The symmetry groups emerge from the Calabi-Yau shape, but we don't yet know the details, so we honestly can't say which shapes are compatible with which SU(N).

Marcus Bachmann and his ilk will be most displeased by Dr. Spitzer's recantation, i'd wager.

Haha; that was a sharp and funny exchange going on there!

I really think RDFRS and the Mr. Deity people can collaborate a little more, a lot more, and make video productions for the cause.

@Akaei:I do believe empathy is the underlying emotion that leads to altruism. I can't say if the connection we feel to something or someone makes empathy possible, empathy makes the connection possible or if they are really the same thing. I'm gonna chew on that one. But we are not likely to be kind to something we don't empathize with. And we are less likely to be callous when we do empathize. How much we see something or someone as "us" versus how much we see something as "them" informs our innate moral obligation.

I think it starts with empathy. Then comparison of need for help. "I am better off than them, I am in a situation to be able to help. I will help as many as it is possible with my means.

It can be a doctor without borders, or anyone and any animal who can sense or see the suffering of another being. It does not have to even be from the same species. We keep saying animals are so much like us, but I would say we are much like them. Animals are not preoccupied with selfishness or empathy. It is just matter of fact and circumstance.

@Less:That DNA instructs the self, hm no it would instruct the cells to form a self, the "self" from selfishness I think is a misnomer because the societal consideration should be greedy. Stingy. Self ish sounds like a Yiddish word. "He's not fully self , he is self ish. "

@ Alan, I don't see how self sacrifice is altruistic. Specially if they don't know the difference . But It does serve as a lesson for other predators to avoid the poisonous tadpole, after they see their brother floating belly up on the surface.

I would have to say that all living organisms are biologically selfish in the survival at all costs sense. Better them than me kind of thing.

That is:- a high proportion of genes promoting selfish individual behaviour, may lead to the extermination or diminution of the whole group. (eg - any army of cowards, will lose the battle, even if individuals initially survive skirmishes by running away).

Might they be called "The ladies of sorrow" little league baseball team who ran away from a girl??

The church might agree with you that "a high proportion of genes promoting selfish individual behaviour, may lead to the extermination or diminution of the whole group."

Yes, That is why they don't promote individual thinking. They know it leads to the extermination of their religion. I don't think it leads to human extermination. Not from individual behavior. If that was the case there would be less stupid people I think. Why even want their genes in our gene pool ? let them exterminate themselves with selfishness, end of selfish people.

Selfish gene in a scientific context, may be necessary to insure survival of the gene pool.

the book ( Should RD choose to write it) should be named "The selfish me and only me me meme"

Psychiatry = Voodoo

Now we have to combine these things. What would the shape of extra dimensions be, if the symmetry group in the atomic level is SU(3), SU(4) or SU(5)?

Are these shapes then so stable, that there would be time for life to exist?

I'm always amused by the Mr. Deity bits, sometimes even a lot. I am intrigued by the idea of their doing a segment with RD but, like Meme, I wonder how they will set up a confrontation between the deity and the one man who is most influential in denying his existence.

I have no doubt they'll come up with some hilarious dialog, on this contradiction alone.

Richard: "What am I doing here? I don't believe in you."

Deity: "What are you doing here? It's guys like you that screw up the whole plan.

Lucifer: "Now boys, just take a minute and get to know each other. I'm sure you'll find you have a lot to talk about."

Deity: Of COURSE. I should have known. Another one of Lucy's tricks. I thought we took care of this when i made doubt a mortal sin. Doubt and knowledge. And what, you have a Ph.D in evolutionary biology? Well, hell, that's two strikes. You are in very big trouble, fella."

Comment 7 by zengardener

True. Hopefully it'll make it harder for them to get support, though.

This really is a fun question... So if you leave the standard model as it is and only crank up the number of colors, this would require the electric charges of the quarks to change in order to get rid of the anomalies. So for SU(5), the charges of the up and down quarks would have to be (1/10) +/- (1/2) rather than (1/6) +/- (1/2) as is the case in nature. Then the nucleons which would contain five quarks would have a fun variety of electrical charges. It is a rather subtle thing that in our world, neutrons are stable within atomic nuclei (they decay to protons in about 15 minutes outside of a nucleus). So before we are even able to ask questions about star lifetimes, we would have to clarify whether we even have stable atomic nuclei, and what they would look like. It would for example be possible that rather than two different nucleons than can be stable within a nucleus, there are four,

uuuud, uuudd, uuddd, udddd

with charges 2,1,0,-1,

or only one of them... One would have to estimate the masses of these states. It is possible that for symmetry reasons the two inner ones have similar mass, and the two outer ones. At least the anomaly condition would ensure that nuclei have integer charge which can be neutralised by electrons in the hull as long as the net charge is positive, but interestingly, there would be combinations where the nucleus itself is neutral

Zeuglodon, how is that different tracks? The gene is useless without the protein, and the genome is useless without the organism. The organism is the vehicle for the genome, but they would not be around without each other and can't really be separated in the physical world.

The genome can be destroyed, but it is by no means necessary. It is perfectly possible for a bacterial genome to go on reproducing itself for thousands of generations. There will be changes over time, yes, just as there will be mutations in individual genes. New variants of the same gene, new variants of the same genome. I don't see how epigenetics would make a difference, since it affects both genes and genomes.

I'm not asking for evidence of altruistic behaviour in general, but evidence that the numbers 1/2, 1/4 can somehow be demonstrated to be relevant in actual such behaviour. You said:

Even when it reaches fixation, the allele will still be programming its host to use the rules of thumb that ensured it got there in the first place.

So is there empirical evidence that people or animals really treat their children like "half a priority compared to yourself"? Are there really such rules of thumb in real life, and are they stable over time?

Do the 1/2, 1/4 numbers apply only when the altruistic gene variant is new and has not yet spread in the population, or are they still relevant even after the new gene variant has spread to a large proportion (say 60%) of the population? Which one is it and why? That's what I would like a clear explanation of.

SU(N) means N colours, yes (so N quarks per baryon). I honestly don't know how the star lifetime would depend on N. My guess is a larger N would accelerate the star's lifetime because it would increase the number of inter-baryonic quark-quark interactions when two hadrons are close together, so would enhance fusion probability, but you'd need to ask an expert on SU(N)-sensitivity in nuclear physics (there must be some, surely). I doubt the parity of N would be of much importance, even though it would determine whether or not nucleons form a "shell" structure in nuclei, if only because (i) I don't see how that affects fusion probability or the energy needed for fusion & (ii) the numbers of nucleons of each type needed to start new "shells" are achieved only in the minority of larger nuclei forming in the star as it ages.

It seems to me that it's only "the conditional probability that the recipient of altruism contains an altruism-causing gene given that the altruist does", if the altruist is the only source of that gene. But I just pointed out that in real life we have no reason to assume that the altruist is the only source. So when a successful gene spreads through the population, the 1/2 and 1/4 stuff should no longer be relevant. It only holds for a newly introduced gene, right ...?

As I said, r is the limit as gene frequency tends to 0 of the conditional probability, so as it becomes more common the true conditional probability rises. Remember, however, the gene for altruism has to satisfy rB-C > 0 for all periods in which it becomes more common, including the initial brand-new period. As time passes, the "true" r will exceed that of these calculations, making the "true" rB-C greater, so it will still be positive. But because the gene will only get to that era if initially rB-C>0, the altruism policy it enacts has to be no more altruistic than the pessimistic estimate of the conditional probability warrants.

Comment 56 by Zeuglodon

My main gripe with Boghossian's definition is that the word "pretend" implies the believer is consciously engaging in denial.

This was a problem for me too. It's very difficult to pin this down as discussions with theists seem to blur this idea. Their claims are attached to words like "faith" and "belief" with liberal sprinklings of IMO. In almost every discussion, they attempt to redefine words like "evidence" as well.

It's difficult to tell when someone uses false models of reality whether they are "pretending" to know things they don't know (fake it 'til you make it), "believing" they know things they don't know, (because it feels right), "assuming" things they don't know (it hasn't occurred to me and/or it makes me uncomfortable to subject my assumptions to the evidence) and all manner of things. We all know how language can be manipulated.

The fact is that beliefs in god(s) will avail themselves of any weakness of language. They have no evidence so they will go around in circles, latching onto any possible interpretation of a word, including one (arbitrarily? based in the 17th century... I meant to ask jimbob what is so special about 1611 in a universe that's 13.7 billion years old... but I'll get back to that)

Underneath the claims, there IS pretending and/or unscrutinized assumptions which form models which fall into a continuum of "belief" and these are all shape-shifting words.

Which is why all we have is evidence.

If you pretend to know, or assume you know, or believe you know, or have faith you know, or in your OPINION know, it doesn't mean anything unless you have evidence. In my experience with theists, they move from position to position on these ideas anyway, whichever position defends their claims.

There is no right way to phrase it. It's impossible to pin down what theists mean by "faith" because it means something different depending on its strategic value. It also means something different depending on their take on it.

"Pretending" to know what you don't know is a pretty solid way of putting it because underneath everything, it's a claim.

I'm not entirely committed to that phrase but it's pretty accurate.

The fact that you and I and others worry about what "pretend" means says a lot about the difference between claiming to know and seeking to understand.

Comment 4 by Zeuglodon

Spitzer made two mistakes: the first was to allow his work to be published without the usual peer review on grounds of his authority in the field; the second was to try and reframe things so that he could distance himself from the political misinterpretations instead of challenging them outright.

I do feel sorry for him, having to face up to the enormity of what his work resulted in. To realize one paper of yours just undid your original work and ruined many lives - that's a horrible thing to have on your conscience. People would be indecently keen to misinterpret his study, so in a sense he couldn't help that. But in the absence of a public reparation or challenge of their interpretations, and by allowing the study to be published in the first place when it was so poorly controlled, he's still responsible for the ensuing ease with which homosexuals were persecuted.

I feel sorry for him too. I agree that one paper in a body of work is a horrible thing to have on your conscience. And I respect him for making a great effort to make it right.

But the deepest consequences were felt by others.

He is responsible. He knew that as well as anyone. And he made an effort to take responsbility and to rectify things to the extent that he could.

Comment 2 by Shannon1981

As someone who was subjected to this stuff, I am not sure I forgive. I mean, sure, he can't undo what he did. However, an I'm sorry does NOT atone for all the suicides and horrible psychological trauma and PTSD ridden, broken people, heterosexual lives ruined because they were tricked into marrying homosexuals...on and on.

If you haven't noticed, I still suffer a lot from that experience.

Shannon, I'm glad you weighed in on this one to remind us all of the real life consequences inflicted by those whose status rode on the tail of science but who circumvented the scientific method. The consequences of this were felt by the victims.

You were eleven or twelve, weren't you, when your parents sent you to camp to be healed of your gayness?

As Michael said, an aplogy is better late than never. It's a step forward away from ignorance.

But an apology doesn't erase anything. The damage is unspeakable.

You don't have to forgive. An apology does not require you to forgive. Forgiveness is a choice. Not an obligation. That is entirely up to you.

If you really want to understand the context of the Adam and Eve story, you need to read it in the original language. Beautiful as it may be, the KJB is still only a translation, which inevitably means an approximation. Not, mind you, that it actually makes any more sense in Hebrew.

Also, keep in mind that, from a Jewish perspective, the written Bible is just the notes. The four words, "...as I directed you," are considered to include the entire content of the Jewish kosher slaughter laws, which take up a couple hundred pages when written out. This is one reason Jews tend to find Christian interpretations a bit lacking.

When it says "god created," does it really mean "god" or "gods?" Elohim is the standard Hebrew plural form, and used in exactly that sense in references to pagan gods. But other times it's taken to be a proper name, whenever there's a monotheistic reason to do so. As the Genesis creation myths were almost certainly taken from older pagan sources, one might be excused for thinking the proper name interpretation is a later gloss.

Adam and Eve? An allegory, to be sure, but one attesting to human interrelatedness, not fruit eating, talking snakes, or original sin (something else Jews never believed in). The "punishment" for that culinary crime was that we would have to work for our food, and childbirth would be painful. I don't think that's changed, so I guess Jesus didn't accomplish anything after all.

Comment 203 by Less Entropy - I had thought that we could establish a basic common ground on selfishness.

An example of self sacrifice by an individual representing "altruism" of the individual, for the benefit of the "selfish" interests of multiple copies of its shared genes in relatives, is the poisonous nature of the tadpoles of the Cane Toad. The individual tadpole is eaten, which deters or kills a predator, thus giving protection to its siblings containing other copies of its own genes. Hence the "altruistic" individual is sacrificed to to enhance the survival of its genes in the wider group.

Richard Dawkins explains in various books, how balances in the numbers of "altruistic" and "selfish" (genes within) individuals within the gene pools, affect the competing community groups in the competition for survival between the competing groups. (eg nests of different species of ant, fighting for territory and resources.) That is:- a high proportion of genes promoting selfish individual behaviour, may lead to the extermination or diminution of the whole group. (eg - any army of cowards, will lose the battle, even if individuals initially survive skirmishes by running away).

I liked the selection of Where Is My Mind? by the Pixies as his intro music.

But in Matthew, Jesus said that gay people are 'born that way from their mother's wombs'. And He seemed to love them just the same. Homophobes are not Christians. May God strike them gay (as if they aren't already). The bum police.

Love this :)

I thought Brian's pitch for donations was almost as funny as the skit.

Will Dawkins meet Mr. Deity ? I wonder how they'll square that possible encounter with the premise of The God Delusion. In any case, I'm sure Richard will have a few embarrassing questions for Him.

Bill of wrongs!

Gee, the Bill of Rights did not come from magic man and his son? Who'd a thunk it!

A Richard Dawkins episode? That should be interesting!

Comment 177, All About Meme,

You should have seen me in the pub.

Organisms generally act with self-interest, even if it's blind bio-mechanical programing. Generally. Simple examples have been given by other commenters. But self-interest is not the same as ambitious back-stabbing competition. Competitiveness and greed are subsets (or extremities on the scale) of self-interest. All of these things may be referred to as selfishness. It is easy to equivocate simple un-thought self-interest with a desire to not share. With all the subtly different and overlapping meanings of "selfish" the English language is a clumsy tool for communicating these ideas. Take care in being understood.

A bad OP that lead to a good thread. I'm only aware of this happening here on RDFRS.

At least this should cut down the confidence of the anti-gay crusaders.

The people who push these therapies will ignore the retraction.

It doesn't fit with what they already believe, so they will brush it aside and continue on with their Holy War against homosexuality.

It's sad really.

Comment,

"Freed! Nelson Mandela"

Genuine grafitti in Barlinnie Prison in Glasgow: 'Fuck Mandela - free me'.

Wonderful! I also read the story by Mr. Arana, the reporter, about his own life. I cried all the way through it.

Comment 176 by xmaseveeve

You are SOOO hilarious !!!

Thanks for the continuing, prolific entertainment. I've learned a few things, too!

Quine, thanks for the link to a good thread, although I'm not sure whether you are being ironic or just overly polite to the concept of metaphysical nothing at the end by awaiting evidence. It seems to me that, like the idea of God, metaphysical nothing can never be proved or disproved.

More interesting to me though is your point that "the map is not the territory" and that models should not be mistaken for reality. This is why I think there is still a vital role for philosophy in advancing science, despite what Krauss appears to argue. When explaining science, most scientists will acknowledge that theories cannot be proved, yet often they talk as if they are closing in on Absolute Truth. It is the role of the philosopher to keep challenging science with questions that are off the edge of the map, like whether free will exists (the topic of lots of interesting research recently) or why mathematics, the basis of all our physical models, correlates with nature in the first place.