Ideapod – Enlightenment

Ideapod – Longing for Enlightenment

I don’t do beliefs, I do probabilities, things that seem to be useful and reliable in most situations.

It seems clear, beyond reasonable doubt, that using the idea of “purpose” with respect to evolution is a category error.

It seems that the universe itself just is. It has no meaning and purpose. It just exists, as it does, a mix of the lawful and the random at different levels – shaped probability distributions that make individuals unpredictable and collections quite predictable, at many different levels.

Purpose seems to be something that self aware entities bring to existence (either by choice or by cultural conditioning).

It seems clear to me, beyond any shadow of reasonable doubt, that the idea of god was a useful heuristic to help explain the mystery that is existence, and to control people at different levels. The more we understand of the complex recursive nature of evolution the less sense the idea of god makes – and few people are interested in questioning.

If you seek enlightenment, study. Study history, study biology, cosmology, mathematics, systems theory, games theory, evolution, politics, economics, psychology, philosophy, logic, computing.
Don’t just study theory, but get out and do stuff.

Train that amazing thing that is your human mind. Give it as much diverse input as possible, and see what sort of intuitions and abstractions (voices of god) appear to you.

Learn about the sorts of algorithms that we have discovered that can produce such classes of thought.
Read Plato, Kant, Adam Smith, Bacon, Darwin, Dawkins, Russell, Wittgenstein, ….
Check out Kurt Goedel’s work, and Stephen Wolfram’s.

It seems clear to me that the road to understanding is infinite, and all that any of us can hope for is a useful approximation.
God seems to be a useful approximation for the start of the journey, and the utility of the idea degrades rapidly if one is willing to go beyond cultural boundaries, going where-ever the questions lead.

[followed by]

Hi Damian

But the evidence is clear that there isn’t any teleology.

It seems very clear that what we see from evolution is essentially a filtered random walk through probability space.
If one is looking just at complexity, from any point on the spectrum of complexity, evolution of any particular species is almost as likely to lead to less complexity as it is to go to more complexity.

The vast bulk of life on earth is simple and we’ve all been evolving for the same length of time.

Purpose implies intention.
If I had the intention to design something, I would actually design it, not leave it all to blind chance.

We are now moving beyond chance and into the realms of design and intention.

Teleology implies seeking.
There doesn’t appear to be any evidence of seeking, just systems, doing what systems do.

Check out Stephen Wolfram’s work – it really is quite profound, and it takes a bit of work to understand.

[followed by]

Hi Damian

Why would you ask what it means?

That seems to me to be a clear category error.

To ask what something means implies an intention behind it.

What if there is no meaning, no intent?

What if it simply was a random exploration of the possibility space available to the systems?

What if it really is that simple – as all the work of Wolfram and Dawkins and many others seems to clearly imply?

The term “meaning” implies intention. If there were no intention, then there cannot be meaning.
The evidence to me is overwhelmingly in favour of the thesis that there was no intention.
Stuff just happened.
Given a basic set of probability functions, and enough particles and time, we happened.

Once we started languaging about ourselves, the game changed, then we had real intention – awareness aware of itself, and making plans. Models within models within models.

We really are very complex.
Just to see all our cells, at 3 per second, would take a million years.

[followed by]

Hi Damian

In a sense the why is easy – it seems clear that there was no why, only how.

The how seems to be simply what happens when one gets a random exploration of the space of the possible, starting from the simple, and exploring in the directions possible.

It seems that it is only once that process leads to something roughly as complex as us, that the question “why” starts to exist.

And I really do get how difficult it is to stop thinking in terms of why. We are self conscious entities. Why makes sense to us, it is a fundamental part of us in a very real sense. It is very hard to get past that, it just feels so natural. And if you give it a chance, spend a few thousand hours programming, and let Wolfram’s stuff seep into your intuitions, then it really does make sense.


And it is a very uncommon sort of sense – not at all “common sense” – and entirely sensible and intuitive once one gets it. (I started programming in 1973, my income since 1986.)

[followed by]

Hi Damian

I completed undergrad biochem in 1974.
Evolutionary biology at the molecular level was what got me interested in computers.
I have retained an interest, and scan abstracts and delve into things that take my interest. (My old biochem lecturer came to my birthday party 20 years on.)

I think I understand the recursive nature of the evolutionary process fairly well (far better than most).

Can you get specific about exactly what you mean?

I see nothing in that literature that requires invoking (or even suggesting that it may be sensible to invoke) intention.

The molecular systems are complex certainly.

The subject is sufficiently complex that I strongly suspect we will still be learning subtleties in a thousand years. And the major pathways are reasonably well mapped out.

And it seems very probable that it is a process.
It seems beyond reasonable doubt that it is a how, not a why (in the sense you were implying earlier).

[followed by]

Hi Damian

Perhaps it may make sense to you if I express it this way.

It now seems clear (beyond any shadow of reasonable doubt) from an understanding of the biology of perception that we have no direct perception of reality.
What we experience as reality is not reality, but is rather a model of reality, constructed from perceptual information past and present, available distinctions, available abstracts and concepts {recursing – no end to that potential}).

It seems clear that we are software entities living in a software model of reality (that is our subjective experiential reality), encased in a hardware system (biological body/brain system that is complex beyond the ability of any mind to deal with in detail – just looking at the dendritic connections of the brain, at 3 per second, would take a million years, and would tell you nothing about the complex interactions of all those synaptic connections running at about 100 cycles per second).

We are complex systems !!!

It seems clear that most people have the metaphysics inverted.

There does in fact seem to be both a subjective and an objective reality. We have very little access to the objective reality.

What we normally call objective experience isn’t.

We can have a huge influence on our subjective experience, not normally so much on the truly objective reality – that takes a lot more effort.

Most thinkers on the subject have too little experience of biology and computing to understand what we are.

Metaphysics is, it seems clearly to me, for the most part built on false assumptions.
Most metaphysical narratives are demonstrably false.

Can you be specific about something.

I can deal with specifics.

Give me an example of something that to you falsifies what I am saying, and let’s discuss that.

[followed by]

Can you write what you see that I don’t?

All I see in what you have written is cultural ghosts.

What is your background?

What are you most familiar with at a practical level?

This sort of discussion needs a point of focus, then we can zoom out and back to any scale, and compare notes.

[followed by]

Hi Damian

Your argument is typical of philosophy.

Sure levels of complexity arise when new forms emerge. We could not get atoms and atomic behaviour until they condensed from quark soup. You have to get RNA to kick replication off.

And in a very real sense, any why question already assumes an intelligence, something with intention. If that isn’t there, all you have is how questions.

It only makes sense to ask why if you really think there is a god there supplying whys. If you ask why, then you have already implicitly assumed god. If you ask how, then look and see, is god likely or not?

If you just look at the details, then there is no real evidence for god(s) at all.

Sure, if you just look at the surface, and use “common sense” then it does seem to make sense to ask why questions.

But when you do look at the details, then it becomes clear that why questions are all the result of category errors. Like Laplace said “I have no need of that hypothesis”.

[followed by]

How much do you understand of chemistry?

How much work have you done on the structure of cytochrome C between species (as one example)?

How much work have you done on DNA variation?

“Why” can only emerge from how if there is intention.
In all other cases it is simply a how.

One must have evidence of intention to apply a why?

I get that for people who don’t understand the detail, the intention seems obvious. Amongst those of us who have spent a few thousand hours in the detail, intention seems very improbable indeed – something with a very warped sense of humour if it does exist.

[followed by]

Hi Damian

Seems like not much point in further discussion, as you are delivering neither evidence nor logic.

Your argument seems simply based in faith. Once you accept that why is a valid question, you have already accepted intention – otherwise putting the why there is a category error in logic.

I have not seen sufficient evidence for such a claim – it seems very low probability to me.

Give me evidence and logic, or admit your argument is entirely faith based.

[followed by]

Sorry Damian – no – no evidence.

I have many friends who live by faith, I have no issue with it.

I do have an issue when people claim faith is science – which it isn’t.

Evidence is specific as to time and space.
Logic works from premises.

Just examine what you have written here, and see if you can see either.

[followed by]

Hi Damian

I have studied disciplines from subatomic through to cosmology, biochemistry, through to politics – I do understand that each level of organisation has its own sets of characteristics, and I also understand that each level is built upon the levels below, and that the boundaries between levels are “semi-permeable” – information and influence flow up and down levels.

And at the level of intention, a system to be said to be intentional has to be able to model the system in which it exists (including self), and be able to model some aspects of some set of future states, and be able to choose between possible future states on the basis of some chosen value set.

The intentional system must then be able compare the expected outcomes of possible choices and to choose those most likely (in its view – however accurate those probability estimates may be) to deliver the desired state.

Only when all those conditions are met, can we draw a distinction between “why” and “how”.

[followed by]

Hi Damian

What specific evidence do you have, that leads you to that conclusion?

What do you mean by the term teleology in this context?

[followed by]

Hi Damian

When I look at the universe as a whole, I see no teleology – just pattern doing what it does.

In the 80s when computers were based on TTL circuits, they used to short out and catch fire often (I used to take my soldering gear and spare components to every computer club meeting). The magic smoke theory of computer operation became quite popular.
People could observe that when the smoke escaped from the computer, it stopped working. It was there for all to see. Obviously it was the magic smoke that caused them to work, because when it escaped, they stopped.

Without a knowledge of all of the processes and systems, such classes of understandings are common.

You have demonstrated no actual evidence, no testable hypothesis.
To me, what you are saying seems much more like a “magic smoke” hypothesis than it does anything one could call science or understanding in the deepest of senses.

[followed by]

Hi Damian

I have contemplated many different sorts of teleology, and I have found low level mechanisms that adequately explain all the data I have seen without any indication of any higher level interference.

I have looked, believe me.

You have said that you have information, but not actually specified what it is or why you think it is more than anything accounted for by the mechanisms already mentioned.

[followed by]

Hi Damian

One of the things I hate about Ideapod is the 1,000 character limit – it means making multiple posts and inserting inappropriate breaks if one is to discuss any really non-trivial issue. This is the first of 12.

There are five very different major sets of concepts that to me are central to this discussion. They are about equally import to the conceptual framework I use – so in no particular order of importance:

1/ Number, complexity of life and systems. As humans we don’t deal with large number easily. Most people are essentially innumerate past a few hundred. Few people have any real feel for numbers like 10^8, 10^13, 10^28, 10^220 (these are {round figures} the number of seconds in a year, the number of cells in a human body, the number of molecules in a human body and the numbers of quantum states that have existed to date in our universe).
Our experience of reality is such a tiny fraction of what is present. We have to make simplifications, and we do, and few people are aware of the degree of those simplifications.

The numbers in life are huge. Just to glimpse each of the cells in our own bodies for a second, it would take us 100 thousand sleepless years to see them all.
Within each cell is roughly 5 times as many molecules as there are cells in our bodies. Within each cell we have already identified several thousand major complex systems (involving switches, amplifiers, sensors, feedback, motor response etc), and I strongly suspect that there are many thousand (perhaps many million) far more subtle systems yet to be discovered.

Between cells we have many levels of interaction, new levels of systems. Between collections of cells, yet more levels of system. I am aware of roughly twenty levels of systems within human beings.
I am aware of many of the major general classes of those systems, and their interactivity, and I strongly suspect that what I know is way less than 1% of the systems that are actually present and interacting in very subtle ways.

So in similar fashion to the fact that I am sitting here and typing on a keyboard, and viewing characters appearing on a screen, I am confident that there are many levels of software system in the text editor, and the windows operating system below that, that make it happen; I am also clear that I do not know all the specifics (of any computer or life more generally). I did build a computer in 1980 from a design in the magazine Electronics Today International, based upon the RCA COSMAC CDP1802 chip-set. I wrote programs for it in hexadecimal. I then pre-ordered the first TRS-80 Model III computer in this country, and wrote programs for it in Assembler and BASIC and ForTran, then I wrote a language for it (an extended basic).
I’ve owned about 30 computers since, and written software at all 7 levels of the ISO model, as well as being team leader on a major government system development – though mostly I have just owned and operated my own small software business, leaving me free to spend most of my time exploring the wider questions around the nature of being and evolution and values and possibilities and choice.

2/ In 1974, as I complete my undergrad studies in biochemistry, it became clear to me that the default mode of life is immortality – in the sense of getting older, but no degradation of function with age. Certainly all life is mortal in the sense of being able to be killed, but the idea of life having a fixed lifespan is actually only restricted to certain lines of cells in some multicellular life forms (like ourselves). Most organisms don’t age in the sense of losing function with extended time.
All organisms alive today appear to be part of an unbroken chain of life going back several billion years. In a very real sense many bacteria can be said to be several billion years old.
My thinking in 1974 went – that being the case, it ought to be possible to understand the structure of our genome (2002), work out how the 3 dimensional structure of proteins are formed based on the RNA strand derived from DNA (2012), then determine exactly what is the clocking mechanism of aging in humans (in progress), stop and reverse it. We are not quite there yet, and I am confident it will happen soon. Perhaps not soon enough for me, and perhaps I might just make it.
Whatever, the question then became, what sorts of social political and technical systems are actually present, and what sorts of classes of such systems deliver the sort of security and freedom required to allow potentially very long lived individuals to actually live a very long time (perhaps billions of years)?
That is, once one removes the genetic constraints on lifespan, what are the other major risk factors, and how can they be mitigated?
These have been the major intellectual drivers of my thinking for the last 41 years. During that time I have engaged with many groups, at many levels, scientists philosophers, theologians, academics, adepts, mystics, politicians, theoreticians. I have consciously chosen to become as much of a generalist as possible in the realms of both theory and practice. A practical farmer, fisherman, carpenter, engineer, sailor, pilot, cyclist, martial artist, politician, scientist, policeman, servant, leader, hardware and software developer … alongside the theoretical. Training both conscious and subconscious in as many disciplines as possible. Training my body and mind in as many disciplines as possible, testing limits, exploring boundaries, at all levels.

3/ Uncertainty – Heisenberg, Goedel, QM and the tension between our knowledge and our fundamental ignorance.
On that journey, I have many times gone through the process of making initial distinctions, gaining knowledge and confidence, only to find that my initial distinctions were only gross simplifications of far more complex and subtle systems at deeper levels. At every level, certain knowledge had been destroyed by uncertainty, leaving only a confidence born of practice and familiarity; with a constant uncertainty and a constant questioning.
In all realms of the real, we have errors of measurement and distinction. Beyond that we have Heisenberg uncertainty, the impossibility of knowing both momentum and position of any particle. Beyond that we have Quantum uncertainty. In the realm of logic we have Goedel incompleteness.
In the realms of systems we have infinities of systems, and the impossibility of knowing or exploring any infinity, let alone an infinite class of infinities.

4/ If one starts exploring the “abstract space” of all possible strategies, and one starts from a zero point – the first distinction one can make is binary. The first strategies are binary. Further out in that “space” of strategies one can discover infinite dimensions of more complex strategies.

A random walk through that space, must in a sense move on average towards greater complexity, because it started from simplicity and everything further away from the start point is more complex. Such increases in complexity of systems over time is not necessarily, nor does it necessarily imply, teleology (a seeking). It can be simply a random walk. One needs to examine the details very closely to determine which.

When one does that examination with respect to life forms based upon the ribonucleic acid family of molecules, the evidence clear favours the random walk hypothesis, beyond any shadow of reasonable doubt.

When one looks analogously closely at the evolution of culture and cultural artefacts (like pottery and language and philosophy) one comes to the same conclusion. The evidence sets clearly favour the random walk hypothesis over the intentional. And certainly, in more recent times, there is much more evidence of the exponentially increasing influence of the intentional.

5/ The distinction between how and why.
When one looks at life, from the sets of understandings I have, it is clear, beyond any shadow of reasonable doubt, that if one is to draw a distinction between how and why, then it seems that “why” are distinguished from how’s by the presence of intention.
It seems that intention derives from software aware of its own awareness.
It seems that awareness derives from software (at some level) being aware of a model of the “reality” within which it finds itself, models itself (including the model of reality that it experiences as reality – note the levels of recursion accumulating), and then models possible future scenarios, and possible value systems, and makes choices amongst these, and takes actions accordingly. Why questions are only different from how in as far as they can be demonstrated (on balance of probabilities) to be the result of actions taken in accordance with choices towards a chosen goal.

And standing back, at the highest levels I have been able to achieve, the evidence seems clear to me to come down in favour of the hypothesis that – in respect of human development on this planet – there is no directed activity controlling human evolution towards a goal. In this sense, this world and this solar system seem to be without meaning or purpose.
It seems that, on balance of evidence, and on balance of probabilities, this planet and all life forms upon it just happened, as the result of essentially random processes – a random walk through probability space, as sorted and selected by that amazing process of evolution by natural selection, where the processes of life and death, or differential survival, of competition, of cooperation at ever higher levels, lead to emerging complexity over time, and eventually to systems capable of awareness and speech and conceptual thought – and of asking “why” in a meaningful sense.

So certainly in respect of human action, we can now ask why.
And the evidence is overwhelmingly clear, that in respect of the evolution of life on this planet, the use of the question “why” is actually a category error.
Using why in such a situation makes no sense because it seems that there was no intention involved in it.

And I get how natural it is to ask why questions. We are intentional beings. Whys are a fundamental part of what we are, and the evidence is clear, beyond any shadow of reasonable doubt, that whys do not belong out in the universe as a whole – out there it seems that for the most part only “how”s exist, not whys.

It seems that the wider world is devoid of meaning.
It seems that meaning is something we bring to the world, not the other way around.
It seems clear, beyond any shadow of reasonable doubt, that Marcus Aurelius and all similar thinkers were just wrong. They did the best they could with the limited information they had, and in the light of the information we have now, it is clear that they were simply in error.
And they make interesting study.

[followed by]

I feel like I am talking to someone who is so invested in the idea of soul and universal spirit that he is unable to clearly contemplate any alternative explanation for the beauty and mystery and magic of this experience of life we find ourselves in.

I similarly find that you fail the Turing test by simply repeating the same statement without argument or evidence (at the level of detail required to support your assertion).

The evidence is overwhelming that Marcus Aurelius used a set of heuristics that worked at a practical level in his time, yet fail completely in the light of modern knowledge.

And I get how hard it is to see, and to break free of the cultural constrains of our birth.

I get how uncomfortable the levels of uncertainty I live with are, and how attractive at so many different levels are the levels of certainty you are displaying.
And comfort is just that, it doesn’t mean anything more in reality.

[followed by]

If you are interested in debate about god – as you claim above, then you must start from a position that admits of the possibility of no god.

If you ask a “why” question, then all “why” questions implicitly contain the answer “god”.

Thus one cannot debate about the existence of god with “why” questions – it is a logical impossibility – it is a category error class of questions.

Can you not see the logic of that?

[followed by]

Hi Damian

Have you stopped beating your grandmother yet?

Simple question.
Simple yes or no answer.
Answer it?

Most people can see in the example above, how the implicit assumption in the question is that the grandmother is being beaten, and any answer “yes” or “no” affirms the implicit assumption. So people in that case can clearly say – “I cannot answer that question because I never started beating my grandmother.”

You are asking me to ask “why”.

Now there are two common modes of using why.
One mode of using why is seeking simple cause and effect reasons for something (in as far as they can be said to exist). This is the mode I am willing to explore in.

The other mode, the mode you are using, is to look for meaning, to look for intention, for purpose.

In this second mode, of looking for purpose, the implicit assumption is that there is a purposeful entity existent.
Simply by asking the question in this mode one has already made the implicit assumption “God”.

As soon as one adopts the second mode, one has implicitly assumed God as an article of faith.
Such a mode of questioning is not an exploration of the possibility of god, it is a statement of faith – just as the question “have you stopped beating your grandmother yet?” is a statement of faith that you were beating your grandmother.

I have most certainly spent a lot of time exploring the question – does the balance of probabilities of the evidence available indicate an intentionality in the operation of this universe or the evolution of our species?
I have explored that question in great detail, with a very open mind as to the possibility or not of a god.
And the evidence from those explorations is, beyond any shadow of reasonable doubt, in favour of the hypothesis that there is no intentional design in the living systems we observe.

If there is no intentional designer, then asking mode two why questions is a category error in logic.

[followed by]

I have many friends who have faith in things, they don’t make any pretence to being open to logic or evidence, so are honest in that sense and I respect that. We get along just fine.

I have no issue with someone choosing faith.

I does seem to me to be fundamentally dishonest to pretend to be open to argument, yet to reject both evidence and logic as tools of argument and to come back to faith as the only basis for argument.

You made a claim that “reason and scientific understanding” support the claim of God, yet when I invoked both and demonstrated the improbability of God, you defaulted back to faith.

Your arguments are theistic and circular (the very sort you declared in your opening statement you were not interested in) – as I have clearly demonstrated in logic.

Perhaps someone else may gain some clarity by reading this interchange.

[followed by]

Hi Damian
Can you not see that if you ask a why question (in the sense of purpose), then you have already accepted the implicit necessity of an intentional entity at the other end of the question?

It is stage one level logic.
Do you understand logic?

The hierarchical evolution of the universe is the necessary simple logic of any system.

Systems can only evolve to greater complexity in such a hierarchical manner.

Do you understand anything of systems theory?

Asking why – in the purposeful sense of why, does take you to god – yes that is true – and it is true only because it is tautologically so – the answer is implicitly framed in the question and has nothing whatsoever to do with the evidence.
So in this sense, to ask such a question in the first place, one has to have faith that there is a god there.
If one does not have such faith, then it is a category error in logic to ask such a question.

I do not have faith.
I have questions and evidence and probabilities.

And I get that why questions of that sort are natural for us to ask.
We are intentional beings.
We deal in such why questions all the time in our dealings with other intentional beings.

This seems to be a major factor in why the idea of god is so intuitively appealing to many.

And if one is critical, and does the work of investigating, (all that detail stuff you disparage), then the probabilities come out very strongly in favour of the hypothesis that no god is required to explain any aspect of observed phenomena, and therefore asking why questions of the universe generally is inappropriate.
Simple logic.
And there is a lot of work to be done to establish those probabilities.
If you wish to invoke the name of science there is no substitute for doing the work.

If not, then call it what it is – faith.

[followed by]

There seems to be many levels to this reality we find ourselves in.
When we see someone do something, it is sensible for us to ask why they did it.
When we see a rock fall, rather than simply float in the air where we released it, we accept that gravity made it fall, and we don’t asked why the rock chose to fall.

Gravity is a sufficient explanation for the falling of a rock.
It explains all observed phenomena.

The universe is huge.
We will never know all there is to know about it.
It will always contain mystery.

You are correct in a sense.
If one steps away from causes, and forgets about things like gravity, chemistry, logic, systems, etc, then it really does seem sensible to ask why questions about why the universe is as we see it (why in the sense of purpose that is).


The evidence is now overwhelming, from many disciplines, that this tendency to ask why questions comes in part from the structure of our brains, and in part from the necessity of systems theory, and in part because of the fact that we are social entities. In the context in which we and our cultures evolved, the other entities around us really do have intention.

However, we have been developing tools to increase our level of understanding of this world we find ourselves in. That process has been exponentially expanding. We have learned more in the last 50 years than in all prior human history.

There is now more that we as a species know than any single human can possibly learn, and the rate of increase of information continues to increase.

For all our knowledge, we are now becoming ever more profoundly aware of our ignorance.

We are learning the sorts of mistakes that our ancestors made, and the sorts of mistakes we all make.

Science does not deal in absolute certainties.
Science deals in probabilities.

The only things sacred in science are the need to question everything and the need to test theories with experiments.

With millions of people performing millions of tests over many years, we have learned some things.

It is now very clear that it is highly unlikely that there is any intentional entity behind the universe we find ourselves in.
It is now clear beyond any reasonable doubt that progressive levels of evolving systems following relatively simple and elegant rules can explain what we see.

Certainly, if one ignores all that science, then sure it looks like there is a god there, and it looks like god has a purpose for everything.

But if you actually do the work to understand what the science is actually saying, then the picture is very different.

You want to ignore the detail, yet claim the mantle of science.
Sorry – that is not allowed – it is an error.

[followed by]

Hi Damian

Why is certainly one of the most important questions we must ask ourselves, and we need to ask it of ourselves, and other intentional entities.

We are intentional entities.
The question makes sense for us.

Sometime soonish the question will most likely make sense to AI entities, non-organic sapience.

It is a really important question.
Why are we doing what we do?
Why do we allow the myth of money to rule our existence?
Why do we allow millions of people to die each year from easily preventable causes?
Why ……………..??????

Really important questions – for us, and things like(ish) us – things able to make choice, to choose values, to model possible futures and choose amongst them.

Why is a really important question for sapient entities.

Why is a really stupid question to ask about things that are not sapient.

The only way to be confident about what is sapient and what isn’t is to get deeply into the detail.

Why is a question for people, a question about choice.

Why are we choosing what we are choosing?
What values have we implicitly or explicitly accepted from culture that may have been useful in our cultural history, but are no longer useful?

There are many useful questions we can ask ourselves.
We can make choices about such things.

It seems very clear that the universe just does what it does. It seems very clear that the universe doesn’t do choice as we know it, so asking why of it is a category error.

Ask of ourselves – most certainly.
In implementing choices, ask how questions about the universe.

[followed by]

Sentient beings are a complex set of systems.
Sure, systems are built upon systems.

We are mostly water.
We don’t ask a glass of water why it wants to be drunk by us.

Yes the universe as a whole contains complex systems, but that does not mean the universe as a whole is sapient.
Do you understand nothing of how the process of evolution works?
The process is the filter that creates intelligence, it is not itself intelligent, it does not require an intelligent matrix.
This is basic science – basic logic.

You are making absolutely basic logical errors – errors of basic set theory.

It is a serious error to have one’s mind so open that basic logic falls out of it.

Certainly, stay open to possibility and evidence.
Certainly come up with new ideas, then be prepared to do the work to test those ideas out, and see how they relate to the results of those tests.
Read what others have done then test some of it for yourself. That is how science works.

[followed by]

Hi Damian

This is going nowhere – I give up.
You have abandoned science and reason completely (if you ever really had any grasp of it) – by quoting Marcus Aurelius as any sort of authority.

Every statement in that quote is full of demonstrable errors. Every concept has been shown, beyond all reasonable doubt, to be false.

You keep making the same basic errors of logic – and seem uninterested in anything other than disparaging real science and justifying faith in outdated ideas with pseudo-science.

I have better things to do with my time – I really tried, but you have gone around in a circle and are back to where you started.

If you ever do develop an interest in understanding this reality in which we find ourselves, there has been some really great work done, but you have to be prepared to give up most of the concepts of culture that you currently hold so dear.

Best of luck.

[followed by]

Hi Damian

I hope Ideapod does stay around.
About 10 years ago a similar site started (out of Austin Texas) called Zaadz. I put thousands of hours into that site over 4 years, then the owner (Brian Johnson) sold out to Gaiam, and after another year they shut it down – and I lost most of what I had done there.

Now I copy everything I write to my own site, as well.

You say I create an epistemological cage, which is true in a limited sense, in the sense that it is based upon experimental evidence and logic.
The weird thing is, in refusing to consider evidence and logic you create a cage that allows self reinforcing errors to propagate throughout your thinking.

I feel sad. I sense from your use of vocabulary and sentence structure that you have a powerful mind, but it has been captured by a set of self reinforcing ideas that discount evidence (a working definition of “faith”).

I prefer the freedom to question and test over the strictures of faith (at all levels).

About Ted Howard NZ

Seems like I might be a cancer survivor. Thinking about the systemic incentives within the world we find ourselves in, and how we might adjust them to provide an environment that supports everyone (no exceptions) - see
This entry was posted in Ideas and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.

Comment and critique welcome

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s