Constant—deja vu is not always necessarily contentless. See the work of Ian Stevenson. Mystical experiences are not necessarily centered around anything false—see “The Spiritual Brain”, by Beauregard (the neuroscientist who has studied these phenomena more than any other researcher.)
douglas
Karma: −72
Eliezer, if we reduce every desire to “happiness” than haven’t we just defined away the meaning of the word? I mean love and the pursuit of knowledge and watching a scary movie are all rather different experiences. To say that they are all about happiness—well then, what wouldn’t be? If everything is about happiness, then happiness doesn’t signify anything of meaning, does it?
James, are you purposefully parodying the materialist philosophy based on the disproved Newtonian physics?
anonymous—I’d like to second that motion
g—cats without heritable variation? Where you get some of them?
The math of a subject is only valuable when one understands the basic terminology of the subject. As Chris points out, knowing when to use statistics (the basic assumptions and what the word applies to) makes something like the Doomsday Arguement good for a laugh. It is ridiculous. On evolutionary biology-- Evolution is defined as ” any change in the frequency of alleles within a gene pool from one generation to the next.” This frequency changes with each birth. So to make the definition into regular English we could say Evolution is defined as “living things reproduce” (the fact of evolution). In modem evolutionary genetics, natural selection is defined as “the differential reproduction of genotypes (individuals of some genotypes have more offspring than those of others)”. In English- some cats have more babies than other cats. So the statement “It is a fact that some cats have more babies than other cats,” would be the proof of evolution by natural selection as the terms are currently defined. Doesn’t that help more than a mathematical equation?
J Thomas—”in principle you ought to consider the entire state of the future universe when you set a terminal value.” Yes, and in practice we don’t. But as I look further into the future to see the consequences of my terminal value(s), that’s when the trouble begins.
igor—I want to defend Eliezer’s bias against boredom. It seems that many of the ‘most moral’ terminal values (total freedom, complete knowledge, endless bliss...) would end up in a condition of hideous boredom. Maybe that’s why we don’t achieve them.
Richard- I read your post. I agree with the conclusions to a large extent, but totally disagree with the premises. (For example- I think the only valueable thing is subjective experience) Isn’t that amazing?
The disticintion between instrumental values and terminal values is useful in thinking about political and economic issues (the 2 areas I’ve thought about so far…) I’m running into a problem with ‘terminal’ values, and I wonder if this isn’t typical. A terminal value implies the future in a way that an insturmental value does not. The instrumental value is for an action carried out in a finite time and leads to an outcome in the foreseeable future. A terminal value posits all futures—this is an endless recusive algorithm. (At least I don’t have an end to the future in my thinking now). When I ask myself, “How do I want things to be in the future?” I can carry this question out only so far, but my concept of the future goes well beyond any currently imaginable scenarios.
Some new info re: evolution you might want to consider before taking the gene view of evolution to its logical conclusions:
http://www.springerlink.com/content/qh67113u60887314/ “Although we agree that evolutionary theory is not undergoing a Kuhnian revolution, the incorporation of new data and ideas about hereditary variation, and about the role of development in generating it, is leading to a version of Darwinism that is very different from the gene-centred one that dominated evolutionary thinking in the second half of the twentieth century.”
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2003/09/030929054959.htm how new thinking applies to societies
Caledonian- I agree that Newton missed opportunities to improve his models. That was not what I said, only that his belief in God didn’t hinder him from doing better than those that came before.
Here’s an odd question—If we took Newton as an example-
Which is currently a greater hinderance to scientific understanding-
A belief in God, or a belief in a materialistic/mechanistic description of the universe?
gutzperson—I read the article. I am not surprised that there are self-interested parties that are making more of what Flew has said than what he has actully said. (A sad reality when passions are so thourghly engaged.) It seems to me that his basic point, there must be an underlying intelligence to this universe, was shared by Newton, Planck, and Einstein. It appears a belief in God does not hinder one from understanding the universe better than anyone that came before. That is not an arguement for the existence of God though, is it?
Before deciding that Gould’s theory was wrong or unimportant, read something from 2007. www.biology-direct.com/content/2/1/21
For a rationalists reason for going from atheism to a belief in God see www.biola.edu/anthonyflew/index.cfm
For the scientific case for the existence of the soul see the books 1)Mario Beauregard “The Spiritual Brain, A Neuroscientist’s Case for the Existence of the Soul” (This book is written by the leading brain researcher on spiritual experience and is suitable for non-experts) 2)”Irreducible Mind” by Kelly and Kelly et.al. (This book is writen for psychologists and advanced students—assumes some knowledge of philosophy and psychology—the authors inform me that they have no current plans to write a similar book for the general public. It is worth the trouble 10 times over in my estimation)
selfreferencing, skyfort, David Williams, Thank-you. I’ve always been an immortal spiritual being. Unfortunately my experience with religions has not always been all that religious and I can relate to what Eliezer is saying here. (using religion to spread fear bugs me—I don’t feel the need to be afraid at all.) It is a pleasure to read that you have gotten a better understanding from your theological studies than I got—perhaps I have some bias to overcome before I can see what you do. Thank-you again.
Robin, and that would be a good use for religion. I had to lose one (a religion) because of the fear factor—I didn’t lose my morality (as Eliezer predicts), but I’m not sure anybody knows God (assuming existence) well enough to speak for him. That was incredibly difficult for me to accept for a while.
The point about the two philosophers is fantastic! Using religion in an attempt to make people act right out of fear saddens me.
g- Oh, the probability that the appearance of human life postdating the appearance of other life by more the a week is 99.9999999...% (I understand the question now) I am not reluctant to say where I get information. I am more than happy to. I appologize for not making it easier-- The information on tuberculosis can be found in Molecular Microbiology 33 pages 982-993. The best summary of the information can be found in “Quantum Evolution” by Johnjoe McFadden. You can read the relevant pages at http://books.google.com/books?id=eQbZE0oWqMwC&pg=PA272&lpg=PA272&dq=tuberculosis+strain+w+evolution+quantum&source=web&ots=xRaNWVf0IU&sig=C6OGOz2ZK0tgP7Wx17p4f0L_Tu8 Another article that explains the difficulty of this type of evolution can be found at pnas.org/cgi/content/full/96/6/2591 The difficulties of this type of mutation can be read about in Scientific American April 2006 pages 81-83. There are 3 other referenced works of interest listed in the article. (More if you need them) Biases of interest—a current scientific theory that does not explain all phenomena should be recognized as incorrect or incomplete. Newton’s law of gravity never correctly predicted the orbit of Mercury—otherwise it seemed very good. Einstein’s theory does predicit of the orbit of Mercury and more—But as good as Newton’s theory was, Einstein’s turned the world upside down. As close to correct that classical physics was—QM turned the world inside out. To say a theory is good doesn’t mean that the more correct theory won’t change things radically. What would a Bayesian think the odds the new theory would be radically different be? So the bias in this case is “If it’s close it must be mostly right.” Is this phenomena one that will be the down-fall of the current theory? I don’t know—I’m guessing the non-randomness of these mutations will lead to a new understanding of life and evolution and that the new theory will be radically different from the existing one. I maybe wrong, but I don’t want a bias to get in the way of the investigation. (I’m sorry, I realize that this is an issue that the “creationists” have jumped on and the fact that I am interested in it too probably kicks up all kinds of bias (the question about the apperance of humans...) and I should be more careful in making my statements.)
g- What I’m trying to say about evolution is not outside the scientific consensus. That is that the way these bacteria evolve is not well explained by the neo-darwin model of evolution. I’ve supplied at least one link that should make that clear. (pnas.org/cgi/content/full/96/6/2591, for example) I’m sorry that my links/ hints to find this simple fact have not been more helpful. My comments about my methods are a means of begging some indulgence—if I google ‘competent cells’ or ‘tuberculosis strain w’ I’ll find something that makes my point in a few minutes—I am realizing this is not universally true. (I have a bias that people will do what I do—I can get over that and be more specific in the future) You are correct that the original work is long—that’s why I gave the link to amazon and the johnjoe book—for me it opens to the page that has the relavent information. Apparently others had trouble… I am not offering a new theory that explains this form of evolution—rather I am pointing out that it is not time to conclude that “we know about how things have evolved” especially when the current model has known- well known- shortcomings. Consider that the only actual evolution that has been observed does not fit the model and you can understand this is not a small issue. Is this inappropriate for this venue? My estimate of the probability that human life post dated other life on Earth is 99.9999999(you can add as many 9′s as you like)%.
Pete- I agree that I am usually skeptical about things with the word quantum in the title. Seems a lot of BS fits into that bag. Yes it is Johnjoe, I like his writing because it is clear. He tells me that his next book will be on Occum’s Razor, by the way. Probably excellent. Pete, g, TGGP—I am an independent researcher and it is becoming obvious to me that the methods I have developed are not ordinary. This doesn’t really surprise me since the one thing that people who know me well can agree on is that “You’re not like other people.” (Sometimes they mean that as a compliment- I hope...) Here is a web address that can be of value pnas.org/cgi/content/full/96/6/2591 The original discussion about TB in particular comes from Hall—Molecular Microbiology 33 pages 982-993. (I’m not sure how available that is to you.) The notion that competent cells do not fit well with the “random mutation + natrual selection” model of evolution is not new or particularly controversial with those who know of the phenomena. How to deal with the phenomena is up in the air—This is the area of science where new discoveries and new theories are made—the stuff I like. Also these are the areas where personal bias is most likely to be engaged and needed to be overcome—thus my interest in this particular site.
g- You are being dim. (That’s OK, please read on) Life forms have evolved. I can prove it. I am reasonably certain that humans have not been around since the beginning of life forms- I like humans- evolution is good. I have not questioned the fact of evolution, or if it is good or bad, I am saying that the observed instances of evolution do not fit well with the current theory as espoused by Dennett, Dawkins and Eliezer in this post. (Or any other current theory that I am aware of...) Dennett claims that “gradualism” (which is the logical premise behind the TOE that he is espousing) is “the universal solvent” In otherwords it can be used to solve any problem. Check the web address I gave TGGP- the book Quantum Evolution by Joejohn Mcfadden has the simplest and most direct explanation of the problem that TB evolution poses for both neo-darwinism and mankind. By the way, the existence of ‘competent cells’ has been recognized for years. To say they evolve by random mutation is to not recognize their existence. To say their existence is due to natural selection is not compatable with the data. Gradual is not how they mutate when presented with a stessor- that’s where the competent comes from in the name. To suggest that this phenomena occurs in multi-cellular life forms as well as single celled organisms...that’s my prediction. (I’m unaware if this has been observed yet) Wanta bet I’m right? How much?
Eliezer- I like these ideas. I’m thinking a possible distinction between a seeker (one attempting to overcome bias) and a dogmatist (one attempting to defend bias) would be that a seeker takes a pragmatic rationality and looks for exceptions (thereby continuing to look for the deeper epistemic rationality) whereas a dogmatist takes a pragmatic rationality and turns it into an epistemic rationality by ignoring or redefining exceptions. Am I understanding?