Contour Enthusiasts Group Archives Forums General Common Interests Southern Baptist leader slams Islam

Well, its not what the religions say that causes the hatred, its the power plays on top that use it to influence mobs. There is conflict even between people who dont have different religions. If brothers can fight each other in war, anything is possible and the kniving shmoes in power know that!!!

So I promised my wife that I would continue to have the same chemical reactions in my brain forever? Damn! I'm a mad scientist!

So what you are saying is that because of the lack of explanation yet on how the brain works at certain levels, it must be because of a divinity?
So,,,what about all the things that couldnt be explained in the past, and have been attributed to gods, and where in effect natural phenomena.
The rational that if it cant be explained, its divine,,,doesnt hold much water...

The emotions and desires of men may one day be quantifiable. To try to explain my point, Isaac Asimov devised concrete regulations that attempted to set boundaries for the behavior of machines in his classic novel I Robot. They can be stated as follows:

1. A robot may not injure a human being, or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.

2. A robot must obey the orders given it by human beings except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.

3. A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law.

In the most rudimentary way, these governing principles constrain the behavior of machines in the novel. When a machine does not obey these laws, it is considered damaged. The machine is either repaired or destroyed (not unlike the mentally ill in our hospitals).

We have yet to define certain underlying laws that govern the behavior of the Homo Sapien. Sure, we can examine the behavior of people using the psychological, behavioral, and social sciences but such an endeavor is akin to treating systems on a macroscopic scale with little if any idea of what is going own at the smallest scales (as an analogue, thermodynamics allows us to quantify the mean state of the ensemble of particles making up a complex system but only statistical mechanics gives us the slightest hint of what is going on in terms of the behavior of individual particles). We are only beginning to examine the function of the cerebral cortex. Using various new sensing technics such as CAT, PET, and NMR scans, we can look at which areas of the brain that are active when we experience certain emotions. However, this is the crudest sort of measurement akin to sticking a thermometer in a boiling kettle and trying to predict the behavior of an individual water molecule darting about.

What is required is the direct connection of the firing of each synapse in the cerebral cortex and a corresponding quantification of conscious state. This level of knowledge about ourselves may not be feesible for the forseeable future but just because we do not know what couples the firing of individual neurons to the behavior we partake in does not mean that such a connection does not exist.

There may yet be Laws of Humanity that are analogous to Asimov's Laws of Robotics. If so, the emotional and even irrational may one day be as quantifiable as measuring the amount of current flowing through a resistor.

The real test to our "humanness" may come in the far distant future. If machines can attain a sense of self awareness and may experience "emotions" as we perceive them then the divine nature of concepts such as "love", "hate","joy","sadness", etc. may be suspect.

Absolutely not. I firmly believe that all of the items I've discussed have tie-ins at a spiritual level as well, not merely at a mental/emotional/physical level. I believe that it isn't just the brain that's working here on these things.

Furthermore, lack of an explaination or understanding of something doesn't qualify it innately as an Act of God, mystical phenomenon, Santa bringing presents, the Force, etc.

I simply feel we as a species owe our advanced nature as compared to the rest of the species on this planet to an "outside" force, not a random bolt of lightning that fused a couple of amino acids together in a totally unexpected way a few billion years ago. Since neither party has definite proof, I feel I'm on relatively safe ground with my statement.

Again, if we chase this down far enough, we'll run this into what cause the Big Bang and just who in the hell exactly lit the fuse to it in the first place.

With only one frame of reference to base our opinions, how can we quantitely assess that Homo Sapiens are so far more "advanced" than our fellow animals. We are animals as well and we are not particular unique in the ability to use language for communication nor tools for manipulating our environment. To an outside intelligence, we may infact be indistiguishable from our animal kin. A chimp in the wild may believe itself to be more advanced than a lemur without realizing that Homo Sapiens exist.

The argument toting our "advanced" abilities as a sign of divine influence may hold little water.

I am proud of you, man....an Isaac Asimov reader...His views on human behaviour in the future is right on I think...and the Psychistory also,,,(Foundation Trilogy)

[QUOTE]Originally posted by EdwardC:
With only one frame of reference to base our opinions, how can we quantitely assess that Homo Sapiens are so far more "advanced" than our fellow animals. We are animals as well and we are not particular unique in the ability to use language for communication nor tools for manipulating our environment. To an outside intelligence, we may infact be indistiguishable from our animal kin. A chimp in the wild may believe itself to be more advanced than a lemur without realizing that Homo Sapiens exist.

The argument toting our "advanced" abilities as a sign of divine influence may hold little water.

This is beginning to take on tones of "Allegory of the Cave" by Plato. I do agree that given a more macro and universal perspective, we are mere chromosones apart from certain species. Hence, at that level, we are probably akin to a different type of atomic element as compared to the rest of our fellow creatures on this planet (Dimitri Mendelev's is probably rolling in his grave now that I've *******ized his work and just referenced the Periodic Table of Animals!)

I would also put forth that scientific research conducted throughout the last couple of centuries has pretty much validated that homo sapiens is at the top of the food chain on this planet, as well as having the most advanced form of thought and communication. There is a world of difference between placing 25 ton support girdle on a bridge with a crane and having some monkey shove a stick down an ant hole and having Martha Stewart congratulate it on finally having the manners to start using dinnerware...

Though, as you've stated before science is an ever-changing discipline. One principle, proof or concept that has held true for centuries may not stand the test of time as our knowledge of the world around us progresses. We may not be at the top of the ladder, especially if the possibility of alien intelligence is brought into this picture. For me, it all depends on perspective. I've found out that if I broaden my out to as close to infinity as I can imagine, I begin to question my own existance (this is usually after a couple of glasses of 15-year old MacCallan)...

Faith is an unsure and dangerous thing, much as science is. When misguided or misuseded...well, we've all seen the results of each case.

BTW, great posts Edward. The "I, Robot" discussion was quite refreshing (it got me thinking in ways I usually don't). Bringing the notion of artificial intelligence into this really starts twisting and turning the notion of just precisely what consists of a Creator...

Finally, one last jab:

"Imagine the Creator as a stand up commedian - and at once the world becomes explicable."
-H. L. Mencken