451. Discussion on PZ Myers being expelled from Expelled

Comment #148261 by Quine on March 22, 2008 at 1:38 pm

MC Metcalf, what are your views on the ID v. evolution subject and debate of the subject?

452. EXPELLED!

Comment #147997 by Quine on March 21, 2008 at 6:31 pm

It does bother me that the Discovery Institute is accusing Prof. Dawkins of "gate-crashing." This looks like libel to me. Let us assume for the moment that the following from Dr. Meyers is correct:

Let me clarify a few things. This was a private screening with no admission charge, and you had to reserve seats ahead of time; you also had to sign a promise that you wouldn't record the movie while you were there, and they were checking ID. Everyone in my family reserved seats under our own names, myself included. There was no attempt to "sneak in", although apparently the producer, Mark Mathis, accused me of doing so in the Q&A afterwards (Mathis, of course, is a contemptible liar). We followed the procedures they set up, every step of the way, and were completely above board in all our dealings.

In this kind of a situation, one would expect normal business practice and contract law to apply. This activity falls under promotions that businesses do to increase public interest in their products, and to obtain mailing lists (email addresses, these days) for future marketing. There are fairness rules that govern public promotions (prevents all benefits going to family members, etc.). Obviously, the promoters were not opening up the doors for just anyone off the street; places were limited and subject to reservation. A contract was involved. A free showing was offered in exchange for certain promises and contact information and the value to the promoter of pre-release testing against a live audience.

From the description given by Dr. Myers, both he and Prof. Dawkins had fulfilled their side of the contract, however, the promoter seems to have breached his side by expelling Dr. Myers. I have not seen the email to know if there was a clause giving conditions under which someone could be disqualified at the theater. In any case, Prof. Dawkins was fulfilling a contract by attending, thus in no way was "gate-crashing."

453. I suppose it's due ('Expelled' review)

Comment #147966 by Quine on March 21, 2008 at 4:57 pm

Pattern Seeker, that was great. If only we could get a YouTube up of Stein saying it.

I was also thinking about "Dawkins & Myers' Excellent Adventure."

454. EXPELLED!

Comment #147942 by Quine on March 21, 2008 at 4:17 pm

NY Times has it here.

Discovery Institute strikes (sort of) back.

455. EXPELLED!

Comment #147914 by Quine on March 21, 2008 at 3:09 pm

Perhaps this is a case where sufficiently advanced hypocrisy is indistinguishable from irony.

456. EXPELLED!

Comment #147554 by Quine on March 20, 2008 at 10:01 pm

ROTFLMAO!!!!!

457. Writer Arthur C Clarke dies at 90

Comment #146079 by Quine on March 18, 2008 at 3:33 pm

As I sit here watching a live video feed from space, my heart falls with this news.

458. Fleabytes

Comment #146042 by Quine on March 18, 2008 at 2:05 pm

As a contrast to idiots reading scripture, you can watch some ultra cool robotics in space going on in real time, NOW, at:

http://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/nasatv/live_tv.html

459. Fleabytes

Comment #146018 by Quine on March 18, 2008 at 1:41 pm

Whoops, I guess I was wrong.
Here the is the proof all of us atheists are delusional.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SryZbY14Mfc

How do I throw a Pepsi over this guy?

460. Religion 'linked to happy life'

Comment #145959 by Quine on March 18, 2008 at 12:08 pm

And exactly how are you going to do the randomized double blind study of this?

461. Fleabytes

Comment #145610 by Quine on March 17, 2008 at 7:30 pm

Cartomancer, is there a baptismal incantation that goes with that?

[Edit: "solipsistic dehumanising nonsense" sounded more like exorcism.]

462. Fleabytes

Comment #145584 by Quine on March 17, 2008 at 6:27 pm

Clearthinker, don't take a dive; get in there and fight! If you need help, any of us Atheists, will be glad to PM you a big load of extra amo -- don't be afraid to ask.

463. New Atheists Are Not Great

Comment #145578 by Quine on March 17, 2008 at 6:14 pm

So, D'Weasle re-enters the fray as Superflea. Actually, I am rather glad to have him to kick around some more. Tactics from debating rhetoric don't work so well in print where the readers have a chance to patiently examine the slight of hand.

464. Fleabytes

Comment #145338 by Quine on March 17, 2008 at 1:47 pm

Pathfinder, there is nothing wrong with being an autodidact, but it does mean you have to work a bit harder to be sure that your teacher is not an idiot.

I would suggest that you look up the difference between science and technology. Science does not "unleesh [sic]" anything upon the world except knowledge. What destruction has been done with that knowledge is mostly a matter of politics.

465. Fleabytes

Comment #145274 by Quine on March 17, 2008 at 12:50 pm

Comment #144990 by clearthinker:

5212 Rev Dark -

Greek was not Lingua Franca at the time; and Jesus (if he even existed) as the son of a craftsman would be unlikely to speak anything other than Aramaic.

Again Rev - you should not just repeat things as mantra. Greek was the most widely used language of the time - it was the common cultural and literary language for most of the Med. Jesus spoke Aramaic and would have leant some Hebrew and also Greek. The LXX (Greek translation of the OT) was in common use throughout the Med. And Jesus did not write any of the Bible. Try facts sometimes - they will help you formulate your opinions a bit more accurately!

David, do you have a source reference for the percentage of the population of the Palestine area who could read and write any language at all? Also, what is your basis for the idea that the Septuagint was in common use BCE? Remember, this is before the printing press or publishing companies (let alone copyright). The Septuagint would have been hand copied into the collections of a few wealthy aristocrats and scholars, but if you have information on early distribution to the trades people (such as carpenters and fishermen) I would be interested in seeing it.

466. Two More Fleas

Comment #144417 by Quine on March 16, 2008 at 3:28 am

Once you start speculating about universes that are not the Universe we can measure, there is no end.

No. There are possible frameworks for coming up with alternative universes that are not endless, and give definite ranges for the properties of the universe.

Steve, can you please explain what you are using for the definition of the word "possible" above?

467. Two More Fleas

Comment #144394 by Quine on March 15, 2008 at 11:39 pm

When scientists deal with the popular press they often find themselves hindered by an intrinsic problem of language. Long ago, practitioners found that complex technical knowledge of the physical world, while very difficult to express in common language, was best represented by mathematical models (usually in equations). However, the popular press will ridicule attempts to use language (forget equations) that even attempts to preserve this precision, then, when analogies are loosely made, misquotations run rampant.

Being people, we naturally use metaphoric language. We don't usually coin an entirely new word if we can overload an existing word with a new meaning (especially if the usual meaning is a helpful mnemonic). Also, we tend to use anthropomorphic representations for inanimate objects and processes. Within a community of workers, this can become quite casual; a solid state physicist might refer to an electron that, "wants to travel ballistically across this transistor junction, but feels the resistance of variations in the conductance bands" or a biologist might refer to a "selfish gene."

IMHO, this tendency to overload and anthropomorphize is what opened the door for the theistic apologists to latch on to the so called "fine-tuning argument." We have had this idea of what it is to fine-tune from the early days of string music instruments, which was overloaded to cover actions in the early days of radio equipment, which continues to be extended to other ways people (or automatic systems) make adjustments to settings. However, this is categorically misapplied to the notion of the constants in the models used by physicists to describe what science has discovered.

On page 129 of Victor Stenger's God: The Failed Hypothesis

Physicists invent mathematical models to describe their observations of the world. These models contain certain general principles that have been traditionally called "laws" because of the common belief that these are rules that actually govern the universe the way civil laws govern nations. However, as I showed in my previous book, The Comprehensible Cosmos, the most fundamental laws of physics are not restrictions on the behavior of matter. Rather they are restrictions on the way physicists may describe that behavior.

(Also see Stenger's fine-tuning paper)

There is no evidence that the Universe is "fine-tuned." There is no evidence of either the "knobs" or the "knob twiddler." We do have models of the Universe that do a good job of backtracking to what has (also inappropriately) been called the "Big Bang." It as been noticed that these models have parameters (universal constants), some of which are sensitive, such that, only small ranges of values cause the model to produce results that agree with observed experimental data. Another way to say that a model is parametrically sensitive is to call it "brittle" (yes, another overloading).

Asking, "Why are our models so brittle?" (if they are) is a valid scientific question. We should explore this. And we should remember that exploring the nature of the models is not necessarily exploring the nature of Nature. These models are intrinsically different from models such as business models that allow you to play "what if" games by changing variables that represent the amount of capital spent on marketing v. R&D. At any time in the future, new ideas from new people can replace the models we have now with new models that may reveal that parameters we now think of as constants are actually the results of new substructures.

Once you start speculating about universes that are not the Universe we can measure, there is no end. Take any model parameter you want: say "G" the gravitational constant. [Edit: a dimensionless ratio parameter would be a better choice, but the argument still holds.] Suppose we want to think about the different results we would get if we used different values for this model parameter. How many different values could we have? Would one expect quantization or continuous variation? (Do the 'knobs' click, or move smoothly?) If quantization, how would we know the quantum size? (How far away, parametrically, is the next universe we are not in?) If continuous, we might speculate about an uncountably large set of universes with values of G that differ past the one hundredth decimal place, for which our model gives identical results.

Bottom line: A parametrically sensitive model (that we may have) does not necessarily give you a "fine-tuned" Universe (that theists want to claim).

468. Fleabytes

Comment #144283 by Quine on March 15, 2008 at 2:43 pm

Dr Benway

Paula, my brain saved the gist of your review, which I read a few weeks ago, as something like this:

I expected Robertson's book to win the dog ball sucking award until I encountered McGrath's book. Had I not seen it with my own eyes I never would have guessed that an Oxford professor's book could suck dog balls so passionately. Thus I'm forced to concede that, in comparison, Robertson's book merely sucks the dog's left nut.

Wow, that was a close call. The coffee cup was almost at the lips when the above was read. I was able to put it down just before going over backwards. One more second, and the potential of computer damage from nasal projection would have been small against a trip to the ER to drain the caffeine solution blown into the inner ear.

469. The Oxford Book of Modern Science Writing

Comment #144261 by Quine on March 15, 2008 at 1:51 pm

WOW!! Must have.

470. Richard Dawkins on The Alan Colmes Show

Comment #143963 by Quine on March 14, 2008 at 6:23 pm

These people are still sore about the US civil war; they aren't so sure about the Romans.

471. Richard Dawkins on The Alan Colmes Show

Comment #143958 by Quine on March 14, 2008 at 6:13 pm

You need to talk to these people in their own language. Richard should try telling them that rejecting the evidence for Evolution is like standing in the Smithsonian collection of Union/Confederate army artifacts and denying the civil war, only what the geologists and biologists have is thousands of times bigger.

472. Richard Dawkins on The Alan Colmes Show

Comment #143874 by Quine on March 14, 2008 at 2:29 pm

I was very glad to hear Richard state clearly that Evolution is a fact and that Natural Selection is the theory of how it happened. This needs to be repeated as many times as needed to soak through their thick skulls.

(although, I did wince a bit when he said "sure as Hell")

473. Fleabytes

Comment #143796 by Quine on March 14, 2008 at 12:29 pm

I am very interested to know how Portia labiata can do what it does (advanced planning) with only about half a million neurons.

474. Two More Fleas

Comment #142547 by Quine on March 12, 2008 at 5:25 pm

"Meet the new flea; same as the old flea ..."

475. Fleabytes

Comment #142060 by Quine on March 11, 2008 at 7:59 pm

Goldy, I remember the Taunton thread. No technique is going to work on all cases, especially his. However, you do not know what your efforts will cause to bubble up from his unconscious mind at a later time, or how much good you did for those unknowns who were lurking the thread.

476. Fleabytes

Comment #142053 by Quine on March 11, 2008 at 7:18 pm

When talking to someone of religion "A", it is usually (but not always) possible to bring up members of religion "B", where those in A consider those in B to be looney. In this context, one can inquire of those in A what they think of the things the members of B use for the basis or justifications of their looney beliefs. After a while, one need only ask (without scorn or criticism) for the basis of the faith in A.

477. Fleabytes

Comment #141923 by Quine on March 11, 2008 at 11:51 am

Yes I am. I am totally amazed at the Universe. So much so that I cannot conceive of it as being self-existent, or having come from no where and nothing. Therefore I worship its Creator.

This is the usual appeal to Irrefutable Perplexity (what I say is true because you can't prove it isn't, and what you say is wrong because I don't understand it). In this case the first part is implied: "You can't prove there was no Creator," but the second part is obvious.

478. Fleabytes

Comment #141564 by Quine on March 10, 2008 at 4:22 pm

Screwtape: "Above all, do not attempt to use science (I mean, the real sciences) as a defence against Christianity. They will positively encourage him to think about realities he can't touch and see."

Yes, the character fits well, but the public would not likely recognize him.

479. Fleabytes

Comment #141558 by Quine on March 10, 2008 at 3:55 pm

Cartomancer, as an old P. of P. fan, I also want to express my most sincere admiration.

On a somewhat related issue, I think it would be good to get some C. S. Lewis into the satire as well. He really is one of the props of our fleas. Perhaps one or more of his mythical characters could be included in the musical.

480. The Salamander's Tale

Comment #141383 by Quine on March 10, 2008 at 10:26 am

I initially thought the argument from banana was one of our guys making fun of creationist idiocy and making a straw man that would fall down on its own, but no, sadly they actually believe it.

Sufficiently advanced religious practice is indistinguishable from satire.

481. Out of the Blue

Comment #141049 by Quine on March 9, 2008 at 9:10 pm

Comment #141046 by corruptmemory:

... there is no general way to phrase the question properly ...

That is the case, at this time.

The Turing Test was about machines playing the Imitation Game well enough to be mistaken for a thinking person. It was about the question of thinking, not quite as far along as consciousness. Also, it is a one sided test; not passing does not mean you don't think. I suspect that if you put Kim Peek in the Turing Test against a regular person, he would be identified as the "computer" in a very few questions, every time.

It has been predicted that within the next 100 years some computer program will go to court to establish "personhood" as did the Aboriginal peoples you mentioned. My feeling is that they will be conscious when they can talk us into accepting that they are conscious, which is basically the same thing I have to do for you in this medium.

482. Out of the Blue

Comment #141036 by Quine on March 9, 2008 at 6:23 pm

Comment #141011 by Russell Blackford:

We seem to come with a built-in (presumably evolved) tendency to attribute consciousness to each other, ...

What is "built-in" is the ability to develop this. Developmental psychologists are hot on this trail because they can do experiments with children that yield consistent results. They would love to stick kid's heads into FMRI machines about once a week for a period of a couple of years, so that they could watch that dragon get up off the page. Current instrumentation makes this not feasible for human subjects, but I am sure it will be done to chimps.

The phylogenic problem (in which species does the dragon get, at least partially, off the page?) takes somewhat different approaches from the ontogenic problem (when/how in development of the individual does that happen?).

483. Fleabytes

Comment #141032 by Quine on March 9, 2008 at 5:48 pm

I don't expect to see any more visits to this thread by the flea circus. Perhaps it is time for Richard to compose Requiem for a Flea.

Thanks again to Paula for the thread that launched four thousand tips.

484. Out of the Blue

Comment #141004 by Quine on March 9, 2008 at 3:03 pm

I see where you are coming from, but building higher and higher, and invoking loops still sounds to me like that Escher dragon, trying harder and harder, but still remaining in the two dimensions of neural representation and not getting even the slightest bit into the third dimension of feeling.

Well, they call it the "hard" problem. Some argue along these lines that we can intrinsically never get a third-person description/explanation of first-person subjectivity. I think we do have this for species far enough back in evolution. I do not see an intrinsic problem with marching forward, although the practical problem of the complexity is another thing.

Stay tuned; this will go on ...

P.S. I suggest Steve Grand's book Creation: Life and How to Make It for a look at work going on in synthetic feelings.

485. Out of the Blue

Comment #141003 by Quine on March 9, 2008 at 2:55 pm

Until the moment when creature A must provoke in creature B, who doesn't see the tiger, the impending experience of the tiger.

Yes, and then another layer has the opportunity to enable the tiger to act so as to prevent A (models minds of both A and B). And so it goes, layer upon layer, until we get to us trying to take us (and/or our future us) into consideration.

486. Out of the Blue

Comment #140998 by Quine on March 9, 2008 at 2:36 pm

My hunch [speculation] is that it came from an arms race in which organisms evolved more and more complex neuro representations of what the competition was going to do next. This involved mirroring the motivation. In order to do this better, it was useful to have a model of how feelings worked in the "other." If you keep building this higher and higher, I suspect it loops back on itself, and you have a feeling of existence, and "something it is like to be."[/speculation]

487. Out of the Blue

Comment #140994 by Quine on March 9, 2008 at 2:17 pm

Evolution does not select for minds that work with fear as an abstraction; selection goes with those who feel the motivation to run like hell when faced with the tiger. Being eaten by the tiger is an occupational hazard for the Zen master sitting in the forest (but would not matter from that viewpoint).

488. Out of the Blue

Comment #140876 by Quine on March 9, 2008 at 12:57 am

If you have an artificial heart it won't be inherited by your child.

Not if, somehow, the technology to make artificial hearts collapses before my child needs one, else, yes, we pass on not only our genes but our technical capabilities as well. The line blurs. Technology facilitates things like genetic counseling which impacts the germ line.

We are defined by our limitations. Yet we push these limitations relentlessly through advancing knowledge and instrumentality. There need be no goal to change; it is just what happens.

489. Out of the Blue

Comment #140868 by Quine on March 9, 2008 at 12:04 am

Every species is an intermediate, unless it leaves no descendants. Homo sapiens sapiens is an intermediate to something else if not the end of a branch. We are making progress in the fight against genetic disease while producing new internal and external prosthetics every day. People are walking around with implanted computers regulating their hearts and preventing runaway neuro storms in their brains. Human evolution has started the transition from Darwinian to Lamarckian. There is no end in sight.

490. Out of the Blue

Comment #140864 by Quine on March 8, 2008 at 11:30 pm

Bonzai:

I recommend Dan Dennett's "Consciousness Explained"

What a pompous title. I always think that that man can use a little humility.

Have you read it?

491. Fleabytes

Comment #140671 by Quine on March 8, 2008 at 10:02 am

Comment #140643 by whatthe..?!

Human consciousness requires a Sufficient Cause which must also be conscious and such a Being could be a Necessary one.

Embryology tells us that you were once a single cell comprising ions and molecules (materials). That cell collected more ions and molecules from its environment, and divided into more cells doing the same, until the collection comprised all the material that is you. What (and when) was the ion or molecule that was collected that tilted the scale over from a collection of material to a conscious being?

492. Fleabytes

Comment #140564 by Quine on March 7, 2008 at 9:44 pm

How come no matter how many posts i make it always says im a lurker or a newbie- i have lol obviously posted a billion times- am i doing something wrong? any clues?

Your designation is based on posts in the RD Forum, not on the comment threads.

493. Fleabytes

Comment #140555 by Quine on March 7, 2008 at 9:13 pm

robotaholic, I heard that this morning. It was great, and was being replayed from a previous show. They followed with a section from Francis Collins, I guess, for balance (as if ).

494. Fleabytes

Comment #140038 by Quine on March 7, 2008 at 12:04 am

Steve:

I owe MPhil an awful lot as well, for teaching me a huge amount, including the right words for what I don't seem to accept :)

Just hang in there and keep thinking. If you push too hard and fast you can burn out on concepts you have not given a chance. MPhil seems to be serving you well.

495. Lords Approve Abolition Of Blasphemy

Comment #139748 by Quine on March 6, 2008 at 1:05 pm

I am surprised Prof. Dawkins' remarks about the "victimless crime" bumper sticker were not read out in this 'debate.'

496. Fleabytes

Comment #139698 by Quine on March 6, 2008 at 12:08 pm

Tolerance compared to what? I suspect Atheists in Saudi Arabia would be jumping for joy if they could move up the scale from beheading to tolerance (same for homosexuals in Iran). Of course, then they would still get in trouble for the "jumping for joy" part.

497. Fleabytes

Comment #139377 by Quine on March 5, 2008 at 5:01 pm

Comment #139346 by Steve Zara

Well, I am still stuck with the issue that it feels like something to have those processes going on.

I blame it on evolution. Thomas Metzinger asks us which is evolution going to select: Protohuman1, "There is an iconic representation of a wolf associated with this point in my visual cortex" or Protohuman2, "There's a wolf."

498. Fleabytes

Comment #139275 by Quine on March 5, 2008 at 1:13 pm

The bogus thing about Mary that has always bothered me is the idea that someone who was raised from before birth in a world without color, would develop the same neurostructures to experience color as someone from the 'normal' world. This is assumed in the thought experiment at the point when Mary, supposedly, gets to directly experience color vision. A good philosophical lawyer would jump up and object: "Assumes facts not in evidence" (oops, there's that 'evidence' thingy again).

499. Fleabytes

Comment #139185 by Quine on March 5, 2008 at 9:07 am

Hi Steve,

At what point in your personal development from a single cell do you think there became something like it to experience the color red?

500. Fleabytes

Comment #138913 by Quine on March 5, 2008 at 12:16 am

Steve, does it seem to you that other people could be 'just' the result of the actions of their neurons?