Discuss amongst yourself: Invention vs Discovery
Offline I've been harping a lot lately about how matter can only behave in the way it behaves. Cars don't randomly spew diamonds out the exhaust pipe because carbon doesn't just randomly make diamonds. This is easy enough to grasp, but what are the implications for the concept of invention. When we "invented" the bow and arrow, for instance, we could just as easily say that we "discovered" that when matter is arranged in a certain way, it behaves thusly. Sure, we wrapped the string around the stick, but we are also behaving the way we do because matter is orderly and lawful. How far can this extend before it becomes ridiculous?
Is there really any such thing as invention? For that matter, is there really such a thing as design? Sure, we feel as if we are consciously designing automobiles and computers, and of course within the framework of our own consciousness, we are, but within the framework that all we can ever do is discover ways that matter already works and use the existing relationships for our own purpose, is there such a thing as an invention?
More importantly, what does this line of thinking do for the concept of Intelligent Design?
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
- Login to post comments
Offline
But actually, none of these dichotomies exist without the minds anyway. They are imaginary divisions. So probably their ONLY justification is their usefulness to those who imagine them.
Ooooh... I like this conversation. Every other conversation tonight is making me mad. I'm glad to have something fun to think about.
I think maybe this is at the heart of what's tickling my brain. Any description of the universe is sort of like a two dimensional representation of a three dimensional object. (I'm treading dangerously close to postmodernism here... ) We can't really talk about anything without talking about it from our perspective. That's almost a tautology -- "When we talk about something, we talk about it from the perspective we are talking from." As theists are so fond of saying, "materialists believe we're nothing but atoms."
The crane that gets us out of postmodern pergatory is that the lack of an outside justification for human created divisions does not necessitate nor even imply that there are not valid and invalid human created divisions and perspectives.
True, but there is also a difference in the long-term. Ants don't engineer new ways to make anthills better and more efficient. By evolutionary processes, they might arrive at a better anthill, since all the ants in the shitty anthills get wiped out, and the ants building all the good anthills are still around in their ant towers, but the same ants in the same anthill, as far as I know, do not have a R&D offices.
But again, I must ask if there is a qualitative difference between natural selection engineering better ants to make better anthills and natural selection engineering better simians who build planes instead of cracking nuts with rocks?
Even though our drive to use tools is, in itself, not all that different than the ants' drive to build anthills, we add another kind of intelligence on top of that, which is R&D.
Yes...
(I kind of thought there would be a "therefore" after that sentence.)
That sounds like another way of rendering "If a tree falls in the woods and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?"
I think I don't fully understand what you were taking issue with exactly, so I won't comment on that one.
Shame on me for thinking I was being clever when I was really just being clear as mud.
I was saying that "information" is just a human way of looking at the universe. It exists in the same way that numbers exist. Sure, there are three apples on the table, but "three" doesn't exist. Only the apples do.
The sun is a gigantic information processor. Each one of its hydrogen atoms contains information, including its physical location at any instant. Anytime anything at all happens, more information is being created in time, and the whole process of generating energy, light, etc, is "manipulating" matter to some end. We humans look at it and see that it is inevitable, and not driven by conscious thought, but we don't realize that we are as incapable of NOT being driven by conscious thought as the sun is incapable of being driven by thought. We are the result of inevitable physical processes, too.
(Yes, this does have something to do with all the free will discussions that we've seen recently.)
Right, because, since we are able to think one order of agency higher, that means we are allowed to posit OURSELVES and our own thoughts as the other agent, or we can posit people who are absent as agents, or we can make up imaginary people to posit as agents. Have you ever had an imaginary argument with someone who wasn't there, and yet you still found it somehow constructive? I think something like this probably helps explain where we are in relation to other biological creatures. A simpler creature---a monkey, say---could discover that fire added to water equals no fire. But it requires something extra to arrive at a moltav cocktail. It requires a lot of "If/then" work, which is hugely assisted by this extra order of agency our minds are able to process, especially since we can conceive of the objects we're manipulating as the agents, which is something we love to do. (e.g. Ever yelled at your car?)
That's a very eloquent way of explaining it. I'm not sure it answers the original question I asked -- partly because I'm still not entirely sure what the question was -- but I definitely like this particular perspective for justifying a hierarchy among conscious beings.
You can't say that anyone invented gravity or the expansion of the universe, but you can say they discovered it.
Ah.... this reminds me of another Dennett example. I want to say it's from Darwin's Dangerous Idea. Someone was asked once if, given the choice, they would choose to eradicate Newton's Principia or Shakespeare's Hamlet from history. The astute man immediately answered "Principia." The principles of math are not invented. They're just discovered, and any man can discover them. In fact, it seems quite inevitable that had Newton not published Principia, someone else would have, and probably not too far in the future. Same goes for Darwin, and the same goes for anyone who discovers a scientific principle. For Shakespeare, though, the number of possible books that can be written of the exact length of Hamlet is staggeringly high, and there's no particular reason to suppose that anyone would ever replicate it exactly.
Maybe this is the divide I've been trying to work out. In a way, it's still a matter of semantics because technically, one could bring up the infinitely long lived monkeys and typewriters. Given enough time and the right scenario, someone would rewrite Hamlet completely by accident, but we have no reason to suppose that we will ever be given the right scenario and enough time to make this worthy of reasoned discussion.
On the other hand, it seems like no one would object if you said either that someone invented the wheel OR that they discovered it.I think that lends itself to the notion that "invent" fits inside of "discover" and not vice-versa. Unless, of course, my above observations are rejected by someone else.
Right... there's still gray area. The wheel is a great example because the wheel is not really an invention. At some point, a human noticed that round things roll. He discovered the principle that round objects roll. Most likely, this same human used some kind of tool to form a suitably round object, so we can say he "built" a wheel, but he didn't really invent it. He discovered it and then set about manipulating matter such that more wheels existed.
So... is there an "invention" which we cannot reduce to discoveries?
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
- Login to post comments
Offline The crane that gets us out of postmodern pergatory is that the lack of an outside justification for human created divisions does not necessitate nor even imply that there are not valid and invalid human created divisions and perspectives.
That sounds good to me.
Quote:True, but there is also a difference in the long-term. Ants don't engineer new ways to make anthills better and more efficient. By evolutionary processes, they might arrive at a better anthill, since all the ants in the shitty anthills get wiped out, and the ants building all the good anthills are still around in their ant towers, but the same ants in the same anthill, as far as I know, do not have a R&D offices.But again, I must ask if there is a qualitative difference between natural selection engineering better ants to make better anthills and natural selection engineering better simians who build planes instead of cracking nuts with rocks?
This is exactly what I keep trying to say, but I can't keep all my ends tied together. At the end of the day, it's all the same. All I'm doing here is showing you where a line is being drawn and why. Of course, the line is an imaginary line, since the line only exists if we draw it.
I'm thinking of a sort of diagram made of concentric circles. The most outter circle is like the "discovery" circle. This is where things happen like observing that apples fall to the ground when they detach from trees. Inside that circle is a more specific circle, which stands for a more specific kind of "discovery", which is like what the ants do with their ant hills and like what we do, generally speaking, with tools. We might even want to use "invention" here, if we're not being anthropocentric. Then, inside of THAT circle, we have another area that is a sort of R&D area, or "advancement" area. (I can't really think of any better terms.) So at the end of the day, it's all the same. Nature is doing what it does. It's all about the big circle when you boil it all down. Things only get more specific as you move toward the center of the diagram and pass through the concentric circles. These are not mutually exclusive activities, though, is what I'm saying.
Quote:Even though our drive to use tools is, in itself, not all that different than the ants' drive to build anthills, we add another kind of intelligence on top of that, which is R&D.Yes...
(I kind of thought there would be a "therefore" after that sentence.)
my bad. *ahem*
Therefore, we can put ourselves one more circle inward in the "discovery" diagram. Or you can say oen more order above general "discovery". But still within the realm of "discovery".
I was saying that "information" is just a human way of looking at the universe. It exists in the same way that numbers exist. Sure, there are three apples on the table, but "three" doesn't exist. Only the apples do.
The sun is a gigantic information processor. Each one of its hydrogen atoms contains information, including its physical location at any instant. Anytime anything at all happens, more information is being created in time, and the whole process of generating energy, light, etc, is "manipulating" matter to some end. We humans look at it and see that it is inevitable, and not driven by conscious thought, but we don't realize that we are as incapable of NOT being driven by conscious thought as the sun is incapable of being driven by thought. We are the result of inevitable physical processes, too.
(Yes, this does have something to do with all the free will discussions that we've seen recently.)
I haven't seen those discussions, but I hope no theists have been complaining that if we lived in a materialist universe then everyone would be automotons and there would be no freewill.
If so, tell them it wouldn't make a difference either way, because everything would look exactly the same, nothing would change. You would have as much "free will" as you always had. Only now you have to use scare quotes when you talk about having it.
That's a very eloquent way of explaining it. I'm not sure it answers the original question I asked -- partly because I'm still not entirely sure what the question was -- but I definitely like this particular perspective for justifying a hierarchy among conscious beings.
You seem to like Dennett as much as I do, and so if you like where the general hierarchy concept is going, you should check out his book "Kinds of Minds". He has a similar stance in the book, though you and I both know he could explain it in a much awesomer way.
Ah.... this reminds me of another Dennett example. I want to say it's from Darwin's Dangerous Idea. Someone was asked once if, given the choice, they would choose to eradicate Newton's Principia or Shakespeare's Hamlet from history. The astute man immediately answered "Principia." The principles of math are not invented. They're just discovered, and any man can discover them. In fact, it seems quite inevitable that had Newton not published Principia, someone else would have, and probably not too far in the future. Same goes for Darwin, and the same goes for anyone who discovers a scientific principle. For Shakespeare, though, the number of possible books that can be written of the exact length of Hamlet is staggeringly high, and there's no particular reason to suppose that anyone would ever replicate it exactly.
It's been so long since I read that book, but I think I remember that part now that you bring it up.
Right... there's still gray area. The wheel is a great example because the wheel is not really an invention. At some point, a human noticed that round things roll. He discovered the principle that round objects roll. Most likely, this same human used some kind of tool to form a suitably round object, so we can say he "built" a wheel, but he didn't really invent it.
Well, he did if invention is just a more specific kind of discovery. I guess what my whole position is coming around to is that I object to the use of "invention" meaning that man created something out of nothing. He obviously cannot do that. It's like... if everything that already exists is a train running on a vastly complicated series of tracks, man just operates the switches. He determines whether the train goes to Chicago or New York, but he doesn't miraculously fabricate a train already in new york. Maybe that was a terribly overwrought metaphor, but maybe you see what I mean anyway.
So I reject "invention" in the sense that trains are being miraculously fabricated in NY. But I accept invention if it's only talking about finding a rather clever way to get an already existing train from A to B.
So a man never "invented" a wheel in the sense of fabricating the wheel and all the physical laws that require it to run. The physical laws were already there. The possibility of the wheel was already there. He only "invented" the wheel in the sense that he threw all the right switches to get there.
So... is there an "invention" which we cannot reduce to discoveries?
My position is that inventions are kinds of discoveries, so the answer is kind of no. But since they are only KINDS of discoveries, we can talk "discovering the wheel" as being different than "discovering that objects fall". We can "invent" the wheel, since that is a higher sort of discovery. But we can't "invent" that objects fall to earth.
I feel like I have something that I'm articulating extreeeeemely poorly, haha. I'm probably about as happy with my answers as you are.
A place common to all will be maintained by none. A religion common to all is perhaps not much different.
- Login to post comments
Offline Since human language only exists to assist human communication and therefore human understanding of concepts, these two words have different meanings because they are meant to be used by humans to discuss things in a human context or to discuss things relative to human experience.So these are two categories of phenomena according to man, but a single phenomenon in a materialist universe. It's all the same to nature, of course, but nature isn't using the words----the words die with us. So once you start venturing into a territory where words are treated as more than useful human tools, where they are allowed to simply be "out there", somehow having meaning with no help from us, then you are probably entering the realm of some unnecessary conundrum.
[If you hadn't said "only" in your first paragraph, I'd be a lot happier with your comment. As it is the fact that humans do most of their thinking via language falsifies your statement (and different languages imply different ways of thinking and therefore different ways of understanding concepts). Language in fact has numerous reasons to exist, expression of emotion and physical states, means of control, ordering the world for yourself, lying, entertainment, companionship, etc.]
spin
Trust the evidence, Luke
- Login to post comments
Offline Archeopteryx wrote:Since human language only exists to assist human communication and therefore human understanding of concepts, these two words have different meanings because they are meant to be used by humans to discuss things in a human context or to discuss things relative to human experience.So these are two categories of phenomena according to man, but a single phenomenon in a materialist universe. It's all the same to nature, of course, but nature isn't using the words----the words die with us. So once you start venturing into a territory where words are treated as more than useful human tools, where they are allowed to simply be "out there", somehow having meaning with no help from us, then you are probably entering the realm of some unnecessary conundrum.
[If you hadn't said "only" in your first paragraph, I'd be a lot happier with your comment. As it is the fact that humans do most of their thinking via language falsifies your statement (and different languages imply different ways of thinking and therefore different ways of understanding concepts). Language in fact has numerous reasons to exist, expression of emotion and physical states, means of control, ordering the world for yourself, lying, entertainment, companionship, etc.]
spin
Yes, we do use language in our minds to think about things. Even to have internal dialogue. It's important to remember, though, that we were thinking before we had language (such as it is now) and that language is not a necessary tool for abstract thought (ex. 'ordering the world for yourself'). Our current capacity for language did not precede our thinking, but evolved with it.
To the OP, I'm leaning toward Hamby's proposal that we do not invent. I'm inclined to think that since we realised that we could reorder matter to do things we have not invented a signle thing since then, but rather have adapted that one initial invention to our current level of technological complexity. Let me explain: If every 'invention' is preceeded by one necessary for its construction in a chain, I would think that there was (or perhaps it happened in different places in different times, but it does not matter) at one time a moment of cognition that matter can be manipulated to perform a desired action. It would be that moment of realisation which would be the first and only invention created. Everything that follows from that initial tool would be a continuation.
But perhaps I've not explained myself sufficiently (I don't feel I have) or perhaps the distinction between this initial invention and all subsequent 'inventions' is merely semantic? I feel there's more there, but I can't put my finger on it. And I too feel that this links to ID, but I certainly can't put my finger on that (I can't even guess yet). Are we getting closer? (This is fun!)
BigUniverse wrote,
"Well the things that happen less often are more likely to be the result of the supper natural. A thing like loosing my keys in the morning is not likely supper natural, but finding a thousand dollars or meeting a celebrity might be."
- Login to post comments
Offline concepts envisioned within even one language and discussed between two people are not necessarily identically understood.
ROFL! You get the Most Relevant Blatantly Obvious Observation Award for the day. Welcome to my life. Specifically, I'm thinking of... let's see... hope, and validation, if anyone is going on a scavenger hunt.
Our current capacity for language did not precede our thinking, but evolved with it.
Do you believe that in theory, we could perform all our current mental tasks without "internal language"? In other words, is it possible to non-linguistically plan an airplane? I admit, I had the same reaction as you... yes, language is just for human communication, but I've never really thought about whether or not some of our most "advanced" thoughts required internal dialog. What do you think?
I'm inclined to think that since we realised that we could reorder matter to do things we have not invented a signle thing since then, but rather have adapted that one initial invention to our current level of technological complexity.
Did you mean to say there was an initial invention, or should you have said, "since we discovered that we could reorder matter..."?
It would be that moment of realisation which would be the first and only invention created.
Nevermind. You answered my question. I don't know if I understand how a realization is an invention.
Are we getting closer? (This is fun!)
I'm pretty sure this is the first time I've ever really thought about this concept. It is very fun.
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
- Login to post comments
Offline I don’t think we invent our tools. I think our tools are a product and a part of our evolution. The Genes in this type of evolution are pieces of knowledge, information, and experience that are passed between people. These genes exist physically in people’s heads and in other sources which can be retrieved threw the use of language. This evolution requires more then just genes, it also requires tool that must be made by other tool. An analogy of this from biology would be the rest of the cell which genes need in order to function. These tools to make other tool and the genes combined will be called Technology. Natural selection in this example is determined my human wants and needs. The species are concepts that are used to define various types of tools like shoes, computer, and telephones. In this type of evolution the gene pool is made available to all species. In other words a gene that come about threw selection in one species may come to benefit many different species. Also genes from different species may be combined to form new species, such as the various thing that came together to make cell phones. Technology as a hole is improved over time by evolution and with these improvements come new species, and more fit examples of old species.
Pocket watches are complicated. Creationists use this complexity to make an argument that all complex things are created, but I don’t thing a person can just created a pocket watch without the technology from many years of evolution. If you think about it there were many species of time keepers before the one we call pocket watch, and many simpler versions of pocket watch before the complex entity we know today came to exist. The simplest tools, the tools that required almost no evolution are the most difficult to recognize as created at all. If I pick up a rock and us it as a hammer you probably wouldn’t say I created the rock, yet most people would say that a watch has to be created. I don’t think pock watches can exist without evolution.
In a way our technology is almost alive, but as with a virus’s reliance on living cells to reproduce and evolve our technology completely relies on us. It has no real meaning without us. A chair doesn’t seem alive, but because of us the species chair has taken on millions of different forms, has been reproduced billions of different times, and been made with many different technologies. Because of us is some ways chairs almost do seem alive. I think we see ourselves as the givers of life to our technology, so we ask ourselves what gave life to us. It isn’t surprising that we always come up with things that are many ways just like our selves.
- Login to post comments
Offline
I'm thinking of a sort of diagram made of concentric circles. The most outter circle is like the "discovery" circle. This is where things happen like observing that apples fall to the ground when they detach from trees. Inside that circle is a more specific circle, which stands for a more specific kind of "discovery", which is like what the ants do with their ant hills and like what we do, generally speaking, with tools. We might even want to use "invention" here, if we're not being anthropocentric. Then, inside of THAT circle, we have another area that is a sort of R&D area, or "advancement" area. (I can't really think of any better terms.) So at the end of the day, it's all the same. Nature is doing what it does. It's all about the big circle when you boil it all down. Things only get more specific as you move toward the center of the diagram and pass through the concentric circles. These are not mutually exclusive activities, though, is what I'm saying.
I like the nested circles analogy. It is probably a less tangential way of expressing what I was trying to get at last night. In denying that there can be special explanations for observable phenomenon, we can stop trying to draw a line between the two poles and construct a possibly false dichotomy. Rather, we can think in terms that are more appropriately expressed as scalar. Although I more had a spectrum in mind than nested circles.
My position is that inventions are kinds of discoveries, so the answer is kind of no. But since they are only KINDS of discoveries, we can talk "discovering the wheel" as being different than "discovering that objects fall". We can "invent" the wheel, since that is a higher sort of discovery. But we can't "invent" that objects fall to earth.
Here though, I tend to disagree. The distinction into discrete categories does not seem to serve well at all. Things existed before there were people to observe them. For example, nobody discovered the earth. Although Columbus did discover the island of Hispaniola. This despite the fact that there were already people living there.
Another example would be fire. Fires were around and a menace to life before humans existed to think about them. However, as humans evolved, someone though that a torch would be a really neat idea and allow us to capture and use fire in a controlled way.
Some time later, when we had more sophisticated tools, someone realized that if you use a piece of iron bearing meteorite as a hammer stone to make a flint ax, you will cause sparks. Then the torch and a lengthy journey to somewhere to light it was no longer needed if the community fire died out.
From this, it would seem to me that there is a progression of events.
- First, nobody discovered fire.
- Second, somebody invented the torch.
- Third, somebody observed the flint sparking on iron.
- Fourth, somebody invented the striker box.
I feel like I have something that I'm articulating extreeeeemely poorly, haha. I'm probably about as happy with my answers as you are.
As do I at times. Welcome to the club, we are only mildly radioactive. Really, potassium is a low level gamma emitter.
Never ever did I say enything about free, I said "free."
=
- Login to post comments
Offline I'm not a big fan of making analogies with evolution. Not necessarily because I think they're always wrong, but people really, really don't understand evolution, and I fear that analogies often perpetuate this misunderstanding. Having said that, within this very confined conversation between atheists who understand evolution, I'm basically ok with this analogy.
True, evolution adds complexity over generations, and we can say that technology does the same thing. True, technology varies according to the pressures of the environment. It's possible to say that our technology evolves with us, or that our technology is an extension of our evolution, but I just feel this eerie sense of impending doom when I allow my brain to relax and use evolution this way.
In a way our technology is almost alive, but as with a virus’s reliance on living cells to reproduce and evolve our technology completely relies on us.
Well... in a very limited way, I suppose this is analogous. In a way, this kind of gets right to the heart of part of my proposition. Most biologists, I think, are ok with saying viruses are alive, but they really do cause a philosophical problem for people who want to draw a dividing line between life and non-life. My proposition is that this line is not particularly important because "life" is only unique from the perspective of the living. What we do feels really interesting and significant, but perceiving significance is something that's built into our genes... which are just matter... which is just part of the system... Sooooooo... perceived significance is nothing out of the ordinary.
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
- Login to post comments
Offline I have thought about this for a few hours now, on and off, and I feel inclined to the position that we use the word invention merely to denote an anthropic abstraction of discovery.
I have also thought about a similar linguistic subject about a year ago that may have physical or metaphysical implications; namely, the existence or nonexistence of causality. When we observe nature, our observation occurs across many units of time. Throughout this units of time, we discern patterns in the properties and locations of objects. Our cognitive computational ability, however, confines us to considering only a certain subset of nature at a time. This results in, for lack of a better term, a shattered visage. Because we did not recognize the shattered visage as shattered, we formed abstractions about the patterns we discerned in the pieces of this shattered visage. By reifying our abstractions, we gave rise to the notion of causality, types of causality, and causal mechanisms when causality does not occur and causal mechanisms do not exist; only a single behavior pattern across multiple time units exists. I do not put this forward as a statement of fact, just explaining a particular line of thought I have pondered.
Stultior stulto fuisti, qui tabellis crederes!
- Login to post comments
Offline spin wrote:Archeopteryx was right, human language exists for only one reason: human communication.Archeopteryx wrote:Since human language only exists to assist human communication and therefore human understanding of concepts, these two words have different meanings because they are meant to be used by humans to discuss things in a human context or to discuss things relative to human experience.So these are two categories of phenomena according to man, but a single phenomenon in a materialist universe. It's all the same to nature, of course, but nature isn't using the words----the words die with us. So once you start venturing into a territory where words are treated as more than useful human tools, where they are allowed to simply be "out there", somehow having meaning with no help from us, then you are probably entering the realm of some unnecessary conundrum.
[If you hadn't said "only" in your first paragraph, I'd be a lot happier with your comment. As it is the fact that humans do most of their thinking via language falsifies your statement (and different languages imply different ways of thinking and therefore different ways of understanding concepts). Language in fact has numerous reasons to exist, expression of emotion and physical states, means of control, ordering the world for yourself, lying, entertainment, companionship, etc.]
spin
Then I'd suggest you do a little research into sociolinguistics and psycholinguistics.
Everything you listed is communication of some form.
So, if I make a mistake and then say "fuck!", what communication can you seriously imagine there is in that?
Clearly, before language and in spite of language there is processing in our brains that does not require the use of language. A great deal of our thinking, contrary to what you posed as a fact, is done or can be done without the use of language as an intermediate in the thought process.
The only major category of thinking we don't do with language is visually based, such as with sports, chess, computer games, and things like architecture and construction. The vast majority of other thought is language based. That's why kids with poor language skills do so badly at school: their social situation usually doesn't permit any language improvement, so they are doomed to poor results. (Check the work of Basil Bernstein, eg here on Wiki, for a few pointers.)
Obviously, different human languages embody different ways of thinking about the universe and different ways of understanding concepts, but that's not particularly surprising since concepts envisioned within even one language and discussed between two people are not necessarily identically understood. I'm not sure what your objection actually is, except to have a qualm about people having... Ah!
I was merely pointing out the error that language was solely for communication. That's a crock of shite.
Yes, we do use language in our minds to think about things. Even to have internal dialogue. It's important to remember, though, that we were thinking before we had language (such as it is now) and that language is not a necessary tool for abstract thought (ex. 'ordering the world for yourself'). Our current capacity for language did not precede our thinking, but evolved with it.
Uh-huh. But try and get admission into grade school without any language skills whatsoever. Without language, you cannot manipulate more than the most grossly basic concepts. Language gives you the handles to manipulate ideas. We cut the phenomenal world up into discrete chunks and hold them in our heads with these handles so that we can make sense of it. This obviously could be done extremely rudimentarily before language, but there would be no way to use the information with others, except through sign language. The happy idea of George Orwell called NewSpeak involved limiting thought by reduction of language. Fewer handles means less thought range.
To the OP...
Invention is teleological, while discovery isn't. End of discussion.
spin
Trust the evidence, Luke
- Login to post comments
Offline More importantly, what does this line of thinking do for the concept of Intelligent Design?
Intelligent Design is a veiled linguistic argument that makes no sense in the real world and offers no verification or falsification. Science is about testing things. How do you test for intelligent design?
(Discovery isn't a necessary condition for invention. I'm tired of scratching my crotch manually, so I'm going to invent a crotch-scratcher. No discovery at all. Invention simply requires a desired end and a means to get there.)
spin
Trust the evidence, Luke
- Login to post comments
Offline
Then I'd suggest you do a little research into sociolinguistics and psycholinguistics.
Um... Thomathy is a linguist.
So, if I make a mistake and then say "fuck!", what communication can you seriously imagine there is in that?
I suspect "communication" doesn't mean what you think it means.
Invention is teleological, while discovery isn't. End of discussion.
This is the equivalent of saying design is designed and non-design isn't designed. That's neither informative nor helpful. We're discussing the definition of design and discovery, not the categorization of them.
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
- Login to post comments
Offline
Intelligent Design is a veiled linguistic argument that makes no sense in the real world and offers no verification or falsification. Science is about testing things. How do you test for intelligent design?(Discovery isn't a necessary condition for invention. I'm tired of scratching my crotch manually, so I'm going to invent a crotch-scratcher. No discovery at all. Invention simply requires a desired end and a means to get there.)
So... you're agreeing with my proposition? I honestly can't tell.
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
- Login to post comments
Offline ROFL! You get the Most Relevant Blatantly Obvious Observation Award for the day. Welcome to my life. Specifically, I'm thinking of... let's see... hope, and validation, if anyone is going on a scavenger hunt.
Do you believe that in theory, we could perform all our current mental tasks without "internal language"? In other words, is it possible to non-linguistically plan an airplane?
I admit, I had the same reaction as you... yes, language is just for human communication, but I've never really thought about whether or not some of our most "advanced" thoughts required internal dialog. What do you think?
The thing is, as I said earlier (and you'll appreciate this the most of anyone, Hamby), we are human and language is simply built into us. I don't think we could even begin to do the things we do if we minused our internal language (in whatever form that internal language takes).
Nevermind. You answered my question. I don't know if I understand how a realization is an invention.
I'm pretty sure this is the first time I've ever really thought about this concept. It is very fun.
BigUniverse wrote,
"Well the things that happen less often are more likely to be the result of the supper natural. A thing like loosing my keys in the morning is not likely supper natural, but finding a thousand dollars or meeting a celebrity might be."
- Login to post comments
Offline I've been thinking for a couple of days now about how this might relate to ID, and I've got a couple of thoughts. Ironically, I think Spin might be saying what I'm about to say, but I can't tell. Poor communication... go figure.
Anyway, the argument from Intelligent Design posits that certain things demand design. That is, they could only exist if they were designed. If we can properly frame design as an interpretation, not an objective reality, then this argument obviously loses most, if not all, of its force. It becomes the semantic equivalent of insisting that we say The Vietnam Conflict instead of The Vietnam War.
I mentioned this earlier, and I'm feeling again that I'm teetering on the edge of postmodernism, and that makes me antsy, but I think there's worthwhile information here. Where I think we can avoid the descent into ridiculous is by demonstrating and maintaining that there is a difference between a thing being semantically subjective and objectively subjective. That is, there are existing things in the universe, and if we accept the flow of time to be linear (I'm not even sure we need cause/effect, VP) we can say that there is no objective difference between discovery and invention (design), only a matter of localized narrative (interpretation). That being the case, the question of Intelligent Design becomes a question for linguists, not theologists.
Thoughts?
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
- Login to post comments
Offline
Quote:Then I'd suggest you do a little research into sociolinguistics and psycholinguistics.Um... Thomathy is a linguist.
Doesn't show it, but so am I.
Quote:So, if I make a mistake and then say "fuck!", what communication can you seriously imagine there is in that?I suspect "communication" doesn't mean what you think it means.
Perhaps you might like to elaborate. For me communication involves at least two participants, at least one of each being a transmitter of language and the other being a receiver.
Quote:Invention is teleological, while discovery isn't. End of discussion.This is the equivalent of saying design is designed and non-design isn't designed. That's neither informative nor helpful. We're discussing the definition of design and discovery, not the categorization of them.
Actually, no it isn't. And I thought we were discussing "invention" and "discovery" and categorizing them should certainly be helpful as to their significance. (I've said a little more in another post here.)
spin
Trust the evidence, Luke
- Login to post comments
Offline
I just nearly choked on my on spit.
I'm glad you're ok.
Now, there are mental tasks that are non-linguistic, but I can't see how something as complex as an airplane design could be put together without any given human conceptualizing every task non-linguisticaly.
I chided Spin a minute ago for not knowing what communication is, but it's fair to say that expressing a symbolic representation for it is surprisingly difficult. This gets right down to the meat of the question. As I'm thinking about this subject, I have a pretty clear mental abstraction of both communication and language. I can put it into words, but there, we start running into trouble. Even now as I try to think of a sentence precise enough to convey the exact meaning, I realize I should probably take it as read that you understand the problem.
At this point, a lot of people would try to run off the deep end of the "knowledge is unknowable except in the self" bit, and I don't want to go that way because... well... it's boring. However, I think we have to at least pay some lip service to the idea that communication is an imperfect process, if only to get those people off our backs. The question isn't whether language communicates exactly. It's whether it communicates, and the bigger question is, how far can we extend the idea of language and still be within our epistemic rights? Am I justified in saying that "body language" is language? If so, then in a very real sense, language is wholly and singularly unavoidable, for if I sit perfectly motionless, I am conveying information to anyone who perceives me.
Even with that concession, can we say that any logic we think is nonlinguistic in any way? For if I have admitted that nonverbal movements are language, can I justifiably exclude internal abstractions of informational relationships? Logic is certainly that when we think it. And... since all of our "thinking" that ends with "conclusions" necessarily involves logic...
I suppose the point I'm trying to make is that language itself falls squarely within the bounds of the discussion we're having. As you say, it's part of being human. We didn't so much invent language as add layers of complexity to it once we... um... discovered... it? So...
Ugh. My brain hurts, but do you see what I'm getting at?
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
- Login to post comments
Offline
Perhaps you might like to elaborate. For me communication involves at least two participants, at least one of each being a transmitter of language and the other being a receiver.
Are you suggesting that I don't receive a single bit of data when I perceive you say "fuck"?
{Edited for clarity}
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
- Login to post comments
Offline
Quote:Intelligent Design is a veiled linguistic argument that makes no sense in the real world and offers no verification or falsification. Science is about testing things. How do you test for intelligent design?(Discovery isn't a necessary condition for invention. I'm tired of scratching my crotch manually, so I'm going to invent a crotch-scratcher. No discovery at all. Invention simply requires a desired end and a means to get there.)
So... you're agreeing with my proposition? I honestly can't tell.
I saw some musings about "invention" and "discovery" and a question about intelligent design. I simply attempted to clarify the relations between the two terms and state a few problems with intelligent design. My comments were produced as a use-as-you-will effort. I didn't see a proposition for me to agree with. 
spin
Trust the evidence, Luke
- Login to post comments
Offline
Quote:Perhaps you might like to elaborate. For me communication involves at least two participants, at least one of each being a transmitter of language and the other being a receiver.Are you suggesting that I don't receive a single bit of data when I perceive you say "fuck"?
{Edited for clarity}
When I'm alone you don't. It obviously wasn't said for the benefit of anyone else. Gosh.
spin
Trust the evidence, Luke
- Login to post comments
Offline
Actually, no it isn't. And I thought we were discussing "invention" and "discovery" and categorizing them should certainly be helpful as to their significance. (I've said a little more in another post here.)
It's fine to start sorting things into baskets, but if we're sorting unknown objects just by how we think they ought to go, we're not really doing much. The question I'm asking is whether the distinction between teleology and um... non-teleology... is a distinction in fact or a distinction in semantics. To do that, I need to know precisely what each one is. That's a question of definition, not categorization.
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
- Login to post comments
Offline
Quote:Actually, no it isn't. And I thought we were discussing "invention" and "discovery" and categorizing them should certainly be helpful as to their significance. (I've said a little more in another post here.)It's fine to start sorting things into baskets, but if we're sorting unknown objects just by how we think they ought to go, we're not really doing much. The question I'm asking is whether the distinction between teleology and um... non-teleology... is a distinction in fact or a distinction in semantics. To do that, I need to know precisely what each one is. That's a question of definition, not categorization.
Invention requires the intent to produce something not produced before. (It's the producing something that makes it teleological.) Discovery requires neither an intent nor the production of anything. I went to the shop yesterday and discovered the shop-owner was Chinese. Discovery is merely a way of getting new information.
spin
Trust the evidence, Luke
- Login to post comments
Offline
Invention requires the intent to produce something not produced before. (It's the producing something that makes it teleological.) Discovery requires neither an intent nor the production of anything. I went to the shop yesterday and discovered the shop-owner was Chinese.
Hmm... I'm trying not to be snippy, but I'm wondering if you've read the whole thread. I gather that you're trying to help, but you're not exactly addressing the question. We recognize the commonly accepted distinction between discovery and invention. The question is whether there is a real distinction and if so, what it might be.
Invention can be said to be a subset of discovery -- that is, I discover that I can manipulate matter in a certain way such that it performs X function. From a certain perspective, I have "invented" a can opener, but outside of that perspective, it seems quite legitimate to say that I discovered something that is already (and has always been) a property of matter -- that when manipulated thusly, it produces a can opener.
To put it another way, at any given point in time, matter could go together to form a can opener. The agent responsible for the actual making of a can opener certainly felt very self important, and it was new information to him, but can openers always were available. Do you see what I'm getting at? When we take anthropocentric bias out of the equation, we're just matter acting as matter acts, only in this case, matter acts in a way such that it produces critters who manipulate matter consciously.
Put yet another way, we view life as somehow noteworthy, primarily because we're alive, but there's no guarantee that a passing hypothetical spaceship of hypothetical "not our kind of alive" beings would look at organic life and see it as anything more than a really interesting physics problem to be solved. (I suppose what I'm doing now is demonstrating just how hard it is to remove anthropocentric bias.)
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
- Login to post comments
Offline Hambydammit wrote:
Quote:Perhaps you might like to elaborate. For me communication involves at least two participants, at least one of each being a transmitter of language and the other being a receiver.Are you suggesting that I don't receive a single bit of data when I perceive you say "fuck"?
{Edited for clarity}
When I'm alone you don't. It obviously wasn't said for the benefit of anyone else. Gosh.
spin
If so, then in a very real sense, language is wholly and singularly unavoidable, for if I sit perfectly motionless, I am conveying information to anyone who perceives me.
I didn't know that Spin had responded... at all. I only read your post #28. Here's my response to Spin: Speaking while alone is still performing communication. Language is soley for communication. -Not for a lack of imagination, I cannot imagine a thing you could do with language that doesn't involve communication. I don't specifically have a contention with the rest. It's true, language is pervasive in our thoughts and it is inexorable. It makes up a large part of our thinking, but is not necessarily intrinsic to all our thinking. I believe I had said that much initially.
My comments were produced as a use-as-you-will effort. I didn't see a proposition for me to agree with.
Invention is teleological, while discovery isn't. End of discussion.
BigUniverse wrote,
"Well the things that happen less often are more likely to be the result of the supper natural. A thing like loosing my keys in the morning is not likely supper natural, but finding a thousand dollars or meeting a celebrity might be."
- Login to post comments
Offline
Quote:Invention requires the intent to produce something not produced before. (It's the producing something that makes it teleological.) Discovery requires neither an intent nor the production of anything. I went to the shop yesterday and discovered the shop-owner was Chinese.Hmm... I'm trying not to be snippy, but I'm wondering if you've read the whole thread. I gather that you're trying to help, but you're not exactly addressing the question. We recognize the commonly accepted distinction between discovery and invention. The question is whether there is a real distinction and if so, what it might be.
Invention can be said to be a subset of discovery -- that is, I discover that I can manipulate matter in a certain way such that it performs X function. From a certain perspective, I have "invented" a can opener, but outside of that perspective, it seems quite legitimate to say that I discovered something that is already (and has always been) a property of matter -- that when manipulated thusly, it produces a can opener.
I thought my crotch-scratcher would wean you off this sort of thought. Intent, new end product, means. Where's the discovery??
Invent[agent, new product, means] = design[agent, new concept, product], construct[agent, new product, means]
Discover[observer, new fact]
To put it another way, at any given point in time, matter could go together to form a can opener. The agent responsible for the actual making of a can opener certainly felt very self important, and it was new information to him, but can openers always were available.
You're getting too obscure for me. An object is always more than the sum of its parts. The parts might have always been available, but the can opener hasn't. (Unless you'd like to postulate some sort of Platonic heaven.)
Do you see what I'm getting at? When we take anthropocentric bias out of the equation, we're just matter acting as matter acts, only in this case, matter acts in a way such that it produces critters who manipulate matter consciously.
Invention requires intending entities. Take the intending entity out of the equation and you can't have invention. (For that matter, take out the discoverer and you can't have a discovery.)
Put yet another way, we view life as somehow noteworthy, primarily because we're alive, but there's no guarantee that a passing hypothetical spaceship of hypothetical "not our kind of alive" beings would look at organic life and see it as anything more than a really interesting physics problem to be solved. (I suppose what I'm doing now is demonstrating just how hard it is to remove anthropocentric bias.)
Get a cat. 
I'm sorry, but I can't see how your thoughts are able to get you where you'd like to go.
spin
Trust the evidence, Luke
- Login to post comments
Offline
You're getting too obscure for me.
Obviously. No offense, but if you don't understand what we're talking about, isn't it a little presumptuous to suggest we're wrong?
Get a cat.
I'm sorry, but I can't see how your thoughts are able to get you where you'd like to go.
I have one
In all seriousness, Spin, I appreciate that you want to help, but it appears to me that you're not grasping what we're talking about. I don't know how else to explain it, and it is apparent to me that Thomathy grasps it, so I think I'm communicating it sufficiently well for someone who understands the meanings of the individual words I'm using.
To be honest, it doesn't appear that you understand my basic proposition. If you did, you wouldn't be answering as you are. Does that make sense?
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
- Login to post comments
Offline To put it another way, at any given point in time, matter could go together to form a can opener. The agent responsible for the actual making of a can opener certainly felt very self important, and it was new information to him, but can openers always were available. Do you see what I'm getting at? When we take anthropocentric bias out of the equation, we're just matter acting as matter acts, only in this case, matter acts in a way such that it produces critters who manipulate matter consciously.
'Invention' seems to me to be a conceit of us conscious animals. I mean, can we call the stick that fishes ants from a hole an invention of chimps? (Spin doesn't think so) What about our precognisant ancestors and their tools? I think this is what I was getting at about that initial 'invention' and the realisation therein that we can form matter to our purposes. Before that recognition by our conscious ancestors can there have been any such thing as discovery or invention except in retrospect? Certainly they had purposes, but does invention require conscious admittance that something is being created for a specific purpose? And ( I realise I'm getting repititious) is invention anything other than a conceit? Does it actually ocurr in any real sense? I begin to believe 'no'. And I think this is what Hamby is begining to believe. And it is here that I think the connection to ID may become apparent. I can almost feel it.
BigUniverse wrote,
"Well the things that happen less often are more likely to be the result of the supper natural. A thing like loosing my keys in the morning is not likely supper natural, but finding a thousand dollars or meeting a celebrity might be."
- Login to post comments
Offline Spin, you can be your own interlocutor. Don't try to tell me that you don't communicate with yourself. It would be upsetting to read such an outright lie or such ignorance.
That's a little too schizoid for me. You are not communicating in any meaningful sense; you are organizing thought. It is not a dialogue, but if you must a species of monologue: you are merely holding thoughts in order to do something with them.
Hambydammit wrote:If so, then in a very real sense, language is wholly and singularly unavoidable, for if I sit perfectly motionless, I am conveying information to anyone who perceives me.And likely you are 'saying' something to yourself. And this is really the approach I take to language. It is pervasive and all encompassing and perfectly unavoidable.
Actually I was whistling.
I didn't know that Spin had responded... at all. I only read your post #28. Here's my response to Spin: Speaking while alone is still performing communication. Language is soley for communication. -Not for a lack of imagination, I cannot imagine a thing you could do with language that doesn't involve communication. I don't specifically have a contention with the rest. It's true, language is pervasive in our thoughts and it is inexorable. It makes up a large part of our thinking, but is not necessarily intrinsic to all our thinking. I believe I had said that much initially.
I don't accept your internalization of the communication process. You are not communicating anything: you are manipulating ideas with language.
spin wrote:Actually, I don't see it that way.My comments were produced as a use-as-you-will effort. I didn't see a proposition for me to agree with.
Then how do you see it? (And what is the antecedent for it?)
spin wrote:Them sound like fightin' words. But, seriously, that's not helpful.Invention is teleological, while discovery isn't. End of discussion.
I think it is. To go further, they are in fact two separate ideas which need no overlap of meaning at all.
spin
Trust the evidence, Luke
- Login to post comments
Offline Hambydammit wrote:I agree. Virtually anything can be a can opener, if it works at performing the task I desire. Heck, need a bottle of wine corked? I've got a lovely edge you can smash the neck of the bottle on. That we have a category of things called can opener is merely semantic. Perhaps this doesn't work so simply for much more complex things... but that seems like a minor problem.To put it another way, at any given point in time, matter could go together to form a can opener. The agent responsible for the actual making of a can opener certainly felt very self important, and it was new information to him, but can openers always were available. Do you see what I'm getting at? When we take anthropocentric bias out of the equation, we're just matter acting as matter acts, only in this case, matter acts in a way such that it produces critters who manipulate matter consciously.
What is this reverie of reductionism?
'Invention' seems to me to be a conceit of us conscious animals. I mean, can we call the stick that fishes ants from a hole an invention of chimps? (Spin doesn't think so)
Do you mean that a chimp can't be an intending agent??
What about our precognisant ancestors and their tools? I think this is what I was getting at about that initial 'invention' and the realisation therein that we can form matter to our purposes. Before that recognition by our conscious ancestors can there have been any such thing as discovery or invention except in retrospect? Certainly they had purposes, but does invention require conscious admittance that something is being created for a specific purpose? And ( I realise I'm getting repititious) is invention anything other than a conceit? Does it actually ocurr in any real sense? I begin to believe 'no'. And I think this is what Hamby is begining to believe. And it is here that I think the connection to ID may become apparent. I can almost feel it.
This seems to be getting worse to my mind. Perhaps you are using some extremely idiosyncratic understanding of "invention", as it represents no usage of the word that I'm familiar with. While it is an abstract act needing of intending entities it undoubtedly contains malice aforethought. For it to be a conceit requires labeling everything one does as a conceit. Hence my accusation of reductionism. You are not communicating to me. Perhaps that means I don't have access to the private wavelength you are transmitting on.
spin
Trust the evidence, Luke
- Login to post comments
Offline That's a little too schizoid for me. You are not communicating in any meaningful sense; you are organizing thought. It is not a dialogue, but if you must a species of monologue: you are merely holding thoughts in order to do something with them.
Actually I was whistling.
I don't accept your internalization of the communication process. You are not communicating anything: you are manipulating ideas with language.
[W]hat is the antecedent for it?
I think it is. To go further, they are in fact two separate ideas which need no overlap of meaning at all.
BigUniverse wrote,
"Well the things that happen less often are more likely to be the result of the supper natural. A thing like loosing my keys in the morning is not likely supper natural, but finding a thousand dollars or meeting a celebrity might be."
- Login to post comments
Well, yes, much the way the universe is determined from the instant after the Big Bang (at least as far as we can tell), everything that Humans "invent" could be technically called a product of evolution and therefore the invention or discovery was inevitable. However the destinction is very useful for us and that is why it is used. It can also be argued that things like the bow and arrow were invented because they are not biologically programmed into us at birth. Humans are not born with a blueprint for making bows and arrows the way birds have a blueprint for making nests.
I don't really see what this line of thinking has for Intelligent Design, its still a debunked load of bullshit.
How far do you want to go into epistemology?
From my personal understanding "invention" is the defining of a new concept after the combination of multiple concepts. Humans have the ability to observe nature and use nature to serve his/her needs, wants, or desires. (When I mean nature I mean the laws that govern matter interactions) We manipulate our environment to suit us. Sure you could say that most of science is just defining (discovering) what is. You can't do much with something unless you know what it is and what it is capable of.
I can only offer that discovery is reliant on induction, while invention requires deductive reasoning, and therefore, it's difficult for me to call the latter an illusory phenomenon even in light of the ultimate essentiality of the former. Certainly early humans understood the concept of material elasticity to a certain point, that being put to the test over many years of chewing on animal sinew and fiddling about with sticks and twigs, but understanding elasticity doesn't mean that a bow pops into your filthy caveman hands by some Platonic miracle. Let me say that I'm intrigued but not entirely convinced. I'll give some more thought to this.
"The whole conception of God is a conception derived from ancient Oriental despotisms. It is a conception quite unworthy of free men."
--Bertrand Russell
Well, I would argue that at least one major difference is that while discovery can be a largely solo enterprise (it's easy for an individual to make the observation, for example, that fire produces heat), invention often requires idea & information exchange at a fairly complex level.
Consider pottery. As already described, discovering what fire does isn't a very big deal. Neither is discovering what heat does to clay. Nor is discovering that certain shapes are ideal for trapping water.
Taking all of those individual discoveries and then hatching the idea to build a kiln and fire a pot for collecting water, however, requires a collective enterprise (as well as a great deal of abstraction) as you have to put all of the discoveries together before you'll achieve the end goal.
- Leon Trotsky, Last Will & Testament
February 27, 1940
bumper sticker answer: Invention is the act of making use of discoveries.
*[edit, took out some unnecessary rambling] *
Since human language only exists to assist human communication and therefore human understanding of concepts, these two words have different meanings because they are meant to be used by humans to discuss things in a human context or to discuss things relative to human experience.
So these are two categories of phenomena according to man, but a single phenomenon in a materialist universe. It's all the same to nature, of course, but nature isn't using the words----the words die with us. So once you start venturing into a territory where words are treated as more than useful human tools, where they are allowed to simply be "out there", somehow having meaning with no help from us, then you are probably entering the realm of some unnecessary conundrum.
A place common to all will be maintained by none. A religion common to all is perhaps not much different.
All good comments. There's an idea I'm trying to express, and I haven't quite wrapped words around it yet. Somehow, this ties into what I've said before about "natural" and "unnatural." In a very real sense, the word unnatural is as incoherent as supernatural. Colloquially, we us it to mean something concrete: "Far outside the norm," or "deviant" or something like that. To a materialist, however, I don't think it can have any meaning because we have to define "natural" as encompassing all that exists.
Similarly, there seems to be a somewhat imaginary line in the sand between invention and discovery. Humans rearrange objects all the time. Sometimes it's arbitrary in our minds. Sometimes it's purpose driven. In both cases, we're not doing anything all that special. As some of you have said, it's all a matter of assigned meaning.
What got me onto this line of thinking was a rather bizarre drunk thought. We look at certain bits of matter and we see design. If we stumble upon a watch in the middle of the desert, we "know" that it was a crafted item, not an item made by blind probability. This much is easy, but then the thought hit me: What if we used Bayes Theorem to find the probability of a watch being assembled by blind probability, and then calculated the probability of an intelligent being evolving and then crafting a watch?
Would the probabilities be significantly different?
We can say that the probability of exploring the universe and finding a randomly generated Seiko are vanishingly small, and after becoming sober, I realized that the watch itself is a bit of a red herring. The question isn't whether we will find a watch if we explore the universe. It's whether we would find anything at all that we would be certain was designed but was actually the product of "nature" alone.
This got me thinking about the epistemology of design vs. discovery. See what it's like to live with my brain?
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism
The probability is 1.
- Leon Trotsky, Last Will & Testament
February 27, 1940
Smartass. The probability excluding the obvious existence of this intelligent race that has already made watches.
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism
Actually, that wouldn't be true anyway. If you flip a coin and it lands on heads, the probability of a coin landing on heads is not 1. Similarly, just because intelligent beings have evolved and crafted watches in a single, specific trial (i.e. ours) does not mean that the probability of it happening is 1. It only means that it has happened at least once.
A place common to all will be maintained by none. A religion common to all is perhaps not much different.
Right. The probability of us existing right now is 1 because we exist. The probability of us having reached this point of existence is certainly not 1.
Another way to think about it would be to imagine an unlimited number of singularities which all go "Big Bang." Assuming the same set of universal constants, and the same amount of matter/energy being released in each one, how many Big Bangs would you need before you could be relatively certain that at least one of them would contain a race of intelligent beings who build watches?
Or, perhaps that's too much. Maybe within this universe there are enough galaxies that in any given universe, we could expect such a race, and the question is how many galaxies... or how many solar systems... or earth like planets... or whatever.
Anyway, I'm not really making a point. I'm just bouncing ideas around. Like I said, I realize there is a functional difference for humans between design and discovery, but then again, anthills are clearly designed, too. Ants don't intelligently build their hills, but they build them nonetheless. Humans build planes and ants build hills. Somehow, I'm finding it hard to separate the two "creations" because intelligence is just another selected trait, and we're not really doing anything that isn't done all over the animal kingdom.
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism
To me, a discovery is when you realize the existence of something that's already been there, and invention is when you use your imagination to develop something that did not previously exist. We didn't discover the can opener, we invented it. We didn't invent evolution, we discovered it.
Wonderist on Facebook — Support the idea of wonderism by 'liking' the Wonderism page — or join the open Wonderism group to take part in the discussion!
Gnu Atheism Facebook group — All gnu-friendly RRS members welcome (including Luminon!) — Try something gnu!
This is a question of reductionism. True, we manipulated matter such that its new form opens cans, but from another point of view, we simply discovered that if we manipulate matter in such a way, it will open cans.
It can certainly get overly pedantic. After all, we could say that before cans existed, we probably had enough knowledge of the nature of matter that we could have built a can opener, so we really weren't discovering anything new... we were just using old knowledge to rearrange matter in a way that would be helpful right now.
Maybe this doesn't relate back to the idea of Intelligent Design at all, but my gut keeps telling me it does. I just can't quite make the connection.
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism
Well, yes, I agree with this in the same sense that I agree that there is no functional difference between 'micro' evolution within a species and 'macro' evolution that causes speciation (one is simply a long chain of the other). However, I'm not sure I agree with the idea that we're not really doing anything that isn't done all over the animal kingdom when we build aircraft, computers, automobiles, etc, because the complexity of such machines outweighs any tool we've seen another species create by many orders of magnitude.
It also isn't simply a matter of intelligence that has put extraordinary mechanical gizmos strictly within our domain on Earth, either. Our fingers are a key contributor. No avian (as an example), regardless of how clever it becomes, will ever be able to build a tank because it doesn't have the necessary appendages.
That, to me, is why I consider mechanical engineering on our scale a very unique trait, seperated by what most organisms are capable of by a sort of 'perfect storm' of evolutionary history.
- Leon Trotsky, Last Will & Testament
February 27, 1940
The most difficult part of this thought experiment is that we have to take ourselves out of the equation completely, which is embarassingly hard to do. (Hence, anthropomorphic gods).
We'll also have to take out all devices we've invented to serve our purposes, like watches, since as you said, that just leads us to a red herring.
But suppose that we're flying a spaceship in a parallel dimension of some kind. We discover a simple machine called a marklar, created by some intelligent biological creatures called Voons. We have no idea what the purpose of the simple machine might be, but we can see that the machine involves a wheel and axle.
In this scenario we could either lump the biological "Voons" into the same general category as everything else in the universe and just refer to everything as "the universe", in which case we could say that this universe naturally generates simple machines with wheels and axles.
Or we could split the same universe into a dichotomy: biological creatures and everything else. In that case, we could say that the "voons" had invented the machine called the marklar, or the wheel and axle.
But this raises the question to the next highest step. Have the "voon" creatures intelligently created these machines out of what can only be described as curiosity and pursuit of knowledge and technological advancement? Or did these "voons" create the machines instinctually, much like an ant builds an anthill or a bird builds a nest. Or are both ultimately the same thing?
I think it's along the lines of them both being the same thing, but not quite. I would assume that an ant building an anthill is somewhat of a natural drive, and that a bird building a nest is a sort of natural drive, just as we are naturally driven to ingest lots of food containing sugars, and just as we are naturally driven to communicate with spoken language (as long as there are other people around us anyway).
But it the difference is a question of processing power. If all creatures have these sorts of behaviors in them, we can think of them as programs and every one of these creatures is a sort of biological computer. So the question becomes, how much processing power is in each computer. Obviously, some are going to be able to run more programs simultaneously than others. Also, some are going to be able to run more monstrous, memory-hogging programs than others.
It's probably that ants, being smaller biological computers, are simpler in comparison to humans (or, if you still want us out of the picture, the "voons" ). They run simpler and very probably fewer programs. Humans are able to run more and better programs, so the output, though technically "natural", is comparitively of a higher order.
You can think of it another way (I think this is an example Dan Dennett once gave): You may ask how many orders of agency each creature can understand simultaneously, and that way you can measure its "processing power". For example, suppose you have a human and a cow staring at each other. The cow might be able to see the human, and it might be able to see that the human sees him, the cow. But that is probably as far as the cow can go, never having had any reason to go much further. The human, on the other hand, can go as far as seeing that the cow sees that the human sees the cow. Once you start adding in more orders of agency, even the human gets confused, but being social creatures, we are accustomed to thinking, at least in this way, one order above the cow. But that's just another way of illustrating the "better computer" metaphor.
Anyway... maybe it would suit you to think of a watch as both a discovery and an invention, where discovery is a broader term and invention a more specific one that is only used if you find it necessary to draw more lines.
And supposing you did want to draw those lines and use the term "invention", a materialist thinker might object, feeling that drawing those lines misrepresents the universe. But I would counter with the argument that it's very difficult to accurately portray everything about the universe all the time. If we were forced to do that, we'd have to throw out all of models, our visual aids, Richard Dawkins's "Mount Improbable" metaphor, etc. But I think all of those things are excellent aids to understanding, just as I think drawing imaginary lines with words like "natural" versus "unnatural" and "discovery" versus "invention" are useful and probably even necessary. Language is inherently extremely metaphorical. As long as you can separate the metaphor from the science, you should be okay.
I hope I did more there than ramble incoherently.
*edit*
Oops. I guess Kevin beat me to the punch and said what I was going to say, only kinda in a less verbose way. I suck at keeping things concise. =P
*/edit*
A place common to all will be maintained by none. A religion common to all is perhaps not much different.
OK Hamby, you are seeming to touch on an area that I have some related thoughts on. However, before I get to the distinction between invention and discovery, I would like to set up some background on the idea of something being “special”.
So what would qualify as special?
Let's say just for example that ghosts are really real. That would not mean that ghosts are a supernatural phenomenon. If the premise is true, then they are part of the natural world and at least in principal, they could be found and described, provided that the science needed to do so precedes the discovery of ghosts.
Any other so-called supernatural ideas are in the same boat, be it demons, Ouija boards or anything else. Call this the first axiom of AIGS if you will. That which exists is part of the world and can be described given the prerequisite science.
Of course, if the science is not yet in place, then a thing that exists cannot be described. However, that is not relevant to the fact that it exists.
Just for fun, let me posit the existence of god. Now the theists around here would have us believe that god was sitting around one day and came up with this idea that a universe would be a fun toy. So off he went to his cosmological workshop and he whipped one up. However, there is no evidence that such is the case. Perhaps the universe was not an intentional act on the part of god. Just possibly, the big bang should be more properly termed as “The Great Cosmological Fart”. And having farted, god being pretty much just like us (after all, we are created in his own image) likes to smell his own.
Either way, this still points to a rather decided lack of anything being special. The universe in not some special thing. It is embedded in the larger context that god exists in. Whatever that is, becomes the new concept of a universe.
Trust me on this one: I get weirder things in my breakfast cereal. Too bad that I don't usually eat breakfast.
=
You are very wise, grasshopper. Your wisdom will do you proud very soon...
The question I've been getting at (and which you've just helped me articulate... thank you) is this: Taking our anthroopomorphic bias out of the equation, is there any justification for creating this dichotomy? We find biological creatures to be terribly important because we are biological creatures, but is there any real distinction? We can say that biological creatures are different by virtue of descent and variation, and that's true, but so what? What makes the product of a phenomenon which replicates itself with variation different than the product of a phenomenon that doesn't?
Complexity is certainly a trait we could focus on, but that's a matter of degree, not kind, so... where's the line?
As is humans' tendency to use tools...
But is our anthropomorphic bias showing again? Information exists in everything, and anything that "does" anything can be said to be manipulating information. However, if we start talking about information, we have to remember that if a statistician isn't there to crunch the numbers, there aren't any numbers.
So are you suggesting that invention is one order of agency above discovery? I might be convinced to run with that idea for a minute.
I don't so much suggest that it misrepresents the universe. I'm pondering whether or not it causes a conflation of terms in any significant discussion.
Or, I'm also wondering if there's a way to frame this distinction such that it would aid in understanding materialist epistemology.
Actually, you've helped quite a bit.
And Kevin, I hope you'll accept my apology for answering Archeo and not you. It's just a matter of placement on the page.
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism
Well, in that intelligent organisms are the only thing currently known to be able to analyze the universe (and thus assign importance to things), I'm not sure it's fair to call an intelligent organism's perspective a 'bias'. We tend to draw distinctions between, say, frogs and rocks (and give the former a little more consideration) because we know beyond reasonable doubt that the rock has no consciousness of any form (and thereby also has no perspective of it's own, feels no emotions, etc).
- Leon Trotsky, Last Will & Testament
February 27, 1940
It seems like the very definition of bias to me. In what way do you think it's not a bias? To be clear, I'm using bias to mean "the tendency or urge to view something from a certain perspective." If we can only see things from our perspective... well...
To head off the next objection, I'll say that humans' ability to imagine another perspective than their own fails to make a real distinction because we are imagining another biological being's perspective. It is literally impossible (I think) for a human to not think like a human.
Hmm... but we also trample ants by the thousands while preserving bits of rock we think are important...
I'm not sure I understand what your point is here.
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism
Hai, sensei.
I can't think of any justification for it that isn't a tool for the biological creatures. I mean, I'm certain you understand why it's useful to biological creatures. Obviously they want to be able to distinguish between other creatures with agency and the general environment, because they want to know when their guard should be up. Hence, animals that mimic the environment to get that guard to go down and so on. Anyway, rambling. So it's very useful for all animals, not just humans, to make that important distinction. But can it be justified in a way that doesn't fall back on an explanation of how it helps animal understanding or survival? I certainly can't think of one at the moment. It seems like it would be no different than setting up a dichotomy that separates the universe into vegetation and everything else. Some thinking mind out there might have a use for such a dichotomy, but without that mind, there's really no reason for it that I can think of. But actually, none of these dichotomies exist without the minds anyway. They are imaginary divisions. So probably their ONLY justification is their usefulness to those who imagine them.
As is humans' tendency to use tools...
True, but there is also a difference in the long-term. Ants don't engineer new ways to make anthills better and more efficient. By evolutionary processes, they might arrive at a better anthill, since all the ants in the shitty anthills get wiped out, and the ants building all the good anthills are still around in their ant towers, but the same ants in the same anthill, as far as I know, do not have a R&D offices.
Even though our drive to use tools is, in itself, not all that different than the ants' drive to build anthills, we add another kind of intelligence on top of that, which is R&D.
That sounds like another way of rendering "If a tree falls in the woods and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?"
I think I don't fully understand what you were taking issue with exactly, so I won't comment on that one.
Right, because, since we are able to think one order of agency higher, that means we are allowed to posit OURSELVES and our own thoughts as the other agent, or we can posit people who are absent as agents, or we can make up imaginary people to posit as agents. Have you ever had an imaginary argument with someone who wasn't there, and yet you still found it somehow constructive? I think something like this probably helps explain where we are in relation to other biological creatures. A simpler creature---a monkey, say---could discover that fire added to water equals no fire. But it requires something extra to arrive at a moltav cocktail. It requires a lot of "If/then" work, which is hugely assisted by this extra order of agency our minds are able to process, especially since we can conceive of the objects we're manipulating as the agents, which is something we love to do. (e.g. Ever yelled at your car?)
I actually don't think I've ever heard "invent" used where "discover" should be, but it does seem common for "discover" to replace "invent".
You can't say that anyone invented gravity or the expansion of the universe, but you can say they discovered it.
On the other hand, it seems like no one would object if you said either that someone invented the wheel OR that they discovered it.
I think that lends itself to the notion that "invent" fits inside of "discover" (i.e. being a more specific kind of discovery) and not vice-versa. Unless, of course, my above observations are rejected by someone else.
Hm, well I don't know of a way to frame it right of the cuff that could help materialist epistemology. I suppose I've been working more against the notion of it harming materialist epistemology.
Excellent. One likes to feel useful.
A place common to all will be maintained by none. A religion common to all is perhaps not much different.