[ordinaryguy]

Hey! There you are, monkey man (is that a proper translation of you nomme-de-net?). Anyway, thanks for replying, because I find this fascinating. Let me say upfront that I think we will agree that the ultimate frontiers of what can be done with the scientific method are very far beyond the state of today's knowledge, so we're in no danger of running out of interesting things to do with it.

I don't see any limit to the application of the scientific method, except maybe to societal things such as politics and morals.

I think that our brains and how they have evolved have perhaps made some aspects of the physical world, like quantum mechanics or relativity, difficult to grasp - maybe some aspects may be ungraspable until we find a way to supercede that. (Technologically? Evolutionarily?)
There also may be a physical limit to what we can do, like faster than light travel, which may prevent us from ever seeing or exploring the whole of the universe. Perhaps some limit on information stability will prevent us from gathering evidence from anything smaller than a certain scale. I don't know.

Yes, it seems to me that some fairly fundamental limits arise due to what might be called the "scale" of human life and consciousness, in both time and space. With respect to time, taking a purely information theoretical approach, if our "sampling interval" is short (the time we are able to spend observing a "signal"--any time-varying process--compared to the period of the signal, we will be inherently ignorant of any information content the signal may contain. The most we can say is that if the signal contains information, we have no way to know it. At the other extreme of frequency, if our sampling interval is long compared to the period of the signal, all we can ever know is a statistical average of the signal's value

With respect to space, we are similarly stuck at our subjective middle of the spectrum of size. Both the exceedingly small (sub-atomic) and the exceedingly large (extra-cosmic) present huge barriers to access by the human mind.

But certainly things like the brain, feelings and so on, unless they do in fact behave on this smaller scale, I see no problems to understanding.

"unless they do infact behave on this smaller scale"

Maybe I misunderstand your comment, but since the atoms and molecules involved in brain chemistry and physics are presumably constructed of elementary sub-atomic particles, how could they NOT "behave on this smaller scale"? What do you mean by "behave"?

In other words I don't think that there's any limit imposed due to something being "inherently unphysical". I don't believe there can be such a thing.

What do you mean by "inherently unphysical"? You don't believe in non-baryonic matter?
The Case For Non-Baryonic Matter
The University of Chicago Magazine: April 2002, Features
Dark Matter – One Mystery Solved (Update)

[Capuchin]

The two questions you bring up, I can see why you are confused.

By "on this smaller scale" I mean that an inherent property is due to the physics at this unobtainable scale. For example the brain is generally assumed to work on the macromolecular scale, that is that all functions can be explained by "crude" macromolecular physics. I believe Penrose (it might not be Penrose) holds a belief that the brain may well work at the quantummechanical scale, that is it has inherent qualities due to effects described by quantum mechanical theory and not described by macromolecular physics. Of course, the macromolecular model is just cruder than the quantummechanical, but quantum mechanics provides the first layer of "ungraspability". By "unless they do infact behave on this smaller scale", I mean if the crudeness of quantum mechanics is insufficient to describe it, and the smaller, ungraspable scale is the only way of understanding some of the functions of the brain.

Does that make sense? I realise that it's still a rather cloudy statement.

As for inherently unphysical I was referring to the idea of soul that a few people put forward in this thread. Undeniably we each have the impression of a soul, something not tied to electric pulses and rushing chemicals. However the more I think about it, the more it makes sense that that's exactly what it is. It's a delightful illusion that evolution has built for us. I believe that other creatures may have the same core of feelings and thoughts, but maybe we are the only ones intelligent enough to ponder upon it.

I fear that what I say next may not make sense (it's coming into my mind right now as I type), so let me know what you think:
I suppose, in my mind, the physical is the only thing able to act on the physical, and the physical is all that there is. Therefore the physical is the only thing which is measurable. Something which we claim is unphysical (the soul, god), must either be measurable and therefore actually physical (the soul, through chemicals and electrical pulses, through the raise in heartrate when you think of someone you love), or unmeasurable and therefore unphysical, and non-existant (God).

I know that anyone who is theistic will tell me that God doesn't need to apply to my rules of physicality, and that he can act on whatever the hell he wants. This is just how my monkey-brain interprets the world.

[talaniman]

You raise a very good point as far as the physical, we can perceive and the non-physical, that we cannot. I think ancient mans need to fill in the blanks of his knowledge, has led many to take one side or another in the interest of satisfying his ignorance of facts, because of the very human need to be comfortable with his surroundings, but as we humans do there will always be those whose perspectives leaves them outside the box, or not in step with mainstream thinking. I think as modern man learns more of himself and the way he feels and sees, this physical world our attitudes and behavior will change to reflect that new knowledge. Having said that, I can certainly see why, an atheist can not be convinced in the idea of God, and all the traditions and trapments of those that do, put on the concept of an unseen superior being.

[ordinaryguy]

By "on this smaller scale" I mean that an inherent property is due to the physics at this unobtainable scale. For example the brain is generally assumed to work on the macromolecular scale, that is that all functions can be explained by "crude" macromolecular physics. I believe Penrose (it might not be Penrose) holds a belief that the brain may well work at the quantummechanical scale, that is it has inherent qualities due to effects described by quantum mechanical theory and not described by macromolecular physics. Of course, the macromolecular model is just cruder than the quantummechanical, but quantum mechanics provides the first layer of "ungraspability". By "unless they do infact behave on this smaller scale", I mean if the crudeness of quantum mechanics is insufficient to describe it, and the smaller, ungraspable scale is the only way of understanding some of the functions of the brain.

Does that make sense? I realise that it's still a rather cloudy statement.

I took a course in Modern Physics about 40 years ago in which the rudiments of relativity and quantum mechanics were introduced. About the only thing I remember clearly from it was the professor's comments to the effect that scientific models are not, and should not be thought of as descriptions of the way things actually are. Instead they are "thought experiments" that ask the question "What should we expect to observe and measure if the phenomenon we wish to study behaved as if our (intentionally over-simplified) model was approximately correct?" This leads to experimental results that are either consistent with our expectations, in which case we gain confidence that the simplified model is "good enough", or not, in which case, we go back and tinker with it (reduce its approximations and add to its complexities) to make it more consistent with what we observe. In other words, the scientific quest is not really designed or expected to lead to complete and perfect knowledge, but only to push back the boundaries of our ignorance a little bit further. This is a considerably more modest undertaking, and even the most robust model will be found to fall short when pushed far enough beyond it's founding assumptions and approximations. If both scientists and lay people understood and remembered this in their conversations, we'd have a lot fewer arguments, I think.

From what I can tell, current models of how electro-chemical brain function is related to self-conscious awareness, thought and feeling are crude indeed. Whether the macro-molecular scale approximation is "good enough" or whether quantum mechanical processes have to be introduced, is still an open question as far as I know.

As for inherently unphysical I was referring to the idea of soul that a few people put forward in this thread. Undeniably we each have the impression of a soul, something not tied to electric pulses and rushing chemicals. However the more I think about it, the more it makes sense that that's exactly what it is. It's a delightful illusion that evolution has built for us. I believe that other creatures may have the same core of feelings and thoughts, but maybe we are the only ones intelligent enough to ponder upon it.

If this "impression of a soul" is something "evolution has built for us", might we need to be a little bit careful about trashing it intellectually before we really understand its purpose and function? Or do you think it's clearly outlived its usefulness and can be safely dispensed with?

I fear that what I say next may not make sense (it's coming into my mind right now as I type), so let me know what you think:
I suppose, in my mind, the physical is the only thing able to act on the physical, and the physical is all that there is. Therefore the physical is the only thing which is measurable. Something which we claim is unphysical (the soul, god), must either be measurable and therefore actually physical (the soul, through chemicals and electrical pulses, through the raise in heartrate when you think of someone you love), or unmeasurable and therefore unphysical, and non-existant (God).

Well, I guess it depends on what you mean by "physical". Is energy stored and transmitted in an electromagnetic field "physical"? Are massless subatomic particles "physical"? Are thoughts "physical"? If the answer to all these questions is yes, then isn't it kind of a tautology to say that "the physical is the only thing able to act on the physical"?

I know that anyone who is theistic will tell me that God doesn't need to apply to my rules of physicality, and that he can act on whatever the hell he wants. This is just how my monkey-brain interprets the world.

To me, it's always seemed just silly to think that God breaks his own rules just to test our faith, as for example, the argument that he actually made the earth six thousand years ago, but intentionally made it appear to be 3.5 billion years old just to see how we'd react. I just can't feel the necessary awe and reverence for a God who would engage in such trickery.

[firmbeliever]

Islam Tomorrow .com

Where in this whole lengthy arguement(all the above very interesting posts) does this article fit.

Please comment?Thanks

[ordinaryguy]

Where in this whole lengthy arguement(all the above very interesting posts) does this article fit.

From the link you cite,

"The Christian Bible says that Adam & Eve were both created here on Earth, less than 10,000 years ago."

Well, no, it doesn't actually say that. Estimates of the earth's age based (in some sense) on the Bible depend on at least two key assumptions--that the "generations of Adam" listed in the Bible are complete and unabridged, and that the length of each generation is known "close enough"--plus some calculations (count, multiply, sum). Based on such assumptions and calculations, some Christians are willing to infer that the earth (and every bit of the material, and all the life forms in and on it) is less than 10,000 years old, but the Bible doesn't actually say it in so many words.

But the point of the article seems to be that the Quran gives a little more wiggle room in that it allows for interpretations that can accommodate a much longer history of the planet and the life forms that have arisen on it. If that's so, then I say "Great!". I can only hope that the fundamentalist Bible beaters will eventually see the wisdom in that approach and follow suit. But I'm not holding my breath.

[firmbeliever]

From the link you cite, Well, no, it doesn't actually say that. Estimates of the earth's age based (in some sense) on the Bible depend on at least two key assumptions--that the "generations of Adam" listed in the Bible are complete and unabridged, and that the length of each generation is known "close enough"--plus some calculations (count, multiply, sum). Based on such assumptions and calculations, some Christians are willing to infer that the earth (and every bit of the material, and all the life forms in and on it) is less than 10,000 years old, but the Bible doesn't actually say it in so many words.

But the point of the article seems to be that the Quran gives a little more wiggle room in that it allows for interpretations that can accomodate a much longer history of the planet and the life forms that have arisen on it. If that's so, then I say "Great!". I can only hope that the fundamentalist Bible beaters will eventually see the wisdom in that approach and follow suit. But I'm not holding my breath.

Just for information sake,
The Quran has not been changed to suit human needs, it has been the same from the time it was revealed till now.
So the passages quoted when read in Arabic has been the same since 1400 or so years ago.

[buzzman]

I had someone say to me one time that "There is no such thing as a true Atheist. They are Agnostic". In other words, they just have not giving it enough thought to provoke an interest in religion. Think of it this way, if you were in the plane on 9/11, I would believe you would be praying to someone before you hit the tower. Its easy to say until you are hit with a tramatic experience.

[NeedKarma]

a) Some of us never experiencwe traumatic experiences.
b) How can you predict what a person will do?

Also:
"hey just have not giving it enough thought to provoke an interest in religion"
When actually they give no thought and are quite happy.

[buzzman]

a) Some of us never experiencwe traumatic experiences.
b) How can you predict what a person will do?

Also:
"hey just have not giving it enough thought to provoke an interest in religion"
when actually they give no thought and are quite happy.

First of all... time is the only thing you need on this earth to acquire a traumatic experience whether it be in yours or someone else's close to you. Second, how can you possibly predict. The only comment I have is that we (People) are all made from the same mold, and when people are faced with hard times, they will pray whether they believe or not. Human Being = Hypocrites. I am no exception to this rule. Also, how do you know they are truly happy? Everyone hides their true feelings. Everyone puts on a face...

[NeedKarma]

First of all.....time is the only thing you need on this earth to aquire a traumatic experience whether it be in yours or someone elses close to you.

Disagree. Perhaps what you call a trauma I call something one has to deal with.

Second, how can you possibly predict. The only comment I have is that we (People) are all made from the same mold, and when people are faced with hard times, they will pray whether they believe or not.

Nah, not true. Prayer does not lead to any solutions.

Human Being = Hypocrites. I am no exception to this rule. Also, how do you know they are truly happy? Everyone hides their true feelings. Everyone puts on a face......

I guess you plain have a problem with people, I don't.

Put it this way: if there were no religion then there would be no suicide bombers and 9/11 never would have happened since there is no 'better' afterlife or '72 virgins' waiting for you. This is your life, make the best of it, I am.

[buzzman]

Disagree. Perhaps what you call a trauma I call something one has to deal with.

Nah, not true. Prayer does not lead to any solutions.

I guess you plain have a problem with people, I don't.

Put it this way: if there were no religion then there would be no suicide bombers and 9/11 never would have happened since there is no 'better' afterlife or '72 virgins' waiting for you. This is your life, make the best of it, I am.

You have a right to your opinion...

[ordinaryguy]

Just for information sake,
The Quran has not been changed to suit human needs, it has been the same from the time it was revealed till now.
So the passages quoted when read in Arabic has been the same since 1400 or so years ago.

If this is offered as a statement of religious faith, I accept it as such. If you also intend it as a statement of fact, there is no way tell whether it's true. Considering the bitter conflicts that broke out among his followers after the Prophet's death that continue to this day, it seems highly unlikely to me.

[firmbeliever]

The Writing of the Qur'an
As for the Qur'an. There has never been any doubt about its authenticity. So many people memorised it by heart and there was from the time of Muhammad a great deal of written material which contained the text of the Qur'an. In all the history of the Qur'an, since Uthman commissioned written copies in the form of Books, there has been one, and only one Qur'an and there have been no changes in it. It is accepted by all Muslims as the exact word of God.

One of the effects of the Qur'an is that huge efforts were also made to preserve the meanings of the Arabic language so that the sources of Islamic law would not get lost through the evolution of the language. This has meant that the classical Arabic can be studied today and modern Arabic is very close indeed to its classical ancestor. The extent to which the Arabic language has remained unchanged for 1400 years show just how significant the source texts of Islam were to the early Muslim generations. These all contribute to proving beyond reasonable doubt that the Qur'an is the same Qur'an that was revealed to Muhammad and that the accounts of his life and his saying are generally very well authenticated and reliable - to an extent probably unlike the accounts of any other character in history.

People bent on denying Islam sometimes try to make challenges to this account of events. However, to do so basically means believing that most if not all the Muslims around throughout the history of Islam were liars - is this reasonable?
----------------------------------
Please click link to read the rest of the article.
This is for information sake... but I am open to any questions you may have.

[NeedKarma]

However, to do so basically means believing that most if not all the Muslims around throughout the history of Islam were liars - is this reasonable?

Mistakes in retelling a story over time is not considered lying by the people doing so.

[ordinaryguy]

Mistakes in retelling a story over time is not considered lying by the people doing so.

True believers of course will insist that Allah would not allow mistakes to be made in the copying and retelling. This is why assertions of textual purity are statements of a person's religious faith, rather than historical fact.

Such a belief by religious folks serves to channel and direct their spiritual quest in much the same way that a theoretical model serves to inform scientific inquiry. In either case, it is a willing choice to proceed as if the model were correct, or as if the Scripture were inspired verbatim. The difference arises when the "experimental (or experiential) evidence" is at odds with the model's prediction. The scientist tinkers with the model to make it consistent with the evidence, but the believer tends to reject the evidence rather than change his interpretation of Scripture. It took hundreds of years to adjust Biblical interpretations to accommodate the discoveries of Galileo (helio-centric vs. geo-centric solar system), and it will probably take hundreds more to integrate the discoveries of Darwin, Einstein and Bohr. No need to hurry, I guess.

[michealb]

Atheists I believe tend to follow occam's razor when explaining books like the Qur'an. We know that the book was actually put to paper by a person, it didn't come from the sky fully written on paper that didn't come from earth. Is it more likely that the book was written by a man on his own like the millions of other books on earth or that the book was dictated by god and man only put down god's words. An atheists says the simplest answer is that the Qur'an like every other book was the work of man.

[firmbeliever]

The Quran is not inconsistent with science, the scientists are already seeing this(I did not use the word "believe") as they move further along in their scientific quests.
Some examples are in embryology, Big Bang theory etc.

[inthebox]

Atheists I believe tend to follow occam's razor when explaining books like the Qur'an. We know that the book was actually put to paper by a person, it didn't come from the sky fully written on paper that didn't come from earth. Is it more likely that the book was written by a man on his own like the millions of other books on earth or that the book was dictated by god and man only put down god's words. An atheists says the simplest answer is that the Qur'an like every other book was the work of man.

I haven't read the entire thread.

If everything is a "work of man," whether the Bible , Torah, Koran etc..
Do atheists not believe anything they can't prove themselves?

For example, if you have never left Kansas [ not to pick on those fine folks ], do you believe that there is no ocean because you yourself have never seen or touched the ocean?
This despite books and other people telling you there are oceans.

Isn't the written word more reliable than oral tradition?


It is amazing to me that people discount "religious" texts yet believe every word that Limbaugh utters or the New York Times prints or what they read on some blog.







Grace and Peace

[Synnen]

There is such a thing as being selective in what you believe.

Believing the New York Times is a little different than believing The National Enquirer.

Put religious texts in there any place you like.