1. Cathedral seminar to equip clerics to deal with Dawkins

Comment #252745 by Elwood Herring on September 23, 2008 at 2:53 pm

"First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win." - Gandhi.


Seems Richard is now at stage 3.

2. Rochester Physicist's Quantum-'Uncollapse' Hypothesis Verified

Comment #226111 by Elwood Herring on August 7, 2008 at 5:55 pm

Well to be sure, the one thing I'm certain of is that I'm not certain of anything!

3. Rochester Physicist's Quantum-'Uncollapse' Hypothesis Verified

Comment #226094 by Elwood Herring on August 7, 2008 at 5:32 pm

It's like this: you start off with four types of people, the first set contains people who understand QT, the second set don't, the third set only think they understand, and the final set think they don't understand it. Now all four of these types exhibit a certain amount of uncertainty, even (by necessity) the ones who think they are certain. So you must relabel these sets as 1) people who think they are certain they know, 2) people who believe they are certain they don't know, then 3) and 4) who are uncertain about knowing and not knowing, respectively. The problems arise when some new data is discovered concerning QT, such as the article here. This has the effect of creating much more uncertainty across the board, realigning the boundaries between those who are certain they are certain, and those that are not, etc. In effect, this creates a certain amount of superposition of uncertainties about whether to accept the new data, and whether they can be certain about it. There will inevitably be some people who will reject this new information outright, but there will more likely be a greater proportion who will be uncertain about it, creating a feedback loop of uncertainty and therefore separating the previous superposition back to more or less the original state. With me so far? The upshot of all this is that the theory of QT will always be intrinsically uncertain, being by its very nature contrary to common sense. The more experiments are done, and the more facts are learned, the less certain anyone can be that it is understandable at all. The only way to understand QT is actually to not do any research into it at all, and also to destroy all data so far collected into the entire phenomenon, then there can be no superposition of individuals in various states of uncertainty about it. In effect, the only way we can ever understand QT is to not understand it at all. That's the only way we can ever be absolutely certain.

...I think...

4. More reviews of 'The Genius of Charles Darwin'

Comment #224821 by Elwood Herring on August 5, 2008 at 5:14 pm

My post on the Telegraph page, in case it isn't published:

I was impressed by Dawkins pointing out that Darwin spent many years going over the facts he'd unearthed in order to polish his theory.

This little easily-overlooked point bears examining more closely.

In other words:
Theories are not "incomplete facts".

Again:
THEORIES don't BECOME facts.
Theories EXPLAIN facts.

I'd like to take that little gem of knowledge and beat it over the heads of the "only a theory" crowd until they get concussion.

5. More reviews of 'The Genius of Charles Darwin'

Comment #224800 by Elwood Herring on August 5, 2008 at 4:42 pm

I think Deborah Orr might want to check up on how long ago life actually started, or maybe it was a genuine typo that reduced the time period she quoted by a factor of a thousand.

6. Review interview: Richard Dawkins

Comment #224755 by Elwood Herring on August 5, 2008 at 2:28 pm

"We need to rise above our Darwinian heritage," he says. In what way? "Well, we devote our lives to writing books, composing music, creating poetry â€" all higher functions of the brain. If we were following Darwinian dictates, we males would be spending all our time fighting other males to get females, and screwing them all over the place in order to have lots of children and grandchildren. I'm very glad we have risen above all of that."

Thank you Richard for helping me justify my existence. I'm unmarried with no kids, but I've written plenty of poetry and music, and I've even had a stab at writing a book. I suffer under the delusion that I'm a total failure in life, but this comment goes some way towards helping me come to terms with it. (Not that I wouldn't love to do a bit of "screwing all over the place", but it appears that I'm just not good looking enough!)

7. Is Science Killing the Soul?

Comment #184438 by Elwood Herring on May 25, 2008 at 8:30 am

Hi all.

Reading this has got me thinking: if consciousness is simply a by-product of a complex organ such as the brain, then would it be possible for a sufficiently complex machine to become conscious?

I know this question has been asked many times before, but it seems to me from reading this that either:

1) Consciousness occurs in any sufficiently complex organism, which must therefore (by that definition) include artificial devices such as computers. I'm specifically thinking of Star Trek's "Data", especially in the excellent episode Measure of a Man, but there are plenty of other examples. ("No.5" from the movie Short Circuit is another good one.)

or 2) Consciousness is an illusion as described by Dawkins as the "Soul 1" type above; the theory that there is something non-material about life, some non-physical vital principle.

If you discount no.2 then you have to accept no.1 - machines can be conscious. Maybe not yet, maybe not in a hundred years, but eventually, maybe?

I haven't read through the entire debate yet, but I wanted to write my thoughts down while still fresh in my mind. I'm also familiar with the "Chinese room" analogy (please google it if you don't know it).

As a sidenote, I just want to mention I've been a lurker here for a long time, but I've been a "fan" of Richard Dawkins now for over 20 years. I've read Unweaving the Rainbow, The God Delusion, Penrose's The Emperor's New Mind and many other similar books, and I'm a staunch (ex-catholic) atheist (just so you know where I'm coming from!)