Originally Posted by Brian Rush

To posit a religious-type explanation for the origin of life is not to properly insist that the subjective aspects of life are outside science's purview, because that is an objective question. The only sort of religious explanation for the origin of life is a supernatural one: an intrusion into a natural process by something magical and impossible to understand that goes ZAP! and turns the nonliving into the living.

That kind of thing is not properly in the domain of religion. It is properly in the domain of science. And so it is religion, not science, that is here stepping outside its proper sphere and interfering where it should not.

I think it is. Biology can't really tell how life evolves, because it can't tell everything about this. Supernatural processes "intruding" into a natural one means we have a too-narrow view of what is "natural," as I think you do. The "laws of nature" are really just laws of technology, and were constructed for the purpose of developing such technology. Science can't understand what appears to it to be "zap, supernatural," (or more-properly called, the spontaneous); it is outside the range of science's purview. For science to deny (or affirm) the existence of such "magic" is intrusion. It should just describe and coherently relate what it observes. That it can't observe this magic (not your definition, reducing it to a physical process, but what you said above) does not give it the right to deny it; just to deny that it can describe it. As long as science pursues its studies and observations, it is not intruding; when it draws conclusions about the nature and origin of things, it is speculating and that is all, and so it is intruding where it doesn't belong. Biology can say nothing about life. That is just a false hope, a forlorn dream.

Of course it can. If you go back far enough, you come to a question outside scientific competence, such as "Why does anything exist in the first place?" But that doesn't mean that science can't claim to know the origins of anything. It means science can't claim to know the origins of everything. And that's true. But the origin of life on Earth is not the origin of everything, and that is a question science can answer.

Problem is, "origins" don't go back in time; they are also now, and going on now. So science can't describe "origins" of anything. It can only describe the observed facts and the history, which does include transitions from one species to another, and from non-living to living, etc.. It only stays on the surface of what can be described empirically. It does not describe what is actually going on.

So...perhaps the next saeculum will spawn technologies that could be described as quasi-organic or quasi-biological?

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

I think it's obvious that a human is not a machine. Unitary consciousness has nothing to do with it, nor any kind of phobia. A machine is a tool. The locus of intention and sentience is in the human using the tool. All that follows from the nature of the two kinds of being we are discussing.

"I think it's obvious" is not an argument, it is a fallacious appeal to credulity.

I gave the reasons, having to do with the circular structure in colors, the fact that only certain exact shades are primary, that they come in a fixed sequence, and that all possible combinations of color are included. There, I said it again for you! But these it is true are not me getting into the head of another person and seeing as (s)he sees. I don't doubt that's possible, if as you agree "unitary consciousness" is the fact, but it is certainly rare.
Yes, but the fact that these patterns exist is not an empirical fact, but implies that the idea of archetypes is a valid aspect of how we describe reality. How else can you account for the existence of these patterns, assuming they are to have any validity at all? That's what I am saying; not going all the way with Plato and saying everything is a reflection of these Forms, and they can be known by pure reason alone.

That's better. But you haven't shown to be the case that my examples are limited to a particular human culture; you just assume that's true.


Might, but I think the facts indicate otherwise. We don't know that any differences are not due to mere inadequacy of the other perceiver's equipment. We may see more or fewer colors than an animal; that doesn't say anything about the colors. There is no color that can be seen by any conscious being that is not part of the color system we know, because that's the nature of color as I mention above.


No, it only means they see wavelengths we don't see. Color is not equal to wavelength; that's just a materialist assumption. I'm talking about the Form; the actual color. I think color is an archetype, based on what I know. If there's truly more that I don't know, and I discover this, I would change my mind. My proposal is not that my knowledge is infallible. But I don't assume there's more, just because I am a human being and not an AI, animal, angel or what have you. The colors we see are the only ones we can verify, so that's the only basis for our knowledge about colors, not an assumption that some other being might see something else.

We have a different view of it then (and it proves you don't understand ). What I'm talking about, again, is an idea that arises from the experience, that the experiential and the rational are fused. The former is also related to the feminine aspects and the latter to the male. Those are symbols and ideas that alchemists use in their description. Other spiritual experiences don't use those symbols. If you are saying that all spiritual experiences are the same, because it's only about unitary consciousness, I don't go along with that; there are some differences in different traditions in what is experienced and described, although that aspect is always there too.

I think you are engaging in intellectual arrogance, here. IMO, as I believe I said earlier, the "whys" of why our experience of color the way we do is one of those things that cannot be explained, since the only quality we ourselves can experience are our own. We can speculate how another person experiences "red", but we cannot know.

Originally Posted by Odin

I think you are engaging in intellectual arrogance, here. IMO, as I believe I said earlier, the "whys" of why our experience of color the way we do is one of those things that cannot be explained, since the only quality we ourselves can experience are our own. We can speculate how another person experiences "red", but we cannot know.

If we have working equipment, we all can perceive all the colors. What is different might be only which ones we call what. Besides merely different names, there is one correct red (which we can't actually see) because that's the shade that combines with yellow to produce orange, and is located at a particular place on the color wheel.

Originally Posted by summer in the fall

That misses the point. What you are basically saying is that because the indigenous population of the United States fought back the settlers, there was hostility on both sides. But again, like I said...whatever...

Don't you think calling people infidels and of the Devil, and morally corrupting, and prohibiting them from teaching their knowledge as they see fit, is rather hostile?

But like you say, the war goes on. I don't see the two sides backing off anytime soon, as the posts here confirm.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

They are describing experience; that is saying something indeed.

Yeah, like, "Man, that band's sound is awesome." Grooving at a concert, like I said. It's still not philosophy. Mind you I don't know if that's what phenomenologists are really about; I tend to doubt it.

I think it's obvious that a human is not a machine.

How many times now in this discussion have you said that? And what have I answered every time?

OF COURSE a human is not a machine, but THAT'S NOT THE QUESTION. We are discussing whether beings that are NOT HUMAN (please note that acknowledgement) can be sentient, intelligent, and conscious.

Now, PLEASE don't bring up "machines are not human" again, OK? We agree on that, it's totally obvious, and it's totally irrelevant to what we're talking about.

No, seeing an aura is literally seeing an aura around a person, the energy field is there. You don't know that?

Neither do you. You only think you do, and you're wrong. What we know -- the FACTS of the matter (everything else is theory) is that some people can look at a person and see a pattern of colored light around a person, and derive true information from this. We know the information is true not from the aura itself but by confirming it by reference to other sources of information. That what is seen is an "energy field" is not a fact, it is a theory explaining the facts, it is not directly observed, it has never been independently confirmed, and there is no reason to believe that it's true.

As I said earlier, the information derived from seeing auras is no better -- no truer, no more complete -- than information derived from other manifestations of psychic ability. Auras are not real, they are imaginary, meaning they are seen in the mind but not in the eyes.

I gave the reasons, having to do with the circular structure in colors, the fact that only certain exact shades are primary, that they come in a fixed sequence, and that all possible combinations of color are included.

All of which are completely dependent on the limitations of human color perception. They are, at best, human-specific, and thus not universal.

Yes, but the fact that these patterns exist is not an empirical fact, but implies that the idea of archetypes is a valid aspect of how we describe reality. How else can you account for the existence of these patterns, assuming they are to have any validity at all?

To the extent they are valid, then they describe patterns in human cognition and perception.

That's better. But you haven't shown to be the case that my examples are limited to a particular human culture; you just assume that's true.

Nothing easier. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color_term

Originally Posted by Wikipedia

Different cultures have different terms for colors, and may also assign some color terms to slightly different parts of the human color space: for instance, the Chinese character 青 (pronounced qīng in Mandarin and ao in Japanese) has a meaning that covers both blue and green; blue and green are traditionally considered shades of "青." In more contemporary terms, they are 藍 (lán, in Mandarin) and 綠 (lǜ, in Mandarin) respectively. Japanese also has two terms that refer specifically to the color green, 綠 (midori which is derived from the classical Japanese descriptive verb midoru 'to be in leaf, to flourish' in reference to trees) and グリーン (guriin, which is derived from the English word 'green'). However, in Japan, although the traffic lights have the same colors that other countries' have, the green light is described using the same word as for blue, "aoi", because green is considered a shade of aoi; similarly, green variants of certain fruits and vegetables such as green apples, green shiso (as opposed to red apples and red shiso) will be described with the word "aoi".
Similarly, languages are selective when deciding which hues are split into different colors on the basis of how light or dark they are. English splits some hues into several distinct colors according to lightness: such as red and pink or orange and brown. To English speakers, these pairs of colors, which are objectively no more different from one another than light green and dark green, are conceived of as belonging to different categories.^[1] A Russian will make the same red-pink and orange-brown distinctions, but will also make a further distinction between sinii and goluboi, which English speakers would simply call dark and light blue. To Russian speakers, sinii and goluboi are as separate as red and pink or orange and brown.^[2]
Hungarian and Turkish have two words for "red": piros and vörös- vörös is a darker red (Hungarian), and kırmızı and al (Turkish). Turkish also has two words for "white": beyaz and ak. Similarly, Irish uses two words for green: glas denotes the green color of plants, while uaithne describes artificial greens of dyes, paints etc. This distinction is made even if two shades are identical.

All it took was a Google search.

Might, but I think the facts indicate otherwise. We don't know that any differences are not due to mere inadequacy of the other perceiver's equipment. We may see more or fewer colors than an animal; that doesn't say anything about the colors. There is no color that can be seen by any conscious being that is not part of the color system we know, because that's the nature of color as I mention above.

What is "color" anyway? It's an intersection of the brain/eye system and a wavelength of light. The wavelength of light per se is not a color, although it's part of the model for how colors happen. Color is the subjective experience of seeing that wavelength of light. As an objective concept, it has no meaning and no reality. "If a tree falls in the forest, and no one is there to hear, is there a sound?" The answer is no. There might well be vibrations, which are part of the model we use to explain the experience of sound, but sound as such requires someone to hear. Similarly, without an eye/brain/optic nerve setup there is no such thing as color, and without the specific human eye/brain/optic nerve setup there might be color but it would not be color as we know it.

To say that no consciousness can have an experience of color that humans don't is ridiculous. You have no basis to make that assertion, and it makes no sense at all. Essentially, you are saying that a bird with a spectrum range beyond ours, when viewing reflected ultraviolet light (which is invisible to us) will see it as the same color as some other wavelength of light that we can see. Which would mean that the bird's extra range of perception provides it no benefit, therefore it would not evolve, and therefore the bird can't see in the ultraviolet. But it can. And therefore you are, and must be, wrong.

Here, I suggest you check this out before going further: http://www.bristol.ac.uk/biology/res...vision/4d.html

No, it only means they see wavelengths we don't see. Color is not equal to wavelength; that's just a materialist assumption.

You're grasping at straws, Eric. Color is not equal to wavelength, but it is determined by wavelength. Plenty of tests to show this. When the wavelength of reflected light is one wavelength, we see it as one color, and when it's another wavelength we see it as another. (Color is not equal to wavelength for the reason stated above: without a brain/eye or equivalent means of converting light into information there is no color, although there is wavelength; color is our subjective experience of wavelength.)

If some creature such as a bird sees a wavelength of light that we cannot, the reasonable assumption is that it sees a different color, especially if (as diurnal birds can) it also sees all of the wavelengths we CAN see. And that pretty much blows all your claims about colors being archetypes, except in the strictly limited sense that this may say something about the way the human mind works.

I'm talking about the Form; the actual color. I think color is an archetype, based on what I know. If there's truly more that I don't know, and I discover this, I would change my mind.

Great! I just presented you with links to some knowledge that you obviously don't have. Check it out, please.

What I'm talking about, again, is an idea that arises from the experience

All ideas about mystical experience of any kind that can be expressed in language are, at best, metaphors. Attempting to understand the process from the language without first unergoing the process is doomed to failure.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Biology can't really tell how life evolves, because it can't tell everything about this.

Yes, it can, for all relevant purposes. It can tell everything that impacts "this" as a cause. The aspects that it can't tell, which I described above, are not relevant to the explanation of how life began. They are relevant to what life means, how it should be lived, what the "good life" is, and all those questions which are not questions of objective fact and are therefore outside the purview of science. But the question of how life began is an objective question of fact and therefore within science's purview.

Supernatural processes "intruding" into a natural one means we have a too-narrow view of what is "natural," as I think you do.

If you are suggesting a natural process that is currently not understood by science and which played a part in the origins of life, then you are engaging in science, not religion. If, however, you are asserting this from a religious motivation rather than a scientific one, then almost certainly what you are asserting IS supernatural.

I know you don't like to use that label, but anything which is inherently outside the framework of natural law -- by which I mean not just natural law as currently understood, but any natural law that could possibly be understood within the paradigm of scientific method -- is supernatural. The shoe fits, even if it pinches.

Science can't understand what appears to it to be "zap, supernatural," (or more-properly called, the spontaneous); it is outside the range of science's purview. For science to deny (or affirm) the existence of such "magic" is intrusion. It should just describe and coherently relate what it observes.

And if it observes that life began on earth billions of years ago under conditions X, Y, and Z, and presents all the factors that were present in that which it is able to understand, and demonstrates both mathematically and (in the end) experimentally that these factors are sufficient to generate biological life, you will object. This is what you are doing: arbitrarily denying to science an area of exploration because you want to hold onto an idea that is precious to you. But there is no valid reason to do this. Either there is evidence of some other factor involved in the origin of life or there is not. Either we can successfully model the origin of life without reference to such factors or we can't. So far, there is no such evidence. So far, we have not created such a model that is satisfactory, or at least not proven it experimentally. However, to say that we never will, and get upset when people try, is completely out of line.

Problem is, "origins" don't go back in time; they are also now, and going on now.

Incorrect. Life began on Earth billions of years ago. The theoretical conditions necessary for abiogenesis no longer exist on this planet; they have been altered by the action of life itself. The process is NOT going on now, unless it is happening on some other planet.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Originally Posted by summer in the fall

That misses the point. What you are basically saying is that because the indigenous population of the United States fought back the settlers, there was hostility on both sides. But again, like I said...whatever...

Don't you think calling people infidels and of the Devil, and morally corrupting, and prohibiting them from teaching their knowledge as they see fit, is rather hostile?

How is the knowledge of science being prevented from being taught? Last I checked, Catholic schools still had science education. What I do not see is science and technology schools incorporating religion in their curricula. Sorry, man. There's no symmetry here. Cheers.

Originally Posted by summer in the fall

How is the knowledge of science being prevented from being taught? Last I checked, Catholic schools still had science education. What I do not see is science and technology schools incorporating religion in their curricula. Sorry, man. There's no symmetry here. Cheers.

Universities have religion classes. Science just needs to stop claiming more than it knows. And religion too.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Universities have religion classes.

Originally Posted by summer in the fall

What I do not see is science and technology schools incorporating religion in their curricula

All students from K to college are required to take science classes. There is no symmetry. Best...

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion."

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Yeah, like, "Man, that band's sound is awesome." Grooving at a concert, like I said. It's still not philosophy. Mind you I don't know if that's what phenomenologists are really about; I tend to doubt it.

They describe things. That has nothing to do with rock concerts. They use philosophical terms, not groovy.

OF COURSE a human is not a machine, but THAT'S NOT THE QUESTION. We are discussing whether beings that are NOT HUMAN (please note that acknowledgement) can be sentient, intelligent, and conscious.

The problem is machines cannot be those things, and still be machines. So it's not irrelevant at all. You don't seem to know the difference.

some people can look at a person and see a pattern of colored light around a person, and derive true information from this.

That's right

We know the information is true not from the aura itself but by confirming it by reference to other sources of information. That what is seen is an "energy field" is not a fact, it is a theory explaining the facts, it is not directly observed, it has never been independently confirmed, and there is no reason to believe that it's true.

As I said earlier, the information derived from seeing auras is no better -- no truer, no more complete -- than information derived from other manifestations of psychic ability. Auras are not real, they are imaginary, meaning they are seen in the mind but not in the eyes.

They are seen by the mind (and probably to some extent by the eyes), but that means they are perceived, not imagined.

All of which are completely dependent on the limitations of human color perception. They are, at best, human-specific, and thus not universal.

Again, the argument from perception is the least convincing of all possible arguments. Some perceive better than others; but that doesn't change what we see. Your link is nonsense. It is correct in that it shows how color is propagated to our brain; that is all. Parts of an eye evolve in order to see the colors; the colors don't evolve because of new parts of an eye that evolve.

To the extent they are valid, then they describe patterns in human cognition and perception.

But what accounts for the existence of the patterns? I say it's the formal cause.

btw, Aristotle was right; our narrow modernist views are wrong. We moderns are narrow utilitarians, deaf and blind to the most important things in life. The way we treat the world proves it. New paradigms are needed, and are being proposed. The modern enlightenment view is bankrupt. Platonism goes against modernist common sense; modernist common sense is foolish and stupid.

What is "color" anyway? It's an intersection of the brain/eye system and a wavelength of light. The wavelength of light per se is not a color, although it's part of the model for how colors happen. Color is the subjective experience of seeing that wavelength of light. As an objective concept, it has no meaning and no reality. "If a tree falls in the forest, and no one is there to hear, is there a sound?" The answer is no. There might well be vibrations, which are part of the model we use to explain the experience of sound, but sound as such requires someone to hear. Similarly, without an eye/brain/optic nerve setup there is no such thing as color, and without the specific human eye/brain/optic nerve setup there might be color but it would not be color as we know it.

To say that no consciousness can have an experience of color that humans don't is ridiculous. You have no basis to make that assertion, and it makes no sense at all. Essentially, you are saying that a bird with a spectrum range beyond ours, when viewing reflected ultraviolet light (which is invisible to us) will see it as the same color as some other wavelength of light that we can see. Which would mean that the bird's extra range of perception provides it no benefit, therefore it would not evolve, and therefore the bird can't see in the ultraviolet. But it can. And therefore you are, and must be, wrong.

No, that's all wrong; all based on invalid materialist assumptions. The bird would see things that we cannot see, because it sees more wavelengths. That is useful, but it does not imply that the bird sees a different color. There ARE no other colors. My basis for saying so, is the basis that all we can verify is what we experience. We experience all colors classified and organized in the way they are. You can't show me any others, so no others can be assumed. Wavelengths are not colors; eyes are not colors. Colors are objective Forms because they show formal characteristics.

Eyes and nerves and brains never see anything at all. We can't go too far without getting into our basic disagreements, which we've avoided until now. Do I need to restate them for you? We can't resolve those in a dialogue. It is up to us if we wish to pursue our knowledge further, each in his own way and time.

If some creature such as a bird sees a wavelength of light that we cannot, the reasonable assumption is that it sees a different color, especially if (as diurnal birds can) it also sees all of the wavelengths we CAN see. And that pretty much blows all your claims about colors being archetypes, except in the strictly limited sense that this may say something about the way the human mind works.

That is only an assumption, and it's not reasonable at all, as I stated in my last post.

All ideas about mystical experience of any kind that can be expressed in language are, at best, metaphors. Attempting to understand the process from the language without first undergoing the process is doomed to failure.

Agreed.

Originally Posted by summer in the fall

All students from K to college are required to take science classes. There is no symmetry. Best...

You have a point there. Science has more prestige in society today than religion, at least in the academy; although religion still has its sphere of influence. There is symmetry, though, in the level of vitriol and ignorance on both sides; the attempt to supress the other exists on both sides.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

They describe things. That has nothing to do with rock concerts. They use philosophical terms, not groovy.

If all they're doing is describing things, they might as well be using "groovy."

The problem is machines cannot be those things, and still be machines.

In that case, by definition, AI are no longer "machines." Problem solved, except we need a new word.

They are seen by the mind (and probably to some extent by the eyes), but that means they are perceived, not imagined.

Not by the eyes at all. And what I mean by "imaginary" is something that takes the subjective form normal for sensory experience but is not in fact sensory experience. Remember, for me "imaginary" is not a pejorative, and "perceived" and "imagined" are not mutually-exclusive categories. The point is that auras are not perceived literally by SIGHT.

But what accounts for the existence of the patterns?

The same thing that accounts for the existence of comparable patterns in our bone structure, our DNA, the growth of leaves, etc.

There ARE no other colors.

Prove it.

That WE don't see any other colors proves nothing.

My basis for saying so, is the basis that all we can verify is what we experience.

We are not the only creatures in the universe. This is a form of solipsistic argument, not entirely so because it recognizes the subjective existence of other human beings, but suffering from the same flaws.

Eyes and nerves and brains never see anything at all.

There's a simple experiment that will prove this statement wrong: close your eyes.

Eric, what it comes down to is that you are in love with the idea of Platonic forms, and you will not fairly consider any arguments opposed to them. You go to ridiculous extremes of irrationality, denying that the ability to perceive wavelengths of light we cannot implies the ability to see colors we cannot when any person not motivated the same way you are would see that as the most obvious and likely hypothesis. You contend against it with a fallacious argument from ignorance (that it cannot be finally proven by showing you the colors means you may reject the idea), and deny knowledge that has been understood in science for literally centuries in order to maintain it. You even go so far as to make a statement like "our eyes never see anything," which is so preposterous you should have been embarrassed to say it.

When I asked you to explain what you believed, I guess I was kind of hoping for something coherent and potentially informative, but this is drivel.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

You have a point there. Science has more prestige in society today than religion, at least in the academy; although religion still has its sphere of influence. There is symmetry, though, in the level of vitriol and ignorance on both sides; the attempt to supress the other exists on both sides.

On surface value that makes sense. But my original contention was that this asymmetry was fueling the fire. Religion has already given up ground in society and accepts science's value and necessity. Science needs to develop some respect for religion and then much of that reflexive vitriol will disappear. Peace.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

the question of how life began is an objective question of fact and therefore within science's purview.

Only as a descriptive history of what happened; not any supposed "cause" of life; there is no such thing.

I know you don't like to use that label, but anything which is inherently outside the framework of natural law -- by which I mean not just natural law as currently understood, but any natural law that could possibly be understood within the paradigm of scientific method -- is supernatural. The shoe fits, even if it pinches.

The paradigm of the scientific method is very narrowly confined, as it exists today. It can't possibly understand things at all. Supernatural just means it goes beyond what science in its empirical form can understand about "nature." That means very little; it's just a commentary on the narrowness of that method. Natural laws are laws of technology. They were created so we can master the world and use it for our ends. That's all the modernist sensibility cares about.

And if it observes that life began on earth billions of years ago under conditions X, Y, and Z, and presents all the factors that were present in that which it is able to understand, and demonstrates both mathematically and (in the end) experimentally that these factors are sufficient to generate biological life, you will object.

There would still be the doubt that what was repeated in an experiment, is what happened or could have happened in the past. In addition it cannot understand any factor that generates life, let alone all of them; it can only claim to, in the process of its observation of what happened, using its narrow methods. But the claims are invalid; only the description of what happened is valid.

This is what you are doing: arbitrarily denying to science an area of exploration because you want to hold onto an idea that is precious to you. But there is no valid reason to do this. Either there is evidence of some other factor involved in the origin of life or there is not. Either we can successfully model the origin of life without reference to such factors or we can't. So far, there is no such evidence. So far, we have not created such a model that is satisfactory, or at least not proven it experimentally. However, to say that we never will, and get upset when people try, is completely out of line.

I am "denying to science" (to the extent I have the power to do that ) the "right" to declare, based on its findings, that it knows the nature and origin of life; not the right to explore what conditions and events happened at any time, but their mis-interpretation based on their desire to replace religion and its account of "creation." However faulty such an account is (e.g. the Bible's mythical account), science can't replace it with an account in which creation has no part, and then claim it has accounted for it. Science could never describe or account for any such factor, because that is beyond its ability to do. That does not mean it isn't there; it means science is out of its range if it tries.

Incorrect. Life began on Earth billions of years ago. The theoretical conditions necessary for abiogenesis no longer exist on this planet; they have been altered by the action of life itself. The process is NOT going on now, unless it is happening on some other planet.

That's true enough. But in the philosophical sense, the process of creation is ongoing. Specific events don't repeat, but the big bang is happening now, and the origin of life is happening now. Science can't see things from this larger perspective; it can't understand creation, at any time. Since it can't, it should not claim the knowledge of philosophy, that it knows (in other words) the origin and nature of things or how things are created. It does not know this at all.

Originally Posted by summer in the fall

On surface value that makes sense. But my original contention was that this asymmetry was fueling the fire. Religion has already given up ground in society and accepts science's value and necessity. Science needs to develop some respect for religion and then much of that reflexive vitriol will disappear. Peace.

We could hope indeed! But given the Tea Party types (they are the same folks as the fundamentalists in politics) and how they behave, and how they are holding back our country, I don't have much confidence that their vitriol is merely defensive. I could hold out that hope though, I guess; strange as it seems now, given the behavior of the right-wing today.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

If all they're doing is describing things, they might as well be using "groovy."

Why can't they use philosophical terms? Which they in fact do?

In that case, by definition, AI are no longer "machines." Problem solved, except we need a new word.

Well, that's true!

Not by the eyes at all. And what I mean by "imaginary" is something that takes the subjective form normal for sensory experience but is not in fact sensory experience. Remember, for me "imaginary" is not a pejorative, and "perceived" and "imagined" are not mutually-exclusive categories. The point is that auras are not perceived literally by SIGHT.

I'm not so sure about that.

The same thing that accounts for the existence of comparable patterns in our bone structure, our DNA, the growth of leaves, etc.

Which is?

That WE don't see any other colors proves nothing.

It is all the evidence we have. We have no other evidence. Remember I said I was using an empirical (philosophical) method.

There's a simple experiment that will prove this statement wrong: close your eyes.

Yeah, the light is not on when I close the refrigerator door. I know the routine.
What I know now, in addition, is that when I DO see it, the light has its own properties (meaning the color of the light I see), which tell me something about their universality; the patterns you speak of. Color is a closed system; no other color could even be imagined that is not part of the circle, and the combinations of the colors in it.

Eric, what it comes down to is that you are in love with the idea of Platonic forms,

Again, introducing your analysis of my feelings is a non-starter. Remember I started out as a complete skeptic about Forms.

and you will not fairly consider any arguments opposed to them. You go to ridiculous extremes of irrationality, denying that the ability to perceive wavelengths of light we cannot implies the ability to see colors we cannot when any person not motivated the same way you are would see that as the most obvious and likely hypothesis. You contend against it with a fallacious argument from ignorance (that it cannot be finally proven by showing you the colors means you may reject the idea), and deny knowledge that has been understood in science for literally centuries in order to maintain it. You even go so far as to make a statement like "our eyes never see anything," which is so preposterous you should have been embarrassed to say it.

Our consciousness sees it (here we go again??? )

When I asked you to explain what you believed, I guess I was kind of hoping for something coherent and potentially informative, but this is drivel.

It goes against your world view. For you, perception is primary, and physical. But sorry, I thought you might be interested, even if you don't buy it. I didn't expect you would. There are other viewpoints besides your own. You aren't considering my arguments either, I don't think. You still have something to pursue though, regarding the idea of "patterns." Again, if you account for them physically, you are just saying they don't exist.

btw I looked at your link some more. I understand how much you respect the work of scientists. The knowledge about the different cones of different species, and how it affects evolution through sexual attraction, and so on, is fine information, and it's interesting. What I notice as a non-materialist philosopher is how full the article is of these materialist ideas. They sound like John Locke and his nonsense about primary and secondary qualities. The qualities they say are objective, are if anything far more subjective and interpretative than colors are. Both primary and secondary would seem to me to be archetypal anyway. This analysis of the tools and mechanics of perception tell us nothing about colors themselves. It just transfers the discussion about what colors exist and why, inside to the eye instead of outside on the objects we see. The point you miss is that it makes no difference. Why those colors? Why are some of them primary, whether an animal has two, three or four of them? Why should we imagine that a UV wave produces a color we haven't seen? Why not just another hue of purple? What else could exist between purple and red on the color wheel? It is continuous.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

We could hope indeed!

We know indeed. I'm in no doubt.

But given the Tea Party types (they are the same folks as the fundamentalists in politics) and how they behave, and how they are holding back our country, I don't have much confidence that their vitriol is merely defensive.

Do you not have any religious people in your family? Or conservatives? Have you never had any libertarian friends? This is just distortion and hyperbole fueled by the balkanization of the media. If I could recommend anything, it would be to stop watching TV and listening to talk radio. These are just regular folks trying to survive. As our economy improves (and it will) this perceived paranoia will peel away. In the meantime, do yourself a fever and not take everything so seriously.

I could hold out that hope though...

Good idea. Make that your mantra. Cheers.

Originally Posted by summer in the fall

These are just regular folks trying to survive. As our economy improves (and it will) this perceived paranoia will peel away.

They are hooked, line and sinker, on a rigid ideology.

But I'll hold the hope.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

They are hooked, line and sinker, on a rigid ideology.

But I'll hold the hope.

I agree with you Eric.
I've seen bad times come and go since the oil embargo of 1973.
If hate were just a matter those on hard luck looking for someone to blame the economic boom periods from 1984 to 1989 and again from about 1995 to 1999 would have been awakening like in their calls for brotherhood and understanding.

Instead, we got the culture war through good times and bad.
It's a lot deeper than simple economic fear.
Some people just hate. :

I sure wish people who put me on the ignore list would ignore my conversations as well...
Wages have been flat since the mid-seventies and the dismantling of America's infrastructure has been taking place since the 80's.

Anyway...

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

They are hooked, line and sinker, on a rigid ideology.

wrong broken record...

But I'll hold the hope.

right broken record...

Best...

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Why can't they use philosophical terms? Which they in fact do?

No reason they can't, but if all they're doing is describing experiences then they're not engaged in philosophy no matter what terms they use.

As I said, though, I'm not convinced that's really the case; I'm not familiar with phenomenology and thus in no place to say.

Well, that's true!

Good-o. Words are just tags. They have no inherent argument, and arguments by definition are always fallacious except when you're ONLY discussing the meaning of a word. What we mean by "machine" has certain common characteristics. It's created deliberately by an intelligence (human, so far, but it could be alien- or machine-made). Generally more complex than a "tool." You've introduced another feature which is common to machines so far, and made it part of your definition: a machine has no will of its own and exists only to serve the will of its creator. If that's the definition, then something which is deliberately created by an intelligence and more complicated than a tool, but which is also self-willed and self-aware, cannot be called a "machine." Nonetheless, it's still a complex mechanism deliberately created by an intelligence. So we are left with an AI as a quasi-machine (so to speak) which is self-willed and self-aware. The definition you have presented of "machine" does nothing towards arguing either that such a thing can't be built, or that if built it would not be conscious.

I'm not so sure about that.

Well, let's put it this way. We know how eyes work. We know that they perceive the visible spectrum of light. Using tests based on that understanding, we can determine that there is no aura to be seen -- in the literal sense of seeing with the eyes. If you want to claim to the contrary, you need to present an alternative theory of how the eyes work.

Preferably one that isn't nonsensical gobbledegook.

A little use of Occam's Razor here applied to the following facts:

1) An experience similar to seeing occurs.
2) It is not shared by all observers.
3) It is not a product of light entering the eye.
4) It provides real, confirmable information.
5) Other methods of psychic perception provide the same information without the experience of seeing.

Now, if we assume that this is real, true sight, we have to assume a whole level of quasi-reality on top of the one we all share, and the whole thing becomes top-heavy, cumbersome, utterly unelegant, and jury-rigged. OR, we can recognize that psychic perception may, in a visually-oriented person, manifest in the form of an experience similar to seeing, and call the entire experience psychically-informed imagination not unlike scrying or similar activities.

Which of course is what I do. Now, there is no final test to determine whether the jury-rigged Rube Goldberg contraption of the intellect necessary to uphold the we're-really-seeing-something model is false, any more than there is to determine that the similarly complex and unwieldy spheres within spheres of the Ptolemaic cosmology is false; after all, it's no more true to say that the earth orbits the sun than to say vice-versa. They orbit each other, actually, around a center that is deep within the interior of the sun. The heliocentric model is better because it requires fewer assumptions, is neater, and permits more in the way of predictions.

Which is?

Everything in the universe has structure, patterns, and organization. Actually, if you were a bit more open-minded and flexible, that might lead to some place where something like the idea of forms had some validity. The problem here is that you seem tied down to very crude ideas of exactly what the forms are.

It is all the evidence we have.

That's not true. We have proof, as I said, that diurnal birds see in a wider spectrum than we do, being able to see into the ultraviolet portion of the spectrum. You insist, without any good reason to do so, that a bird sees ultraviolet as the same color as one we see, but since the bird also sees every color that we see, how does it then distinguish between ultraviolet light and, say, purple light? Would they both seem purple? Is there some sort of truncation of the spectrum that can possibly be seen by anything regardless of its optical equipment? Why would you believe that? Other than that it's necessary in order to hold onto that other belief that you want to hang onto, which is of course an irrational reason.

Yeah, the light is not on when I close the refrigerator door. I know the routine.

What I know now, in addition, is that when I DO see it, the light has its own properties (meaning the color of the light I see), which tell me something about their universality; the patterns you speak of. Color is a closed system; no other color could even be imagined that is not part of the circle, and the combinations of the colors in it.

Wrong. All you can say is that YOU cannot imagine it. You can go further and say that, assuming all human beings have the same optical equipment you do, or nearly so (which we'll stipulate), no other HUMAN BEING can imagine it. But you have no way of making the same claim about a bird, or an alien whose native star puts out light with a different spectral range than ours.

I saw an article today talking about a planet that might be like that. It's in the habitability range around a star about 35 light years away. Hasn't been verified at this point that it has life, but if it does, and if that life has a visual sense, it will see colors differently than we do, because that star is cooler than ours and its light is somewhat red-shifted as a result. So most likely sighted animals would evolve there able to see into the infrared and not able to see into the blue end of the spectrum. It would be centered on the light that star is most generous in putting out. The most straightforward, logical, sensible idea about how such creatures would see is that they would see a color spectrum that is different from ours, assuming of course that they see colors at all (not all animals do).

Again, introducing your analysis of my feelings is a non-starter. Remember I started out as a complete skeptic about Forms.

I'll feel free to do it anyway. If you want to ignore it, that's your privilege.

Our consciousness sees it (here we go again??? )

(Sigh.) You know perfectly well that's a non-argument in this context; we certainly see WITH our eyes and are limited in our sight by what our eyes are capable of letting us see. If consciousness perceives anything by means other than the eyes (which is of course true; we do not for example hear with our eyes), it does not SEE in doing so.

It goes against your world view.

It does, but that's irrelevant here. What's important is that you find it necessary to uphold it using logical fallacies and absurd, straw-grabbing arguments. An example is your claim that because it's impossible to show you colors outside the ones we can see, they must not exist. This is a logical fallacy called "argument from ignorance," taking the form "because you can't disprove it, it is true." But that's not so.

Another example is your argument from the color wheel:

Why should we imagine that a UV wave produces a color we haven't seen? Why not just another hue of purple? What else could exist between purple and red on the color wheel? It is continuous.

But the color wheel is an artificial abstraction, like the alphabet, and does not encompass all possible colors any more than the alphabet encompasses all possible sounds. It could just as easily be arranged as a color line (and sometimes is). In reality, understanding that color is the way we see wavelengths of light, if the color wheel is taken as a representation of reality then it is false. Purple light does not run back to red light; it goes on to ultraviolet light. Red light does not swing back around to purple; it goes on to infrared. Light has a lower wavelength limit of zero (well, actually of Planck's constant) and an upper limit of infinity, and the visible spectrum is only a small part of this range. The fact that people have sometimes used the convention of the color wheel to visually display the range of visible colors does not mean anything. It's just a convention.

And this is the sort of thing I mean. When you have to use ridiculous arguments like this to uphold your position, it loses all value and all interest. And that's too bad, because I have a sense that if you were a little more open-minded, the general idea could lead to something that would be of interest.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Only as a descriptive history of what happened; not any supposed "cause" of life; there is no such thing.

You're introducing a non-scientific concept ("cause" as you mean that word) which is not and never has been a part of any scientific theory, and saying that science can't claim what it has never claimed, never will, and can't even conceive of claiming.

The paradigm of the scientific method is very narrowly confined, as it exists today. It can't possibly understand things at all. Supernatural just means it goes beyond what science in its empirical form can understand about "nature." That means very little; it's just a commentary on the narrowness of that method. Natural laws are laws of technology. They were created so we can master the world and use it for our ends. That's all the modernist sensibility cares about.

I appreciate your candor here, Eric. You have stated above -- don't bother to deny this -- that you are anti-science. No claims to the contrary will ever again be believed by me. That is your agenda. You wish to return to the times before the scientific method was discovered, and approach reality from a more academic perspective combined perhaps with a bit of mysticism. In answer to your paragraph above and its specific assertions:

The scientific method is indeed narrowly crafted and intended for a specific purpose: to create models of observable, objective, and preferably measurable reality. It can understand the way that observable, objective, and preferably measurable reality operates, and answer all questions that can be put into operational terms, which is to say all objective questions of fact about what can be observed. It cannot understand anything else, but that doesn't mean it can't understand "anything at all," merely that there are aspects of reality it can't understand and questions that it can't answer. Supernatural, as I'm using the word, describes an alleged fact or process in observable reality that cannot be accounted for using the scientific method, not only at present (there are many processes like that) but ever, in principle. We must proceed on the assumption that there are no such processes; to assume to the contrary is to give up on understanding how things work and fall back on "God did it." And finally, natural laws are not laws of technology. That is a side-effect of science, not its intent. There is much in basic scientific research that has no technological value at all. What science strives for is prediction: the ability to look at a process that has not been specifically seen before and predict how it will come out. That's the test of the validity of a scientific theory, NOT any technological applications.

There would still be the doubt that what was repeated in an experiment, is what happened or could have happened in the past. In addition it cannot understand any factor that generates life, let alone all of them; it can only claim to, in the process of its observation of what happened, using its narrow methods. But the claims are invalid; only the description of what happened is valid.

In any deep philosophical sense it is impossible ever to claim that anything causes anything. Actually that fact has been used by tobacco companies to claim that smoking doesn't "cause" cancer, with exactly the same validity that your argument here exhibits. It is indeed not possible to prove in any deep philosophical sense that smoking "causes" cancer; what can be proven, however, is that if you smoke, you will increase your risk of getting certain cancers as well as of other respiratory diseases. Cause, schmauze. Same here. If biologists had a good, workable, and demonstrated model of how life began (which they don't as yet, although they're getting closer), then it would show that under certain circumstances life could be expected to originate X% of the time. That's enough. That's really all that can ever be proven about any process. Causation, like the real, independent existence of physical reality, is something that can never be demonstrated -- and that doesn't matter.

I am "denying to science" (to the extent I have the power to do that ) the "right" to declare, based on its findings, that it knows the nature and origin of life

Since you are using the word "life" to mean something non-scientific, science is making no such claim -- it does not discuss what you mean by that word. And it carefully defines what it means by the word, so there can be no cause for confusion. You have no legitimate complaint here.

However faulty such an account is (e.g. the Bible's mythical account), science can't replace it with an account in which creation has no part, and then claim it has accounted for it.

Sure it can. There is no evidence anywhere in the known universe of direct creation of anything by any conscious intelligence, except for the creation on a small scale performed by intelligent animals (such as ourselves). All of the observable effects involved in the origin of life can be accounted for without resorting to that hypothesis. If there are non-observable effects in connection with life, that's something science can't talk about, doesn't talk about, and has no interest in; you are free to play with ideas about non-observable causes of these non-observable effects all you want, but they result in no legitimate complaint on your part. Science can, however, claim that there are no non-observable factors behind observable effects, and it does, and rightly so. (Of course, "non-observable" is not synonymous with "currently non-observed.")

The observable effects of life include organization, counter-entropic activity, replication, and purposeful behavior. Science deals only with these things (and any others I've erred in leaving out of the list). Other aspects of life are non-observable and therefore outside scientific competence. If you are claiming a divine (or whatever) element in connection with non-observable aspects of life, science has nothing to say on the subject and you have no legitimate complaint. If however you are claiming a divine (or whatever) element in connection with life's observable aspects, then you are intruding on science's proper sphere, and in that sphere it is right and you, if you disagree, are wrong. (Well -- unless you are doing good science and you happen to be right. But that's not the sense I'm getting.)

That's true enough. But in the philosophical sense, the process of creation is ongoing.

Not true, because there is no such thing as "the" philosophical sense, nor in the context of philosophy is there such a thing as "the" process of creation. All you can really say is that what YOU mean by creation is not temporally bound, but by the same token, you are not talking about what biologists mean when they say "the origin of life," and moreover they are very careful to define exactly what they do mean in operational terms, so that there is no excuse for confusion. And hence, you have no legitimate complaint, again.

Specific events don't repeat, but the big bang is happening now, and the origin of life is happening now.

No, the big bang isn't happening now, nor is the origin of terrestrial life (although the origin of life somewhere else may be). If you are speaking in any context where time has meaning, the big bang happened a very long time ago. If you are speaking in a context where time does not have meaning, neither does the word "now."

In any case, failure to deal with these concepts is not a legitimate complaint about science; that's not what science is for. Again, what scientists mean by the words they use is very carefully defined, and you have no excuse for confusion, and no cause for complaint.

Science does not and never has claimed to know what YOU mean by "the origin and nature of things or how things are created," and again, what science means by these phrases (to the extent it uses them at all) is carefully defined and there is no excuse for confusion, and no cause for complaint. One of two things is happening here. Either you are attributing to science claims that it is not making (due to a completely inexcusable confusion about language and terms, because again, all terms in science are carefully defined and there is no excuse for confusion), or you are yourself making a claim (such as that the observable attributes of life have a supernatural cause) which cannot be justified. In either case, the fault is yours, not that of science.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

I think it is. Biology can't really tell how life evolves, because it can't tell everything about this.

How so?

Supernatural processes "intruding" into a natural one means we have a too-narrow view of what is "natural,"

The notion of "supernatural" is a fallacious notion based on a dualistic belief system. For a monist everything is "natural".

The "laws of nature" are really just laws of technology, and were constructed for the purpose of developing such technology.

This is false. They are conceptual creations used to explain things.

Science can't understand what appears to it to be "zap, supernatural," (or more-properly called, the spontaneous), but in fact the magical in this sense DOES exist, and it is outside the range of science's purview. For science to deny (or affirm) the existence of such "magic" is intrusion. It should just describe and coherently relate what it observes. That it can't observe this magic (not your definition, reducing it to a physical process, but what you said above) does not give it the right to deny it; just to deny that it can describe it. As long as science pursues its studies and observations, it is not intruding; when it draws conclusions about the nature and origin of things, it is speculating and that is all, and so it is intruding where it doesn't belong. Biology can say nothing about life. That is just a false hope, a forlorn dream.

This is mere hand-waving with a bit of the "God of the Gaps" argument mixed in. Drawing conclusions from data is what science does.

Problem is, "origins" don't go back in time; they are also now, and going on now. So science can't describe "origins" of anything. It can only describe the observed facts and the history, which does include transitions from one species to another. It only stays on the surface of what can be described empirically. It does not describe what is actually going on.

You are not making any sense, here.