not sure wikipedia is an example of wisdom of crowds. Basically that's allowing an open group of self-titled experts on a subject make comments on that subject, which are immediately under peer-review. Not too different from a consensus of scientists, except no credentials are supplied and independent research is not needed or even encouraged. It's the wisdom of a very select crowd - if some uninformed yahoo starts pushing a radical hypothesis, it's immediately purged, not averaged in. New ideas that aren't well-established in the community are also purged, it's a very conservative method of showing information.

But back to evolution - this is something that can be tested and deduced, and doesn't need to rely on opinions and law of averages. So the existence of evolution doesn't need to depend on the wisdom of crowds, but the acceptance of evolution does. There's no doubt that this does run counter to people who adhere to a narrow literal translation of the Bible or other religious sources, particularly the part where the Earth, inhabitants and the Universe was created in 6 days, each being 24 hours, even before the length of a day was created. There are also plenty of religious people who accept evolution without compromise, including my minister father, since we understand that the word day may not mean 24 hours (eg. 'in King Arthur's day' does not mean he was king for 24 hours). Furthermore, the general order of Genesis is not far from modern understanding (first a massless void, then light and dark, then stars and planets, then simple life, then humans). However, the latter group of people tend to not make such a public fuss.

My feeling is, how it was done can be explained by science, why it was done is best explained by religion. Leave each other's domain alone.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(hycamguy07 @ Nov 28 2007, 08:09 AM) [snapback]545221[/snapback]</div>

In a strictly scientific way the you of 20yrs ago is no longer here. Nearly all of the cells that composed your body back then have since died and been replaced. So in this way you could almost say that no one exists for very long even when they are alive.

Jared Diamond talked about this (the point of the OP) in "Collapse". That one of the contributing factors to the collapse of civilizations was their inability to jettison old values and replace them with new ones when circumstances change. Easter Island provides a good example of this with their building of extravagant Moi (statues) while simultaneously destroying their environment. I don't think having beliefs is a bad thing but one must be ready to cast off those beliefs and assume new ones if the situation calls for it. That is mental adapability.



<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(nerfer @ Nov 28 2007, 09:22 AM) [snapback]545251[/snapback]</div>

I disagree with that. What gives religion the sole ownership of why? Why not leave it up to philoshopy or science or personal rational thinking? Religion has not earned any rights to the why of anything imo. Moreover; does there even have to be a why or it is our complex brains assume there has to be?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(F8L @ Nov 28 2007, 11:38 AM) [snapback]545255[/snapback]</div>

IMO, philosophy is more related to religion than science. I'm not a philosopher, so I'm sure more learned people will disagree. As for keeping science out of the 'why's, I'm thinking of the Big Why questions - why are we are, why is there evil, etc. Why evolution has been so successful is more of a how question to me.

I was trying to make a nice clean statement, then we have to go and muddy the waters!

That is why I leave that question to religion. At least until science can get into the brain fully, and Discover magazine did have an interesting article suggesting that a need for religion is hard-wired into the brain. But you can just chase this down the slope - assuming they're right, would this cause us to invent a religion where none exists, or is it there because God wants us to seek Him? (capitalization included for monotheistic religions, the predominant kind on this board)

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(hycamguy07 @ Nov 28 2007, 11:09 AM) [snapback]545221[/snapback]</div>

Believing that you're going to go to heaven where all the good people are and eventually being reunited with your loved ones for eternity is a comforting belief especially when the alternative is that EVERYTHING with regards to you ends when you die. But because this belief is comforting doesn't make it true. If you had cancer and your doctor told you that your were perfectly healthy because it was comforting that wouldn't make it the right thing to do.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(nerfer @ Nov 28 2007, 10:04 AM) [snapback]545274[/snapback]</div>

I feel there is just as much validity in scientific reasoning for our minds creating various religions as there is for religion itself. Until we can provide more susbstantial evidence for either I feel they are on equal footing and belong to philosophical debates. Although personally I do feel that neuroscience is gaining an edge.

Maybe religions are just another step in the evoultionary process. We started with none, then we added a ton of religious forms and deities, then we reduced them to one (in the case of Christianity) and some of us just went one step further like Dawkins said. He also stated that all of us are atheists for none of you truly believe in Baal, Zeus or Coyote.

I don't see how any of this can be "clean" as you put it because there is nothing in black and white.

 

"What happens to you when you die? I mean what happens to your soul/spirit....? Do you just cease to exsist?"

All evidence point to yes, despite our desire for it not to be true. A 2000 year old book is not evidence to the contrary. Esp. since it is not the only book of its age and theme and they are all different in interpretation on this matter.

I actually have a problem with "the soul" itself. How do you define it? It's not something that can be measured, observed, or studied. In fact, as a neuropsychology major, I have not found any human trait that cannot be explained by the laws of physics, chemistry, and/or biology. This includes the near death "bright light" phenomenon, the illusion of free will (at least as it is understood), as well as the supposed soul. Technically, the conscienceness of humans is present in both halves of the brain, which would imply TWO souls, not one. By cutting the corpus collosum, you can achieve a brain that has two distinct lines of thoughts, desires, and emotions.

What happens when an embryo suddenly divides and becomes identical twins? Is this a soul that has split into 2? What about Dolly the sheep? Can you clone the soul? No fertilization has taken place, merely the harvesting of cells of a current "soul" and manipulation to begin as a new one. No wonder the ultra religious are so scared of cloning (not to say I support human cloning either). It throws the whole definition of the soul on its ear.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(nerfer @ Nov 28 2007, 11:22 AM) [snapback]545251[/snapback]</div>

God may have been even speedier than we usually imagine. The length of an Earth day when it was formed was around six hours. So the whole deal only took about 36 hours.

Of course, then he/she/it didn't get a whole lot of rest on the seventh day. (Was there another universe to go create on the eighth day? "Sigh. Another week, another universe.")

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Darwood @ Nov 28 2007, 01:40 PM) [snapback]545289[/snapback]</div>

Ok, just to make sure I understand this correctly, you are implying that you do not believe that free will exists?

Would you be willing to take that statement to the level of saying that individuals should not be held responsible for the consequences of their actions, since it isn't possible for them to make any other choice or engage in any other action than that which the physics, chemistry, and biology of the universe has set up for them?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Danny Hamilton @ Nov 28 2007, 02:56 PM) [snapback]545299[/snapback]</div>

Of course not. That's why I said "(at least as it is understood)". Every thought/decision/emotion you have is caused by chemical reactions in your brain. Reactions that are fully understood and based on rules of chemistry and physics. So decision are a result of your millions of brain cells recieving a physical stimuli of some sort, processing it, and through chemical reactions, responding to it. It all comes down to your definition of "free will", doesn't it?

On a neuropysch level, it is in theory possible to know what a particular brains processing will be in relation to a given stimuli. But to do so would require every single bit of data the brain has processes to date, as well as the genetic makeup of that brain, and other effects on it such as nutrition and too many blows to the head, etc. etc. No computer built can process this amount of information. But we do know how individual cells work and how they communicate to each other on more local levels.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Darwood @ Nov 28 2007, 01:40 PM) [snapback]545289[/snapback]</div>

I'm curious: what evidence would be acceptable to the openminded folk that an afterlife exists? If it does not exist, it cannot be shown to exist. If it does exist, how can it be proven?
You've already discounted "white light" experiences. What about reincarnation? Demon possession? I'll be it's all in your mind, right?
There is much in this world that is not yet known. Doesn't mean we shouldn't look for answers, but sometimes they are slow in being discovered.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Danny Hamilton @ Nov 28 2007, 12:56 PM) [snapback]545299[/snapback]</div>

If a criminal has no free will in committing a murder, then I have no free will as a potential jury member in committing him to be locked up in jail for many years. I'm not sure if that covers your "not be held responsible" statement, but if free will is real or just an illusion, it doesn't change how I intend to live my life. I can live as if I have free will and maybe I would make the same decisions as an automated hydrocarbon-based robot inserted in my place, but at least I would be happier.

It's a new life starting from birth, same as identical twins but one being delayed. Are you saying only one identical twin has a soul? My definition of soul is a unique consciousness, so the genetic structure is only the basic framework for it. This just seems a rather bizarre argument.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(MrK @ Nov 28 2007, 03:13 PM) [snapback]545305[/snapback]</div>

1st off, I'm not an athiest and I never said there is no afterlife. I really hope their is. I believe anyone who says they KNOW there is or is not is deluded. You cannot know. I have seen no evidence to show me ther is OR that there isn't.

Demon possession....You're kidding, right? Brains are prone to failure just like hearts, eyes, and any other body part. And being more complex, just adds to what can go wrong. Demon possessions are a dwindling pyschological phenomenon, since modern medicine can now actually pinpoint where the patients brain is failing. It was just a pre modern excuse by zealots for "that dude's nuts!" Just like the witch hunts, where many women were burned alive for the sin of eating tainted corn that caused drug induced insanity.

Reincarnation is in the same boat as "the afterlifes". Sounds great! Sign me up! Or do I have to past muster with the local clergy to qualify?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(MrK @ Nov 28 2007, 02:13 PM) [snapback]545305[/snapback]</div>

I've got the same question for religious-minded folks. What evidence would be acceptable to prove that there is no diety? What evidence would be acceptable to prove that there is no soul/spirit?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Danny Hamilton @ Nov 28 2007, 02:33 PM) [snapback]545313[/snapback]</div>

It's been a long time, but my recollection of Logic 101 is that you cannot prove a negative.

As I commented, if there is no afterlife, then it cannot be shown to exist. If there is no diety (or soul/spirit), then it cannot be shown to exist either.

If there IS afterlife, what evidence is necessary to document it? If there IS a diety (or soul/spirit), what evidence is necessary to document it?

It's a trick question, right? Since neither afterlife, diety, nor soul/spirit exist [sic], there can be no evidence that they do exist. But the question remains, What if they did exist? Then, what evidence would be sufficient?

 

"It's a new life starting from birth, same as identical twins but one being delayed. Are you saying only one identical twin has a soul? My definition of soul is a unique consciousness, so the genetic structure is only the basic framework for it. This just seems a rather bizarre argument."

Are you saying there is no soul before birth? If "souls" were a real thing and not an idea that most people believe in, than I have a problem with the argument. It is quite clear, that just prior to birth, the infant is hardly different from the infant just after birth. The pre-emergent infant can already feel pain, hear, feel, etc. Conscienceness does not turn on like a switch during birth. It grows and develops like any other life form does. Are you saying the soul begins when the umbillacle is cut, when the head emerges, when the whole body is out? It doesn't make sense physiologically.

 

Yes. We "go" to the same place that the flame "goes" when a candle is blown out: nowhere.

Because this one trip around is all we get, it is all the more precious.