A fascinating debate. I haven’t had time to read it yet, but I’m going to, and I’ll let my readers have at it anyway. I have great respect for Dennett as a scientist and philosopher, but I think that his (and Dawkins’ and others) war against religion quite misguided, even though I myself am a skeptic. Or perhaps because I am.
[Via Jonah]
That’s just tautology. It has no explanatory power.
“What is 3 to the 3 billionth power? 27 followed by a billion zeros, that’s what.”
Er…, a little less than that, he allowed sheepishly. But still awfuly large.
That’s just tautology.
I don’t think that word means what you think it means.
Actually, 3 to the 3 billionth power is 27 to the billionth power, which is greater than 27 X 10^billion. Shows how much you come to rely on calculators. These numbers are too big for that, so I have to do the math in my head, and the function of actual calculation has atrophied. Hey, it’s Evolution in action!
OK, so you mean that a successful mutation begets more successful mutations? Where is the recursive mechanism for that? At each stage, are you not more likely to encounter a harmful mutation than a helpful one, regardless of past history? This is a Martingale process, like Brownian motion. The increments are independent. That is what the Modern Synthesis demands. Each path blows with the wind, but some paths are merely cut short by natural selection.
OK, so you mean that a successful mutation begets more successful mutations?
Yes, in the sense that a mutation of something successful is more likely to be successful than a random combination.
Where is the recursive mechanism for that?
Who said anything about a recursive mechanism?
At each stage, are you not more likely to encounter a harmful mutation than a helpful one, regardless of past history?
Yes. So?
The point is that future pathways are constrained by past ones. Only a tiny fraction of all possible combinations will generate viable lifeforms, and future ones will be descendants of previous ones. Go read The Panda’s Thumb, by Gould.
It isn’t a positive feedback, something which adds to the propensity for successful mutations. Evolution proceeds at the same slow pace, regardless of natural selection.
That is exactly the problem. The odds of randomly acquiring an advantageous mutation are small, if all possible mutations are equally likely. In a small population which breeds at a slow rate, it is, IMHO, unlikely to happen in such dramatic fashion as has been witnessed within the time space allowed.
Bart: Really, it is not my intention to be insulting, but are you intentionally so shallow?
Not at all Bart. It just happens that on more than one occasion god promises to make himself known in no uncertain terms some time in the future to all. He promises there will be a day when it is not necessary for proof anymore than it is necessary for you to prove to yourself that you exist. You know it and when the time comes, you’ll know it about god as well. I happen to believe that promise. When somebody I trust makes a promise, believing that promise is not quite the same as being shallow. I am not offended.
Rand: Ken, just as you have a “sense within” that there is a God, you also have this “sense” that you will live forever. That doesn’t make the former true, or the latter “natural.”
So far, we agree.
Your “sense” may or may not be accurate, but don’t project it on others, or imagine that all share it with you.
Here you make a not unreasonable assumption which I believe not to be accurate. If it were just a case of projection I’d have to agree with you. I want to believe someone when they make the assertion that they know they will one day die, with no consciousness beyond that point. But I have observed (not projected) that, that is usually (if not always) not the case. Notice the words Ilya chooses for example… dreamless sleep. Sleep is something we expect to come out of. Now that I’ve made that observation, Ilya might revise the statement to simply dead. This is an observation, not a projection and it is not the only reason I make the assertion. Obviously, none of this makes me right. I understand that. I would however, need more evidence to change my viewpoint.
Not to get too personal Rand (and please forgive if I am) but do you not have a hope that cryogenics might someday prove successful? You may say I’m bonkers (or projecting) but I believe this is part of that ‘sense within’ that I do believe is part of our basic wiring and why the lie that we will not die is so successful and the foundation of all religious thinking (72 virgins et. al. just being frosting on this here cake.)
Now we switch to evolution. It has been said on this blog that some of us don’t appreciate how long a time 3.5 billion years is. leaving aside the implied insult in that assertion, I applaud Bart’s attempt to put it into some kind of perspective because otherwise it does become a kind of hand waving argument.
DNA is made up of a 64 letter alphabet. AGCT in 3 part combinations with some of those letters being interchangable for less than 64 total combinations. The viable life combinations of billions of these letters is an extremely small percentage of a very large number. So there is room for argument right there.
The point that 3.5 billions years is a finite number that may be too small for the results we see today is something that anyone serious about evolution shouldn’t just discount with hand waving arguments.
Dawkins method of “proof” was to speculate on how something may have occurred under the Evolutionary paradigm, then suggest that this constituted proof that the detractors were wrong. It was very flaccid and left me wondering “That’s it? That’s all you’ve got?”
I felt very similar in my reading of Rand’s suggestions to me years ago. The point being, instead of talking past one another, can we examine the actual arguments dispassionately and scientifically to see if they hold water?
Bart’s comfort with large numbers might be of use in such a discussion. Saying other just don’t understand isn’t much. I’m willing to be proved wrong.
Not to get too personal Rand (and please forgive if I am) but do you not have a hope that cryogenics might someday prove successful? You may say I’m bonkers (or projecting) but I believe this is part of that ’sense within’ that I do believe is part of our basic wiring and why the lie that we will not die is so successful and the foundation of all religious thinking (72 virgins et. al. just being frosting on this here cake.)
So now you’re projecting not from yourself, but from me?
Most people are unaware of cryonics, and if they are, think it whacky.
Sorry, no logic, no sale.
Is it true? Do humans have some type of wiring about life persisting? It has nothing to do with me projecting. It is not my original thought. I see evidence and you suggest I am projecting.
Is it true? Saying I am projecting is making an assumption about me. That assumption, right or wrong, doesn’t matter.
Is it true? In the end. That’s all that really matters.
My contention is that ‘you will not die’ is the basis of every religion I am aware of. This isn’t a core belief of mine. It’s part of my world view, but that is subject to change with new information.
Thank you Rand, no sale required.
I should clarify one more thing…
Rand: Ken, just as you have a “sense within” that there is a God, you also have this “sense” that you will live forever.
I do believe I share this hard wiring with every other human. However, I myself am a counter argument since I firmly believe in being completely dead someday.
My contention is that ‘you will not die’ is the basis of every religion I am aware of.
You must not be aware of very many religions. Certainly it’s not a tenet of Judaism. Or Buddhism. Or Hindu.
I do believe I share this hard wiring with every other human.
You don’t share it with me. So either I’m not human, or you’re wrong.
I myself am a counter argument since I firmly believe in being completely dead someday.
??
So, let’s get this straight. You believe that you have a trait that everyone else does, even though you don’t actually have it?
Do you ever read what you write before you hit the “post” button?
I’ll give you Judaism which has the resurrection hope. They do believe that death is death (although only orthodox, others have been influenced more by society.)
Hindu’s and Buddist’s have their reincarnation and oneness with all… so they do believe that consciousness continues after death.
You don’t share it with me. So either I’m not human, or you’re wrong. Or the third possibility, we both do share this tendency but intellect takes precedence.
So, let’s get this straight. You believe that you have a trait that everyone else does, even though you don’t actually have it? No. That is not what I’m saying. I”m saying I believe the trait may exist in everyone including you and me, but that doesn’t mean we can’t create a stronger belief (by whatever means we create any of our beliefs) that overcomes this tendency. But even if you do that (which (only if I am correct) we both seem to be claiming) I believe this tendency is still buried within us.
Of course I could be wrong. But there is no inconsistency as you are suggesting.
Bart: Kurt Godel long ago demonstrated that there are secrets forever locked away beyond our comprehension.
Godel said that some things are not provable within a formal system. We are quite capable of comprehending things we can not prove. Forgive me, but I must still say you are making an overstatement.
That something can be true but not provable is a damned significant point that makes some people understandably uncomfortable. OTOH, this shouldn’t be license to make stupid statements and claim Godel as cover. I would hope I never do that.
I care about the truth of things. I like this quality in others as well. This doesn’t mean we all agree.