Sorry for taking a while to reply...
Moreover, not only could I utilize the same evidence that you would use to support your assertion to support mine, but I could provide additional evidence to support my assertion including the 1) dynamic interactions between mind and body coupled with 2) the real-time changes to the genome via interactions with the environment. I could even expand the context and encourage you to take a broader look at DNA, most notably that DNA is commonly shared by every living creature, and secondarily that the vast majority of DNA in our genome is inactive.
...
Genes are passed generation to generation in a process similar to a copy machine. When you take a copy of a document and scan it, and then scan a copy of a copy, and then a copy of a copy of a copy, etc., you will notice some superficial changes in the copies.
...
My gripe with the theory of evolution is that it is rooted in a positivist worldview and doesn't even try to take into account the ways in which our intentions affect our bodies and subsequently our genomes;
I myself an not a microbiologists, but both of my parents are, and dad is a geneticist as well, so I grew up around microbiology, often hearing stories and explanations about how genetics, cancers, speciation, and other such things work. Reading the part in bold I instantly thought, "wait, that can't be right..." Just because we don't know what the function is does not mean it is "inactive." But in case you don't want to take my word for it, here's a source "The vast majority (80.4%) of the human genome participates in at least one biochemical RNA- and/or chromatin-associated event in at least one cell type." (
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v489/n7414/full/nature11247.html) and also (
http://healthland.time.com/2012/09/06/junk-dna-not-so-useless-after-all/)
Regarding the copy machine, that's a bad analogy. With that, each successive copy is degraded more and more. With genes it's more digital, with a closer analogy being copying a file over and over, with a tiny chance that some 0 or 1 somewhere will get corrupt due to being written onto a bad sector. I'm not sure what you were trying to say with that though...
Also, are you suggesting that we can change the chemical structure of molecules deep within our bodies simply by thinking about them or by interacting with our environment? We're not talking about moving a muscle here, but about actual extremely complex and specific chemical reactions in very tiny and specific body areas. Sure, we can force some changes with things like radiation, but typically, a gene being switched results in some very very bad consequences (cancers, viral infections, etc).
With regards to the phrase "inactive" DNA, although I do recall hearing something in the past few years about the involvement of "inactive" DNA in certain biological processes, I used the phrase as a reference to over-confident assertions put forward by the scientific community on an all-too-frequent basis. While the same can be said for many theists, evidence is generally interpreted poorly at first until new evidence suggests some refinement is in order. For a long time what was evident/apparent about 'inactive' DNA was that these components seemed, well inactive, and so it was assumed they were unimportant. Now, new evidence points to their involvement in certain biological processes. But, all this means is that the evidence has given us more knowledge than we had before. But, the problem is that we have no way of knowing if this means we've obtained knowledge at the level of 99% full understanding or even 1% understanding. If you base your understanding solely upon the abstraction of evidence, then you really can't even ever say that you know a lot about anything!
Regarding the copy machine and digital copy analogies, I chose the copy machine because "generation to generation" was referencing sexual reproduction rather than the generation of cells. The analogy relates to what I was saying about modern evolutionary theory and its failure to cohesively model speciation upon genetic processes and link it to adaptation. The point I was trying to make is that DNA itself, as commonly shared by all life, has a basic structure and rules for operation that unite us all. For some reason, modern evolutionary theory focuses almost entirely on differentiation, and inherently so because it 1) attempts to account for the evolutionary progression of varying species and 2) does this by seeing how the genome varies between species, between successive generations of the same species, and like your digital copy analogy between successive generations of cells. As a result, it doesn't even attempt to consider, for example, that perhaps the definition of 'species' sucks as it is inadequate to include every living creature, and that this could lead to an alternate and equal-if-not-more-valid interpretation that we are all the same 'species,' united by DNA. And, that through interactions (guided by conscious or sub/unconscious intention) we both are subjected to, and cause, changes to our genomes.
Yes, I am exactly suggesting that the genome can be altered through intention, for example, through thought that is intended. Don't make the mistake of stopping the buck too soon with personal causation. Remember, everything is interdependent, and DNA vs. environment is a false dichotomy.
Let's say Bob works a stressful job. To ease his stress after work, he likes to let off a bit of steam. Bob is a professional beach bum, and he loves making an ass of himself by doing handstands in a speedo in front of all the sunbathing ladies. He does this so often, in fact, that after 10 years he has developed melanoma on his butt-cheeks. Melanoma is, of course, cancerous, or the mutation of cells in the body that then replicate and spread. Now, would Bob's genome have been altered in that particular way if not for his intention?
Now imagine other people who get stressed and the things they do: smoking, drinking, using other drugs, engaging in unsafe and promiscuous sex, etc., all of which can lead to things like cancer or STI's which in turn impact a person's genome. And all of these things are the result of intention in some way or another. Then, you can extend further and look at how the intentions of one person can affect the genome of another (e.g. 2nd hand smoke, Chernobyl, etc.).
I also think that "positive" changes to the genome can be encouraged through "positive" intentions.
You'd be surprised. There is a difference between knowing something and knowing 'about' something. Knowing about something requires mental abstraction. Thoughts operate at a lower level of syntax than reality itself - we think in 'yes or no' terms, and in fact every sentence, thought, concept, and idea can be broken down into, essentially, 0's and 1's. This is what allows us to linearly process the world around us, most notably via thinking. What you typically miss out on in your everyday awareness is all the parallel processing going on for you in the background. Now, you probably don't notice it because a parallel process won't ever take the form of a thought. Sometime, you should learn meditation and see what happens when you totally shut up your thoughts and let all the underlying processes emerge in full view. I promise you, you'll see reality as you've never seen it before.
I think you may be ascribing way too much importance to yourself and to the rather plain act of your brain simply trying to make sense of the signals sent to it by your senses. Yes, our brains work via abstraction, with everything being stored as a concept in the network I described, rather than data in 0's and 1's. But there's really not much beyond the physical space physically affecting our senses, which send physical signals to our physical brain, which tries to make sense of the data in whatever way it ended up wired up to do.
A long time ago when I was still in high school, I used to take yoga. The last 10 minutes of every class was dedicated to deep meditation, where we had to lie on our backs and imagine parts of our bodies falling asleep one by one, "feeling" the energy drain out of them. Almost every time I was able to enter a complete state of meditation, where I was fully conscious and awake, but no longer aware of the surrounding real world, just existing in my head in a sort of white fuzzy space. It allowed me to escape from the world and be lost in my thoughts, in my own little world. I even used the technique once when I was buried on a beach after a sand tunnel I was digging collapsed on top of me. I was under there for about 3 minutes without air until my dad and some other people dug me out, but instead of panicking, I forced myself into that meditative state, shutting down most of my body so I wouldn't need to breathe and use up energy. As soon as I felt that I was free, I instantly woke up, breathed in, and went into the water to wash off the sand, being more embarrassed than anything. In that state, instead of white, I couldn't see anything other than just black, alone with my very slowed thoughts. So, I've meditated before, but I can't really see learning or "seeing" anything in that state beyond what I already know. There is no new input of data to be gained there.
Sometime, you should learn about the scientific method and see what happens when you totally open up your mind and let all the people who have enormous passion for the things they are studying teach you about the things they understand way better than the rest of us. Instead of trying to figure things out by reflecting on them I mean.
If you say that during yoga you were "lost in your thoughts" then I assure you that you were not in a "complete state of meditation," though you were meditating. In a complete state of meditation there is no thought. There is no "I" as you know it. You don't even feel as though you're "in" your head at all, and actually the way you phrased it (i.e. "existing inside my head") seems incongruent with the points you're making. What is the "you" existing inside your head? And if you think you're the same as your head/brain, why did you phrase it that way? I don't believe you were being cautious enough to purposefully choose head so that you could say you are your brain and thus "in" your head.
With regards to 0's and 1's, I simply mean that our understanding of anything and communicated through mental abstraction is understood purely through binary logic. Every concept or thing in reality is differentiated according to what it is not - we know 'x' is 'x' because its not 'all - x'.
Example: This (not-this) sentence (not-sentence) is (not-is) understood (not-understood) due (not-due) to (not-to) binary (not-binary) logic (not-logic).
In the words of Christopher Langan - "Are you seeing me?...The answer is 'yes' or 'no' and if you can't choose, you can't perceive me; you don't know whether I'm here or not...Binary logic is something you depend on. Without it, you can't even have so much as a single perception."
Now, keep in mind that while the act of pure perception may be taking place, you can never assert that a specific thing exists without binary logic because you need binary logic to distinguish that thing from everything else. Pure perception operates at higher syntactic level where subject and object are ambiguous, and this is demonstrated by our ability to abstract reality and find the same ambiguity. However, we can only abstract this ambiguity through ratio (again, the root word of rationale), and this means we have to first look at one concept and then another. We can never do it simultaneously in the way that pure perception allows.'
So, I don't believe I'm ascribing too much importance to myself, but rather I think you're not ascribing enough importance to yourself. We as perceivers help to enable reality inasmuch as we define the elements contained therein. Without perceivers, there is no way to assert a reality. In fact, there is absolutely no meaning. Perceivers create meaning. If you have trouble with the word 'meaning' because it sounds too personal, try to think about it within the context of the communication of even the most basic information. Even if there is information, without any sort of communication of that information, there is absolutely zero meaning and thus you can't say a damn thing about reality at all. There is no talking about, "What would the Universe be like without perceivers?" As soon as you try to give an answer to this question, you're wrong. Now, knowing that I'm taking the position of "I help to enable meaningful existence for myself and others," do you now understand why I ascribe importance to myself?
I think atheists simply reject the idea of a "mental" reality; at least in a sense of there being anything spiritual, or beyond our physical world.
What do you call the experience of a feeling if not mental?
Mental in a physical sense, not in a spiritual, outside of reality sense. Just chemical and electrical physical changes being interpreted by the brain.
Mental in a physical sense...you know, I'm just having a hard time understanding how you define what is mental and how you define what is physical. And, to me, it just sounds as if you're making a wrongful implication that our raw experience and feelings are interchangeable with the indirectly observed evidence that you find when you look inside the brain from the outside. That's like saying that "feeling warm" is the same thing kinetic energy, or that "feeling pain" is the same thing as "there's a hole in an appendage." If that was the case, we wouldn't have laws. And, if we're so unimportant because "experience" is the same as "neural signal', then why do we give a fuck about violence and laws and such?
Furthermore, as I've stated previously, the physical world you study is the result of internal processes.
Do you mean to say the results of our understanding are based on and limited by our senses? Or do you mean the physical world itself, with it's structure and composition, is the result, and thus influenced, by our internal processes?
I mean that subjects both 1) perceive an input of information and 2) process information. Imagine, for example, a computer feedback loop in which local proxies receive input from a host, process information, and send output back to the host. Then, also imagine that each proxy is also a host, and that the original host is also a proxy. So, the host also receives input from each proxy, and each proxy also sends output to a host. In this way, the entire system continually re-configures and refines itself according to an overarching syntax that governs individual processes.
In other words:
Input --> Perceiver --> Output
Output --> Perceiver --> Input
The structure and composition of the Universe is subject to both our perception and definition of it, otherwise we can't ever assert anything about it's structure and composition. Without a subject to perceive, 'definition' cannot be asserted. Without definition, a perceiver cannot identify.
Einstein knew this very well considering he developed the theory of relativity. The theory itself implies that things only move in relation to one another, and the most fundamental anchor that you use as a relational base from which to navigate through this reality is yourself as a subject. Additionally, everything that is sensed is in the past. For example, even when we observe something, it is in the past since it takes a given time for light to travel to us. This means that the information you call 'input' is already processed information.
Not sure why this is relevant, since relativity simply says that everything is relative to something else, not that something must be the center or a relational base to something else. The sun can be the base compared to which we are hurtling through space, and be just as relevant and important as us being the base.
When referencing yourself as a subject as "the most fundamental anchor that you use as a relational base from which to navigate through reality," I mean that the mere processes of identifying yourself as distinct from the rest of reality is the root of all your conceptual understanding of anything, ever. Imagine, for example, that you're trying to track down the scammer responsible for a major Bitcoin heist. You look to the block chain to find the transactions corresponding to the stolen funds, but as we know, there are no identities attached to the transactions themselves, and so we basically have information that is utterly meaningless in helping us find the crook. Al we have is one lone point of nothingness, one measly public address to which the stolen funds were initially send. But, as time goes by, the coins get passed around and around and suddenly, one day, 0.05 BTC that's linked to the crime shows up at a Bitcoin exchange. BAM. Anchor #1. We now have our all important root from where we can branch out and trying to connect and make sense of all the other transactions.
As I explained previously, subjects, as both hosts and proxies, both receive and process information Thus, reality itself as perceived is both affected and caused by the results of perception. There is no "out there" independent of whats "in here." If we see something going on outside of us, it's because that something is the result of something going on inside of us, and vice versa.
I'm saying that without basic linguistic structure (syntax, content, and grammar) there would be neither existence nor non-existence. There could be no system of any kind, no logical structure, no object, not even chaos. Having a good understanding of linguistic structure is important especially because it helps you understand the limits of its descendant disciplines (e.g. mathematics, physics, chemistry, biology, etc.). And, since language itself is more fundamental than these disciplines, including mathematics, it can also highlight what is missing from these disciplines that prohibits us from using them to gain a comprehensive understanding of the Universe. If we know what is missing, we can try to figure out how that can help us know more than the other disciplines alone can teach us.
I speak several languages, and know the weird little quirks and intricacies between them, and I'm still confused by what you're claiming. Some would also say that physics and mathematics itself is a type of language and can be used to communicate. Or are you redefining language into something completely different, where the meaning of the word is so general (space!) that it's practically meaningless?
I'm talking about language in a more fundamental way than spoken language. Math is a language. Physics is a language. An apple is a language. English is a language. Every identifiable thing is a language because, by definition, all 'things' that can be considered "content" are governed by laws and made intelligible by grammar.
The point I'm making is that Language as an algebraic structure (syntax + content + grammar) is absolutely fundamental to any and all conceptual knowledge. To understand what this means and why thinking about reality as inherently linguistic is probably a good starting point requires only a little digging. Syntax, or laws, govern systems and distribute to the contents contained therein. If content were not governed by the laws of a system, then it would not be included in that system to begin with. Thus, if we attempt to understand, for example, the syntax of the broadest system or set, then we'd have the broadest scope of understanding.
Keep in mind that concepts are evidence too, and because philosophy studies language at a more fundamental level (whereas math and physics study language at a more superficial level), it provides a broader scope of understanding than either math or physics. Because it is broader in scope, philosophy helps us to see what math and physics are lacking in their capacities to yield absolute understanding. Because math and physics are more finite in scope, they allow us to gain more conditional understanding.
By taking the broadest perspective possible (i.e start with an understanding of language and rebuild everything else on top of it), we can avoid the problem that you're alluding to. I forget the writer, but I recall an article about "concept extension," the phenomenon you're referring to.
Concept extension is when you take a concept of a specific discipline or context and start applying it where it has no business being applied. The article provided the example of an engaged couple, with various explanations for their reasons for getting married. A behavioral psychologist might say the couple got engaged due to a series of stimuli and responses. Or, perhaps, they just fucking wanted to. The context of language supersedes all others, and to talk from any lesser context provides an opportunity to step out of bounds. However, I'm sure I do it anyway as it's a natural tendency. It's really hard to talk about various syntactic levels while simultaneously giving the impression that you're only standing on one of them.
What about an interpretation of zero probability and only impossibility? If event 'x' happens and event 'y' does not happen, how do you know 'y' was possible? To me, it seems 'y' was only impossible. Again, probability and chance is simply another way of saying "I don't know why this happened."
Based on inferring the mechanical workings of a system? If I roll a tire down the hill, I know that in such a system the centripetal force will keep the wheel upright and keep rolling to the bottom, but that there is also a chance that the uneven terrain and gravity would force the wheel to fall on it's side instead. Both are possible, since both follow the laws of physics and are a possible way of how this "system" can work, but there's a higher chance that one will happen than the other. If the wheel falls over and tumbles sideways, we know why it might have happened (hole or rock on the hill), and can verify our hypothesis by inspecting the hill. Sure, we "don't know why this happened" until we investigate, but we sure as hell have good guesses that aren't something like "god/ghost/demons/someone's mind did it."
I don't base on inference. I treat inference like I treat a road sign - I go wherever it points, but sometimes the weather sucks, or my contacts are foggy, or the roads are bad and it doesn't always lead me where I want it to.
I base upon the understanding of how systems in general operate, and specifically upon how systems are linguistic as they too have syntax/laws, grammar, and content contained therein. If I roll a tire down a hill, I know that the tire, the hill, and my body are all contained within a larger system, and that within that larger system is embedded a syntax that supersedes the syntax of the tire, the hill, and my body. I'd rather learn about this syntax because I think it can indicate more than a simple explanation that it's all probabilistic. When I hear the word "chance," my mind sort of does this weird little routine where it farts and then explodes for a brief second. Also bear in mind that chance basically posits an "if/or" scenario, or a hypothetical, which cannot logically be treated as sound inference. It's a logical fallacy by definition. Even the language is weird. To say "it was caused by chance" or "caused by probability" is indicating something about chance and probability, namely that it's causal!
Imagine that I code a perfect random number generator. I run the program and you look at the processes and code and you say, "Yep, each number is purely random and due to chance." And I say, "Why do you say that? The program I ran caused the random process." From your vantage point of describing processes at a lower syntactic level, you might claim this is purely semantic and doesn't indicate anything. From a higher vantage point, causality takes precedence because without the cause there would be no random number generator process to analyze to formulate any assertions about its nature at all.
...but at our lower syntactic level of perception we perceive it as a 'chance' or even 'random' function?
Ah, the old "there is no way for us to perceive it, so you can't prove it's not true" argument. Often heard as "Prove to me god doesn't exist," or "God is beyond out comprehension, understanding, and senses." If that's the case, then there is no point in measuring or testing for such a thing. It has no influence on our "lower syntactic" world, since it exists on a higher one. And if it does influence our "lower syntactic level of perception," they we should, and have, been testing for it for a long time. So far, the tests haven't shown anything other than random data.
That's not my argument at all. In a previous post I provided an example of how we can gain understanding about higher syntactic levels, and I explained that we need to quite literally imagine as though we are at a higher vantage point and then thrust our elusive concept of study beneath us, just as if we represent a 4-dimensional tesseract on a 2-dimensional plane to learn about 4-dimensional reality. This is allowed due to the holosymmetrical nature of language which can be evidenced simply by musing over semantics.
I call that age-old question a "non-question." It's interesting, but ultimately it's not even worth discussing, and quantum physicists would agree with me. I don't know if I would use the word "us," but I would say I don't believe the Universe can exist without any observers anywhere. I believe the Universe is born out of the mind of god, like a thought (tele-cognition?), and that the dynamic relationship between god and the Universe is essentially a process by which God seeks to know himself. I do believe, however, that God (subject) and the universe (object) can homogenize and that there would no longer be a Universe per se. Get a load of that...I think we're all here because God is a mental masturbator on a mission.
So how do you explain the evidence of universe's existence for billions of years before we were even mud in some pool? It seems rather self-centered of you to think that our species is that important. Frankly, same problem religion tends to have in general ("we're special!")
First of all, the interpretations of the evidence for the length of the Universe's existence are wrought with so many problems it's ridiculous. First, I've yet to see any calculation take into account the extreme changes in Universal temperature and the distribution of gravity over time which radically affects time itself. You cant simply look to the end of the Universe or look to the rate of expansion to determine when it began. First, to even talk like that means you again need to wander off into a discussion about a reality independent of perceivers which, for me, is hard to entertain. Second, suppose that you could travel to the 'edge' of the universe, as you would assume the maximum traveled distance would correspond to the beginning of the Universe. Ok, but let's say you could even transport there instantly, right now. The problem is that you're still in the present, so where do you look now? Are you just in a tiny, mini little Universe or can you now see another 14-whatever-billion lightyears away? If you could transport there right now, could you again look around you and try to use measurements to calculate the present age? What about in an environment where gravity and temperature are so immense that time itself is drastically warped? If the Universe is expanding, what the fuck is it expanding into? And, if whatever it's expanding into is real enough so as to allow something to expand into it, why the hell isn't it in the Universe to begin with? How do you know that it's not another case of a "flat world" and when you reach the end of the Universe you come back around the other side? If time is relative, then what the hell is so important about 14,000,000 years anyway and why does that imply the 'beginning' of anything?
And the 'problem' I'm guessing you have with religion is generally the same gripe I have with it. It involves messed up logic, a lack of personal integrity, worthless idolatry, and dear god the dogma and politics.
Logically, I would again point to the subject-object relationship in disagreement with your statement that your body and 'you' are the same. But, I can also say that from my experiences with meditation, I know (i.e. I recall a direct experience) that consciousness does not need to be localized to the body, but rather it can expand into what you would consider "external" things.
I also disagree with the words you selected in saying that there is a part of your organism that "gives" you consciousness.
How can you be sure that's not just your imagination messing with you? Why wouldn't I be able to claim that I can actually travel to other worlds and dimensions when I'm daydreaming? And if the subject and object were different, then why does brain trauma and physical deterioration of the brain affect the subject so directly and so profoundly, often completely changing the person and their personality? To me that is extreme evidence that we are our own brains, regardless of how we might delude ourselves into thinking we are something greater "trapped" in our bodies. If you believe our consciousness comes from something other than our brains, I'm curious what your evidence for that hypothesis is.
[/quote]
Ever had a lucid dream? I have. I do not distinguish between that experience and my everyday reality. I was in a completely different 'location' in my lucid dream, and so was my body. It would be foolish to think otherwise. I was in my room, I laid on my bed, and then I was in California, and then I was back in my bed. f you doubt your experience, then you can't trust anything and you might as well kill yourself because nothing can ever make any sense. Faith is important, and it relates more to knowledge than you lend it credit.
My belief about why things like the deterioration, or conversely, rejuvenation, affect the subject so much is very much like the Buddhist perspective on the matter, and it equates to what I believe is the intended meaning of the Biblical concept of "Original Sin." I believe people are conditioned by desire, and that desire itself is the root of all suffering. By definition, desire implies dissatisfaction, for if you desire something it means you want 'y' when all that is presently happening is 'x.' If you want something you don't have, this is a problem.
My evidence for my hypothesis that consciousness is not caused by the brain comes from my memory of meditative states. My awareness was infinitely more pure than in a non-meditative state, and there was no "me" that was distinct from anything else. There just was. Before "There is me" or "there is a tree" or "there is an apple" there is only "there is." "Is" is a property of being - being cannot not be. As a property, it is syntactic and therefore distributive to content. Following "there is" is a conditional 'blank', and you can fill that blank with anything. "There is _______." Go ahead, fill in the blank. During meditation, that blank no longer exists and only identity remains. Identity, without a brain, without a body...in fact, without any conditional ANYthing.
**P.S. Pardon my aggressive style of debating. I truly enjoy and respect your point of view.
