RE: Darwin Proven Wrong?
September 15, 2014 at 12:33 pm
(This post was last modified: September 15, 2014 at 12:35 pm by Ben Davis.)
Hi, I may be 17 pages too late but we've not had the chance to chat over our tea and I've got some things on my mind that haven't yet been articulated by others.
Starting with a philosophical point, it seems that you're on a search for 'absolute truth'. Further, your use of the word 'reality' seems interchangable with 'absolute truth'. Am I right in assuming that you would consider 'that which is real' to be 'that which is absolutely true' and that if it isn't 'absolutely true', it isn't 'real'? Also are you happy to work with 'the closest approximation of reality' as described by the mechanisms available to us, currently?
It seems that Descartes went one step too far, in to the realm where the question 'why' becomes useless as the possible answers have no explanatory power. I'm one who thinks that this is the case and I ascribe to the idea 'sum ergo sum', I am therefore I am: the facts of our existence are the evidence of our existence. By all mechanisms that have ever been available to humans, over the entire of our history, the closest thing to 'absolute truth' seems to be data. I'd like you to keep that in mind as you read because my responses will be phrased in line with that paradigm.
Final question: if you can't use data, how do you separate fact from fiction?
Cheers!
Starting with a philosophical point, it seems that you're on a search for 'absolute truth'. Further, your use of the word 'reality' seems interchangable with 'absolute truth'. Am I right in assuming that you would consider 'that which is real' to be 'that which is absolutely true' and that if it isn't 'absolutely true', it isn't 'real'? Also are you happy to work with 'the closest approximation of reality' as described by the mechanisms available to us, currently?
(September 12, 2014 at 11:47 am)sswhateverlove Wrote: Conscious AwarenessDescartes certainly doesn't describe an 'absolute truth' rather his point supports the argument that there's no such thing. It even contests the idea that we're thinking at all. After all, how can you really know?!
I will start with the little I do know, and it is this, “cogito ergo sum”, “I think, therefore, I am”. Descarte’s famous quote sums up, in a few words, everything that I know as absolute truth.
It seems that Descartes went one step too far, in to the realm where the question 'why' becomes useless as the possible answers have no explanatory power. I'm one who thinks that this is the case and I ascribe to the idea 'sum ergo sum', I am therefore I am: the facts of our existence are the evidence of our existence. By all mechanisms that have ever been available to humans, over the entire of our history, the closest thing to 'absolute truth' seems to be data. I'd like you to keep that in mind as you read because my responses will be phrased in line with that paradigm.
Quote:I perceive and form opinion. I observe and assess. I experience and evaluate, compare and assimilate based on all my previous experiences. The opinions I form will be dependent upon what I have observed prior and what information I have been socialized to accept as truth. However, the only thing I really know is that I have this experience. I do not know for sure you also experience this (the truth is, you could be a robot), but I know it happens for me.I've emboldened part of your quote because I don't think you realise how important the implications of this are: we don't have perception in isolation. Our sensory tools are personal to us, yes, but we have an active instinct to check our senses against external measures. We see the value in corroborating data. That's because data is repeatable and reproducable, irrespective of one's personal experience. Data is objective (at least 'as objective as you can get', since you buy into Descartes )
Quote:Beyond this, there are many claims of truth, for which I will explore. But please bear in mind, the absolute nature of the claims depend upon current technology and the accumulation of observation, experience, and opinion formed by those deemed worthy of forming such an opinion. As far as I’m aware, there are no experts who claim to be omniscient, wherefore we must always consider that there may be variables uncontrolled for and information left out.Indeed. Further, we must always remember that our ability to experience reality in no way limits or describes the nature of reality. However that doesn't reduce the value of the data that we can collect. Any data is better than none and a greater amount better than lesser. We can be 'absolutely' right about one aspect of the data whilst being wrong about another.
Quote:Sensory PerceptionNot true, it allows us to collect & corroborate data. That is the purpose of the mechanisms which you've described. The 'truth' is that certain objects reflect light at differing wavelengths and that the differentiation of those wavelengths can offer advantage to certain lifeforms. They eye and the brain have developed in concert to try and take that advantage. Is there any 'truth' to 'red'? Well, yes, from a data perspective: 'red' is defined as wavelengths of light between 620 & 740 nm as that is what can be corroborated.The truth about what “is” cannot be deduced from this, it simply confirms Descartes' claim that we experience and form opinion.
Quote:Similar to the concept of the “Matrix”, if we choose to believe we are experiencing reality, then our reality is real regardless of what actually “is”. This is at the root of all we know, but for the sake of moving on in our exploration of truth, let’s assume the reality of our experience is a given.But it is a given. Reality exists irrespective of our existence. I've used this example on other threads but matter would still attract matter with a force in proportion to its mass even if there were no way to ever know about it. As I said earlier, remember that our ability to experience reality in no way limits or describes the nature of reality.
Quote:The Beginning of the Material UniversePlenty of other people have picked you up on the flaws in this section. My tuppenceworth? You misrepresent scientific explanations. I don't know if this is to try and 'reduce' the validity of modern knowledge in some way, for some reason or because your Descartesian paradigm truly prevents you from understanding the nature of data, fact, law, theory or scientific methodology. I'm no psychologist so I've probably offered a false dichotomy there. Feel free to explore this more in our conversation.
Quote:Evolution of LifeThe nature of material reality has nothing to do with the validity of the ToE. It seems that not only are you conflating evolution with cosmology (a common mistake) but you're adding philosophy to the mix! I know some people need a 'theory of everything' but I think you're taking it to extremes
Despite the lack of concrete evidence with regard to the nature and origin of the universe, for the sake of further exploring truth, we can assume the absolute nature of material reality as a given in order to delve deeper. From here, we will explore the truth about what has been called “life”, or the “origin of species”.
Quote:Darwin’s “theory of evolution” isn't representative of our current level of knowledge but the data tells us that all species which exist (at least on planet earth) are genetically similar. The data tells us that that all forms of life have a common ancestor and that differentiation has occurred due to a number of mechanisms including natural selection and sexual selection.Fixed that for you.
Quote:There seems to be little as to theory of how non-living matter and energy originally became that first life form, however, again, for the sake of delving deeper, we will accept it as a given.Abiogenesis is fact. It's been done in a lab. Repeatably, reproducably. Also, it has nothing to do with evolution. Another common conflation.
Quote:“Natural selection” is based on the data that demonstrates that over great lengths of time, genetic variation occurs and is inherited, resulting in speciation. It has been demonstrated that mutations that were beneficial to the organism in it’s environment allowed the organism to be more likely to survive and reproduce whereby encouraging the transmission of that mutation in that environment. It is further demonstrated that the mutations that were harmful to the organism in it’s environment interfered with reproduction, preventing the transmission of that mutation in that environment. This is referred to as “survival of the fittest” and is said to explain how very small differences in genetic code resulted in the extreme diversity of species. This is the best explanation of the facts that has existed over the past hundred years. It is widely accepted because of the evidence. It is demonstrably true and epigenetics is a study of a particular aspect of evolution, futher demonstrating the validity of the TheoryNo, not illusory, time is relative. You use a lot of value-laden language which detracts from the accuracy of your statements.
Fixed again.
[quote]The Progression of Time
Finally, it would not be a thorough exploration of the truth of reality without discussing the aspect of time progression. As I stated above, there are currently no commonly accepted theories that unify the observations of general relativity and quantum mechanics, but that does not mean there are no theories. A theory that has been said to unify and explain these conflicting observations assumes first that the progression of time, as we perceive it, is illusory.
Quote:To put this in context, Einstein first proposed a thought experiment with regard to how this applies to acceleration through space. He claimed that perception of time, relative to time on earth, slows down the closer one travels toward a black hole. The thought experiment concludes that an organism traveling as such would return to earth, in the future, having aged very little, while similar organisms on earth would have aged as expected.Close enough.
Quote:If we are to assume the perception of time progression as illusory......not illusory, relative. That you would reuse such an obviously misleading term makes me think that your choice is deliberate. If you keep using this tactic, you'll find yourself rapidly losing the attention of the audience on this board.
Quote:...then the truth of reality could be such that, observed from an outside perspective, everything in our reality began and ended, was created and destroyed, started and finished without following the slow progression we experience.No. It couldn't. That's because we can demonstrate that time differentials are caused by extremes of gravity. For a universe which is billions of years old to have ended but still be visible to us, it would require a massive well right on top of us. That would require an object of such incredible density so close to us as to make a joke of the probability of the existence of a human-sustaining planet.
Quote:In this sense, the total of the reality experience is only perceived by our conscious awareness, in increments, as the progression of time, but time itself, would not be factual.No, time would still be factual, just relative.
Quote:Some promoters of quantum woo are claiming just that.Another repair.
Quote:If this is the case, the foundational principles of all the “truths” explored above would also be negated. Without time progression as a given, perception of expansion and evolution would also be illusory.So we can ignore the rest of this as it's clearly not a conclusion supported by the facts.
Quote:ConclusionSo you're back to my first point: you seem to require 'absolute' truth or else 'truth' has no worth.
So, is any of this truth? How can you tell? When we have no choice but to accept given after given to try to understand what we’re observing, how can we ever know anything for sure?
Quote:When “scientific facts” often don’t live up to their predictions, how can we trust?Because of the billions of predictions which are fulfilled, every day. In fact, just typing this sentence has meant the fulfillment of billions of scientific predictions.
Quote:There are many claims about the truth of reality, and many people who pose themselves as experts capable of making such claims.Indeed. You've provided statements consistent with many of those claims. How do you check your sources?
Quote:As for me, however, I trust that I perceive. I trust that I observe and form opinion. Beyond that, I humbly admit that I am ignorant with regard to the truth.Yet you demand absolute truth and dismiss your perception, observation and opinion?
Final question: if you can't use data, how do you separate fact from fiction?
Cheers!
Sum ergo sum