Having babies and caring for children. Does it really make any sense?
Offline If you'll notice, this post is in the Evolution forum. There's a good reason for that, which I will get to, but first I need to make a disclaimer. I've run off most of the people who think that having children is the purpose of life, and that people who decide not to are missing out on the essence of being. This post isn't about that sort of thing at all. I'm not worried about how you feel about whether or not people ought to be having babies in a particular situation.
With that out of the way, I want to ask a rather simple question that might turn out to be a lot more difficult than it seems:
Why should we care about having children, and having had them, why should we care about their lives?
I'll tackle the first part of the question first. It's patently obvious to us that we care about having children because that means we pass on our genes and we get to have a family, but that's missing the point. Why should that be important? There are lots of reasons people give for why it's important for humans to have babies:
* Because otherwise humanity would die off. (So what? We'll be dead, and won't witness it.)
* Because it gives us a sense of community. (Again, not necessary. Many people don't have children and still have plenty of community.)
* Because otherwise all of the great things humanity has done will go to waste. (What great things have we done? All of them are only relative to our own existence. We certainly haven't done much for the giant sloth.)
* Because we love somebody so much that we want to make babies with them. (This doesn't answer the question. It just restates it. Why do we want to make babies with someone we love?)
* Because of survival instinct. (Again... WHY? Why do we have survival instincts for children that aren't born yet? Why should we care about any future existence?)
* (The tour de force) Because it's sad not to have kids. (Duh.. WHY is it sad not to have kids?)
Again, before you accuse me of getting onto the childless bandwagon, that's not what I'm doing. I'm trying to demonstrate that most of the reasons we have for making babies are easily seen as circular reasoning when we break out of the supposedly self-evident nature of them. That's just what I want to get at. Having children is NOT self-evidently a good thing to do:
* It is very expensive (I mean generically, in resources. This applies to all animals.)
* It is physically taxing
* It is extremely time consuming
* It can be a severe hindrance in resource gathering, particularly in the most crucial days shortly after birth.
[EDIT: I thought of a rather crucial element to this. For all the negative side effects of reproducing, there aren't really any material gains to the parent. Only losses. What gains there are -- social standing, respectability, sense of community, emotional gratification -- are the results of what we can call artificial subsidizing. That is, outside of human society, these benefits do not exist. We can look at them as circular in the same way we look at the arguments. We reward parenthood in human society, but why?]
I'm using the language of evolution in an attempt to shock you out of thinking of us as "people" and instead considering us as one of the animals. Even so, you can see how these points translate into more colloquial language.
Now, to the second part of the question. Why should we care about our children after having birthed them? Again, we appeal to many things, but they are all circular. If we say we care because it's the right thing to do, we beg the question of why it's the right thing to do! If we cite human compassion, we must ask why we have human compassion. There are many animals who do not care about their young. They just set them free in the world and let them take their chances. In fact, there are many animals whose young need to get out of the house as quickly as possible to avoid becoming dinner.
Caring for children is not self evident.
This is where evolution comes in, and where theism fails utterly. It's very simple to explain why altruism arose in nature, particularly when we accept the model of the selfish gene. However, it will be a good mental exercise to reduce this to bullet points and start from the beginning.
* Genes replicate.
* The cause of genes' replication is nothing more than the laws of physics. There is no "purpose."
* Natural selection favors genes that replicate very well.
* Natural selection promotes diversity
From here, we learn a few basic truths. There's nothing magical about wanting to have children. Evolution makes us want children because this is a very effective way to get humans to reproduce. We are more consciously aware of our desires than most animals, but that makes them no less innate, and no less a product of genes being naturally selected. I make this point to try to change your perspective. We don't want to have children because of a desire for the human species to continue. We desire the human species to continue because we're effective gene survival machines. There's nothing supremely moral about it because morals are nothing more than the instincts we have been programmed with by those very same genes that want us to think the way we do about morality!
In the same way, when we think about why we care for our children, it's not ultimately because we're moral creatures. Morality is an effect, not a cause. Let me say that again, for emphasis. Morality is an effect. It is not the ultimate cause. Gene expression is the cause.
It may sound callous to say that we care for our children because our genes program us that way, but is it really so awful? Does the realization of this truth change the desires that we have? Of course not. We still feel just as much compassion towards children as we ever did, but now we don't have to answer with circular reasoning. Evolution gives us the answer that theism never could.
Theism:
Q: Why do we want to have babies?
A: Because god told us to be fruitful and multiply.
Q: Why?
A: Because he wanted us to be fruitful and multiply.
Q: Why?
A: Because it's good to be fruitful and multiply.
Q Why?
A: Because god made it that way.
Q Why?
ad nauseum.
Evolution:
Q: Why do we want to have babies?
A: Because we are successful gene survival machine.
Q: Why do genes want us to be successful gene survival machines?
A: Genes don't want anything. They are products of the laws of nature, just like us.
Q: So is it good to want to have babies?
A: Who knows? Why don't you decide that for yourself?
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
- Login to post comments
I understand, but that also works in the system I am talking about, the only difference being that in your scenario to remove a chunk of the brain is to remove the expressor of the conscious phenomenon, in mine to remove a chunk of the brain is to remove the supporting environment from the expression. You'd get an equal result in both cases in the same way a person would die if you removed his lungs just like he would die if you removed the oxygen from his environment.
Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist
www.mathematicianspictures.com
"Anyone can repress a woman, but you need 'dictated' scriptures to feel you're really right in repressing her. In the same way, homophobes thrive everywhere. But you must feel you've got scripture on your side to come up with the tedious 'Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve' style arguments instead of just recognising that some people are different." - Douglas Murray
Yeah there may be ways to test it further, but that's where my lukewarm feelings about biology aren't much help to me as I wouldn't be too certain on how to actually isolate what to look for.
On the other hand it seems to me that it could explain something like the results of this study - which shows the brain to be more versatile than once thought and capable of utilising different areas to rapidly compensate a loss of function. The unexpected rapidity could be explained if the compensating area need only to provide an 'environment' similar enough to the lost section that it can mimic the lost selection process, rather than to rebuild or rewire an entire specialised phenotype dedicated to the faculty.
Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist
www.mathematicianspictures.com
"Anyone can repress a woman, but you need 'dictated' scriptures to feel you're really right in repressing her. In the same way, homophobes thrive everywhere. But you must feel you've got scripture on your side to come up with the tedious 'Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve' style arguments instead of just recognising that some people are different." - Douglas Murray
Thanks Eloise, I appreciate your response. I'm not sure I understand you, but I think my question is what "mind" means to you. Is "mind" a product of evolution (something natural), or is it something else (supernatural, other-natural, however you would like to say it)? In other words, what do you mean by calling our minds "special"?
Well you affect the cause by simply changing its environment, just as natural selection affects the propagation of genetic information. The thing to understand about why I hesitate is that the model which I am describing is like a coordinate field of genotypic effects, each relative in time and space to each other; and body or phenotypic effects are like microenvironments which enhance the selection of genotypes in terms of time and space (ie more rapid or concentrated selection of molecules); so brain specific consciousness would be essentially the result of selecting influences that reside in the grey matter itself, that's where I get stuck because I really don't have much of an idea what a brain cell looks like to a DNA strand, I'm suggesting this idea on a much more general level than that.
I didn't say it was needed to explain it, though, at least I didn't mean to imply in any way that there wasn't already a well accepted explanation for rapid neuroplastic adaptation.
At any rate I'm sure this is falsifiable, but I haven't tested it.
Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist
www.mathematicianspictures.com
Last question first, I'm actually implying by saying "special" minds that our minds aren't as special as we often think they are. As to your first question I don't think mind is a product of evolution, I believe consciousness is evolution. Or to put it another way I'm saying I don't believe that we were made by evolution but rather I suggest it is more realistic to say we are made of evolution.
Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist
www.mathematicianspictures.com
"Anyone can repress a woman, but you need 'dictated' scriptures to feel you're really right in repressing her. In the same way, homophobes thrive everywhere. But you must feel you've got scripture on your side to come up with the tedious 'Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve' style arguments instead of just recognising that some people are different." - Douglas Murray
There's nothing to discuss about where or from what the consciousness arises. It exists exactly as you would otherwise describe it, mere "blindly" interacting matter.
I mentioned it because it was a finding that required a modification of the existing model to be explained, and you should note I granted that the explanation was a well accepted one, I don't think it's a very good explanation because it backpedals over the conclusions of the original model and I'm sure I'm not alone in that.
I have done that, but I suspect you need to have another look and convince yourself that I have not hypothesised any mystical undefined consciousness ether at all, don't project what you think consciousness is onto my conclusion, my conclusion is much less complex than that.
Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist
www.mathematicianspictures.com
Interesting you all are. To me consciousness is simply what all existance fundamentally is, as all is interacting with everything there is in a material energy sense, and so even at the sub atomic level all is conscious, as like eternal memory of the timeless cosmic dance, which we are doing and witnessing at our human level. .... Ouch, that hurt my little head !
Atheism Books.
What is consciousness? (My definition: An awareness of environment capable of reacting to and considering that environment.)
From what material interaction does it arise if not from a brain?
"Anyone can repress a woman, but you need 'dictated' scriptures to feel you're really right in repressing her. In the same way, homophobes thrive everywhere. But you must feel you've got scripture on your side to come up with the tedious 'Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve' style arguments instead of just recognising that some people are different." - Douglas Murray
From what material interaction does it arise if not from a brain? ~ Jill
Does a tree have consciousness? Is all not in some sense a form of consciousness of degrees? What are we ? Nothing more than what all is, as all is energy matter, of a vast variety of combinations. This word consciousness is so entertaining. Go science.
Atheism Books.
======================================
Warning, irrational and bitchy rant ahead: One thing about the study of consciousness: It scares the bejeebuz out of people. Conclusions are often rejected on the basis of what it means for the individual. Incredible twists of logic are made to create or preserve some possibility of surviving death. Definitions are changed, made less concrete and a lot more open to interpretation. Neurophysiology tends to make people into mystics.
One of the classics is to make the brain out to be a radio set. Another classic is to insist that everything is conscious to some degree. It's duality - body and self are separate.
The only problem is there's not one iota of evidence to support duality, and a great deal of evidence strongly points to mind as an emergent property of a complex system, the brain.
I've been making use of the science of the brain for over 17 years, with great success. Working with other behavioral psychologists, psychiatrists and neurophysiologists I've been a part of a team that gets results in caring for patients with behavioral and mental health issues. Results are everything. The science is rooted in the idea the brain is the "seat" of consciousness.
If you want to tell me that the mind isn't a result of the brain, I'll listen, but do please bring evidence to the table. I'm tired of hearing from the crackpots and quacks and those who believe them drone on about "spirits" and "souls" and "separated consciousness" citing only anecdote and baseless studies (as well as a plethora of "ancient wisdoms" from the "East" or wherever).
So if I seem a little curt when discussing this stuff, it's because I've seen the real harm such claptrap can do, and have argued in favor of where the evidence leads us too long.
"Anyone can repress a woman, but you need 'dictated' scriptures to feel you're really right in repressing her. In the same way, homophobes thrive everywhere. But you must feel you've got scripture on your side to come up with the tedious 'Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve' style arguments instead of just recognising that some people are different." - Douglas Murray
No.
No.
That would not give credence to the two sentences above it. To say so would be a fallacy of composition.
I ask the same question as JillSwift does.
"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.
-Me
Books about atheism
Jill, LOL and you are no irrational bitch as in my definitions.
For the most part I agree with all you've said, here in this thread and else where. I think our slight misunderstanding is more a linguistic one. Consciousness is no more than an energy matter dance of reactions and our human brains do this consciousness thing to the highest degree we scientifically know. No magic about it.
Science is the method of discovery and analizing the vast parts of the "Oneness". Cool bright Carl Sagan said basically, we are the eyes of god looking at it self. To say all is a lesser and higher degree of consciousness is how I make sense out of materialism, as is the science study of existence, energy matter. Linguistically, I say ironically, as language is this day, everything is conscious, as all is reacting. Arguing otherwise is like separatist religion for me, as all is essentially ONE, as all is connected. I don't think anything can be completely without consciousness, as per my materialist definition. A very entertaining word indeed, is this word "consciousness" ....
Ummm 
Go science , smash religion and all woo woo .... P.S. I sometimes defy the dictionary, as I am a language rebel.
Atheism Books.
DG, and so the best definition of consciousness is ??? Hey, let me guess, "Life" , and what is that? Umm, unconscious energy matter ?!?! Ummm ....
I was never much good at addition. 
Atheism Books.
The problem with this is that it suggests that "consciousness" is a completely continuous property. The evidence seems to be against this proposition. The evidence seems to favor the proposition that consciousness requires certain prerequisites which many systems clearly do not or cannot possess (and if this is true, it refutes your statement). Consciousness, by definition, requires that the thing that we are referring to as conscious be able to have a particular subjective experience. Thomas Nagel pointed out that we think of consciousness in terms of what it is like to be that particular entity we are calling conscious. The what-is-it-like quality is central to any meaningful understanding of the concept. If a particular object does not have a what-it-is-like-to-be property, then it cannot be conscious. The property of having the ability to hav e particular subjective experience is clearly distinct. It is quite clear that certain objects don't have it, and that in order to have it, a particular physical object has to have some other properties. It has to have some sort of mechanism by which it collects and processes sensory data to create a subjective experience. That requires a system of sufficient complexity to eliminate most things in the universe from being within the pool of things we could recognize as conscious. So, in order to assert that consciousness is a property of varying degree which all entities in the universe possess in some sense, you'd be forced to commit to the position that all objects have the capacity for particular subjective experiences. But that is highly contrary to what we know about how the universe works.
"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.
-Me
Books about atheism
Thanks DG , as I agree with that more "detailed" definition of C. I really am a linguistic rebel and hate woo woo. I was basically trying to display the problem of language, as it when applied to science in words, neither of which I'm even a sophomore.
I sure miss your science philosophy rants good DG. The 'new age' one etc, was you wasn't it, now missing in the RRS Author collection?
Atheism Books.
Me has homework to do! Thanks again RRS, and sorry for my oxymoronic satirist confusion ..... but I am a "mournful optimist".
I think quite a lot on consciousness, and have read some on it. My intuitive guessing does get me in a linguistic mess. I'm not in agreement with 'dualism' as I read it.
I did a couple hrs of wiki reading this morning hoping I could better communicate my guesses, with no success yet. If interested here's what I was reading, with some interesting tidbits,
Problems of Dualism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dualism_(philosophy_of_mind)#Dualism_in_modern_science
Consciousness
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consciousness
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I recon I'm a,
Physicalism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physicalism
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Qualia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qualia
The Bat argument [ what-it-is-like ]
Although it does not actually mention the word "qualia", Thomas Nagel's paper What Is it Like to Be a Bat? is often cited in debates over qualia. Nagel argues that consciousness has an essentially subjective character, a what-it-is-like aspect. He states that "an organism has conscious mental states if and only if there is something that it is to be that organism — something it is like for the organism."[5] Nagel also suggests that the subjective aspect of the mind may not ever be sufficiently accounted for by the objective methods of reductionistic science. He claims that "[i]f we acknowledge that a physical theory of mind must account for the subjective character of experience, we must admit that no presently available conception gives us a clue how this could be done."Furthermore, he states that "it seems unlikely that any physical theory of mind can be contemplated until more thought has been given to the general problem of subjective and objective.
The Inverted Spectrum Argument (??? ouch smile)
Perhaps it is not possible for a given brain state to produce anything other than a given quale in our universe, and that is all that matters. The idea that an inverted spectrum would be undetectable in practice is also open to criticism on more scientific grounds.
The Explanatory Gap Argument
"In the end, we are right back where we started. The explanatory gap argument doesn't demonstrate a gap in nature, but a gap in our understanding of nature. Of course a plausible explanation for there being a gap in our understanding of nature is that there is a genuine gap in nature. But so long as we have countervailing reasons for doubting the latter, we have to look elsewhere for an explanation of the former".
Narrower definitions
Daniel Dennett identifies four properties that are commonly ascribed to qualia. According to these, qualia are:
1. ineffable; that is, they cannot be communicated, or apprehended by any other means than direct experience.
2. intrinsic; that is, they are non-relational properties, which do not change depending on the experience's relation to other things.
3. private; that is, all interpersonal comparisons of qualia are systematically impossible.
4. directly or immediately apprehensible in consciousness; that is, to experience a quale is to know one experiences a quale, and to know all there is to know about that quale.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Ineffability
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ineffable
To say that something is "ineffable" means that it cannot or should not be expressed in spoken words (as with the concept of true love or some taboo). It is generally used to describe a feeling, concept or aspect of existence that is too great to be adequately described in words, or that inherently (due to its nature) cannot be conveyed in dualistic symbolic human language, but can only be known internally by individuals.
Related Quotations
"Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent." — Ludwig Wittgenstein
"The Tao that can be told is not the eternal Tao; the name that can be named is not the eternal name." — the Dao De Jing
"What can't be said, can't be said. And it can't be whistled, either." — F. P. Ramsey
"What cannot be spoken in words, but that whereby words are spoken." — Kenopanishad
"We shall grapple with the ineffable, and see if we may not eff it after all." — Douglas Adams in Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency
"I'm in the business of effing the ineffable." — Alan Watts * !!!
"You can't second guess ineffability, I always say." — Aziraphale in Good Omens
"Dualism, nay, but how about anti matter consciousness." - me
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Logical positivism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_positivism
Logical positivism (later and more accurately called logical empiricism) is a school of philosophy that combines empiricism, the idea that observational evidence is indispensable for knowledge of the world, with a version of rationalism incorporating mathematical and logico-linguistic constructs and deductions in epistemology.
Rationalism vs. Empiricism
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/rationalism-empiricism/
Atheism Books.
That section of Wikipedia article on dualism well defines what I meant when I said that the study of consciousness makes people mystical. The argument is one of interpretation, the great "could be" argument. The question that must be asked is: Where's the evidence for an external consciousness? And the answer appears to be: There is none. Since we don't need that hypothesis to explain consciousness, and as there's no evidence for something external, there's no point in postulating it.
Qualia and ineffability are why studying consciousness can be difficult - but you have to be careful not to let the idea of ineffability produce the idea of inexplicability. In the end, no matter that we can't know what it's like to be another consciousness, it still has quantifiable properties that can be directly and indirectly detected.
"Anyone can repress a woman, but you need 'dictated' scriptures to feel you're really right in repressing her. In the same way, homophobes thrive everywhere. But you must feel you've got scripture on your side to come up with the tedious 'Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve' style arguments instead of just recognising that some people are different." - Douglas Murray
I am blastered, "saved" and giggling on rum now, and I really dig ya lots Jill. I have always thought that C is simply a reaction part of E/M , but E/M always was , so that is why I ask to what degree of C always was in the cosmic eternal glue dough, of matter/antimatter?
My mind is in a QM anti matter overload!
I was trying to recon C with this today as well. I started with the kid stuff, as I AM but and old child ! ....
"Live from CERN" - Antimatter : Mirror of the universe
http://livefromcern.web.cern.ch/livefromcern/antimatter/index.html
>>> Site Map - http://livefromcern.web.cern.ch/livefromcern/antimatter/site-map.html
Watch our web casts and video clips. Some vids are also on youtube and google vids.
Atheism Books.
This could probably win an award for "most useless statement ever uttered". Electromagnetism is the basis of chemical reactions and atomic bonding, and is hence the basis for every complex macroscopic system in the universe, obviously including the human brain. As such, it is no help whatsoever to say that the process of consciousness is the result of the electromagnetic force. We can gain no more understanding of the process of consciousness by declaring this than we could understanding of macroeconomics by learning about the elementary particles that make up the people who run the stock market.
Modern Cosmology predicts that the electromagnetic force was once in a symmetrical state with the other three fundamental forces before the symmetry breaking event caused it to disengage, and therefore has not always been around. It has been around only as long as the universe has.
"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.
-Me
Books about atheism
OOPS
, Energy/Matter not electromagnetism. E/M is a fairly common abbreviation I've seen. The only equation I recall is E=mc2.
Why is the speed of light written mc ? c = the speed of light in a vacuum (celeritas), m = mass
Wow , google is god!
I googled 'Mass and Matter' and found in a woo woo site. Save us DG !
http://www.timestar.org/mass.htm
Ouch, this may bring tears,
http://www.timestar.org/angel.htm
Atheism Books.
Yep. Tears.
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism
Atheism Books.
Yeah, seriously, what I am proposing to you is that the phenomenon we refer to as consciousness is a form taken by the very basic unit of matter interaction, a unit of process. I'm saying 'consciousness' as I am modelling is really quite simple and basic, and the consciousness we experience is not a result of supervening complexity but rather of that basic unit acting under certain parameters.
Eh, it's not quite that perfect in this case though, is it, it's all very well to say 'neuroplasticity' but it's not all that clear and obvious what makes it happen. I feel the reason that this explanation is accepted is merely because it can be without doing too much irreparable damage to the only promising principle model that we have, not because it's a satisfying explanation. Science also does its thing by not resting on less than satisfying explanations.
The problem with that definition is that it utilises an a priori concept of awareness which presupposes synthetic elements. In short the word awareness comes pre-packaged as mind-body dualism. It implies a discrete, semi-detached (from the material process) existence of 'thoughts' 'knowledge' and 'understandings' and therefore must explain them in those terms. Emergence and supervenience is the given explanation, and under the presupposition of a semi-detached discrete element of thought they follow a necessary line, you have to explain why thought 'sits on top' of a physical structure if you're going to assume initially that is what it does.
But what if 'consciousness' is just another form taken by the same simple process of parallel schotastic jitter filtered by its environment that is material evolution. I mean thoughts are basically chemical chains produced in cells, what would you that they were produced simply by chance mutation in an environment where selection is accelerated by a strong (hot) force. Then consciousness is not semi-detached, it doesn't extend into an abstract space, it is fully attached at both ends to the material world. And change the meat change the behaviour is not true because changing the meat is taking away the floor from some branch of conscious activity but because it imposes on the space, the environment, of all conscious activity.
The key point here is that consciousness doesn't arise, spontaneous chance development arises and is then fed back to by an energetic environment. It is sorted into relative patterns of order which become transducers of new spontaneous generations.
Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist
www.mathematicianspictures.com
Thanks Eloise, that was way super cool. ~~~~~~~~~~
Umm, Lots of word confusion in science, like 'theory and law' for the layman as I.
The law of light says it travels fastest . We know of nothing that travels faster, but science only suggests nothing else does. I try not to presume nothing does for sure.
The laws of science should not be thought of as dogma, as in religion.
A lot of what I write regarding C and Time etc etc, is questioning and mentioning other added possibilities due to my confusion. Many of you know way more science etc than I, so thanks.
Why presume the little BIG Bang pop transition, is the only one of such light energy matter bounces or whatever? How far 'out there' past our bang can we see? Not far enough!
Umm, the initial substance that sparked earth life soup, since changed with the environment to such an extent that it is now still not yet been detected nor to be even math modeled and then recreated. Darn it ....
I know nothing more than I AM, all the rest I just wonder .... WTF is dirt, I mean really what is the ALL of it? Yeah, I AM GOD AS YOU are too, but whats that???
Atheism Books.
It isn't. "mc" is the product of c (a universal constant) and mass. Although, "mc" is a meaningless number. Actually, "E=mc2" should actually be written:
∆E=c2∆m
This gives us the correct formulation. For any nuclear reaction, input of energy into a nuclear system increases the mass of the system. Thus, the formulation of internal energy of a nuclear system is not the same as that of a macroscopic closed system in chemistry (where, by Lavoisier's Law, mass is conserved). In nuclear reactions, mass and energy are interconvertible. Thus, if we consider a nucleus to be a particular system of protons and neutrons, then we input energy to break the nuclear bonds. The energy is interconvertible with mass. As we break up a nucleus into its constituents, the sum mass of the individual constituent subatomic particles is greater than the total mass of the bound nuclear system. The total potential energy lost when a nucleus is broken is proportional to the total mass gained. The constant of proportionality is the square of the speed of light. This is the correct way to interpret the mass-energy equivalence.
"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.
-Me
Books about atheism
Opps , goofed again , I fail. I meant c , as mass times the speed of light squard. I promise DG to read that again with my coffee in the morning, but will say YEAH, it echos what I read at the CERN site. You scientists speak an awesome language. Thanks DG for communicating math in words.
In any sense does gravity have speed? Seems it's just there, as fast as any mass moves, a constant. Weird stuff !!! Oneness stuff !!!
A faster anything than the speed of light?
... Was reading some in this site,
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SpeedOfLight/FTL.html
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/GR/grav_speed.html
Wow , what the heck is going on!
Atheism Books.
Yes, gravity is considered as a force thus with a strength dictated by inverse square law, and it is also modelled as a wave which travels at speed in GR that speed is c.
Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist
www.mathematicianspictures.com
Eloise. I may never get all this stuff well enough except to always ask questions. Are waves, as in pictures of speed and movement, useful in understanding gravity attraction speed? .... Umm, Speed is ? Oh yeah, relative. Umm, the parts of the ONE.
Seems, in an ironic sense, gravity relates to the way I sometimes think about consciousness. For some reason, which I can't put into words, all this stuff we are talking about has a yet undiscovered "oneness" constant model. I guess that is why I say so often, "All is ONE" .... Waiting for that theory of everything, of so many parts !!!
And hey cool teacher Eloise, save them idol worshipers, explain "god" to them. LOL. You rock ....
Wow this Hamby thread ... from babies to light !
Atheism Books.
What "oneness"?
People who think there is something they refer to as god don't ask enough questions.
Well cool aiia, indeed - indeed ... The "oneness"
For me it represents all existence of connectedness, as to include words like eternal, infinite, unmeasurable, and thermodynamic, matter/antimatter. It's a summary word that entails the ancient meme such as the buddha jesus sayings , I am in the father, the father is in me" and "I and the father are one" ... Father meaning all existence, cosmos. Of course this simple intuitive ancient concept was and is mutilated by separatist idol worshiping religion.
The important dictionary reference book is an evolving book. Many words mean broad concepts that require very long explanations, such as most every 'subject word label' of philosophy. Then there is the messy g-o-d word. Oh boy, messy indeed!
God = nature. Umm, okay I believe in god, I am god! ...
God = love. Nay to that dogma, as god is hate too, yin yang ...
God = the only true single omni deity with purpose, that is in and also more than the material cosmos. Umm, no fucking way, so I do not believe in god ...
Atheism Books.
In theory, I don't have a problem with pantheism. To say that the universe is god, or that matter/energy/space/time is all connected is, at its heart, not really saying anything of importance. That is, nothing logically follows from the statement. It's so broad and takes so many liberties with meaning that it simply doesn't have any impact upon anything. As such, it ought to be innocuous.
However, people aren't content with that. Just like so many other areas of science, people feel qualified to make judgments about the universe because they think they have some sort of inspired idea about how "oneness" manifests itself in the universe. Anything that "logically" follows from "oneness" must immediately be disgarded for lack of coherence, for literally NOTHING can logically be deduced from "oneness."
Having said that, I try really hard not to be idealistic to a fault. Some people just won't be happy unless you tell them it's ok for them to feel good because they're part of a "oneness." All things considered, I'd rather have a country full of pantheists than Christians. At least most pantheists have the decency to admit that they don't really know anything. Even so, my stomach turns when anyone around me starts going down the pantheism path because it almost always ends up with them talking about "energy" in some way or another, or worse... collective consciousness, or some shit like that.
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism
You could take a lesson from such perfect lucidity, IAGAY. Hamby has articulated precisely the problem with your post, namely that you've essentially strung a random set of words together to create a spectacularly useless proposition (actually, it isn't really a proposition. It isn't...anything). Take a look:
"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.
-Me
Books about atheism
Well said Hamby, and I agree, but your view comes from the fact you are very rational, so the oneness word is indeed to say nothing much to the rational crowd. Thing is, most people are not very rational and so I use this oneness word, and more recently, along with thermodynamics, in my atheistic preaching to the choir, and I borrow from the sexed up pantheism philosophy. Religious to Pantheist to Atheist, summarizes my battle plan. I use the "middle", as to try and be aware as to how people in general think ..... Most of my posts are to the 'general' audience.
I could change my battle style, but it seems to be helpful, especially with my personal friends. Regarding g-o-d and dogma religion, the majority atheist battle method is well covered so I've tried to bring a helpful twist to "slaying the dragon" ....
I understand DG, and thanks again to all at RRS for your help, and thoughtful criticism and advise.
Hey, did teacher mentor Alan Watts waste his time and words ??? I sure don't think so.
Atheism Books.