The human brain is a wondrous instrument. It starts out as a blank data processing device that is wired to five data collection channels — our senses. From the minute we are born, our senses kick into operation, collecting information about our environment and feeding it to the brain.
One can’t really imagine what it is like receiving such a deluge of data with no starting point to work with.
Most likely the first image to be captured by the eyes of a newborn baby would be its mother’s face. But then how does its brain make sense of a face when it does not have any prior concept of an eye, a nose, a mouth, much less the entire package these elements comprise — said face?
We all know how this story pans out eventually. By the the toddler years, most humans will have developed from this blank slate state into an exquisitely-tuned instrument of facial recognition — able to distinguish individual people by even the subtlest of differences in facial features within milliseconds of a glance. Of course being something that we do within mere milliseconds, it is a skill we utterly take for granted — until we realise that even the most powerful machines built by the finest engineers (motivated by anti-terrorist money entire governments are willing to spend) still can’t do it as well as the average three-year-old.
Like the rest of our plethora of impulses that collectively make up our mind — the thingy that makes us who we are — our ability to recognise faces is not an engineered ability. Nothing conciously programmed our brains with any rules or algorithms to govern how we tell one another apart just by looking at them. It is an ability painstakingly built from the ground up by our brain by piecing together every bit of data streamed into it by one sense, relating and associating these to other bits of data streamed from other senses, and assigning symbollic meaning to each. Each symbol goes on to form ever more complex hierarchies and inter-relations of symbols — pupils plus irises to form eyes, eyes forming a pair, then associated with a nose, a mouth, and all being packaged together to form a concept of a face, and so on and so forth. As the complexity and compoundness of symbols reach a certain critical mass, we then start to assign swaths of meaning across — and criss-crossing — symbols. “Mother” to a particular face, “kuya” to another.
As our minds develop more and more complex and compound symbols and assign meanings to them and meanings upon those meanings, we start to lose sight of the lower level elements that compose these increasing abstractions.
It’s kind of like how we consider a ballbearing to be spherical even if microscopic irregularities at its surface cause its radius to vary along said surface. Isn’t that right, cvj? ;)
So while some of us may be busy enjoying an episode of Wowowee on TV, our dogs may sit beside us baffled as to why their masters consistently derive pleasure out of staring at a screen made up of a matrix of randomly blinking coloured dots. Our ability to perceive the gyrating girlettes on screen is made possible by our mind’s ability to turn data encoded in those blinking coloured dots and raise them to a higher level of abstraction that is simply beyond the reach of the mind of a dog.
[Douglas R. Hofstadter in his book I Am a Strange Loop explains in detail.]
The brain is basically a massively complex device for simplifying data by systematically building higher level abstractions.
We see the pair of eyes, nose, and mouth, and right away we think “face!”. We perceive the elements, and our minds connect the dots (where it perceives the existence of said connections) and turn them into a higher-level concept.
It also does the same with events. As events stream into our consciousness, the mind draws upon its episodic memory to create higher-level stories or narratives that serve as proxies to help us explain stuff to ourselves. Stories and narratives are the higher-level abstractions of events in the same way that compound symbols and complex concepts are higher-level abstractions of data bits and simple symbols. As we mature as a sentient organism we progressively dwell more on ever higher levels of meaning as our brain continues its lifelong effort of synthesizing and simplifying. It is our way of making sense of the things around us and the events that we experience in a way that spares us of having to individually track the vast number of things going on around us.
Unfortunately our minds sometimes form the wrong connections or tell the wrong story from the data it perceives.
It comes up with a cause-and-effect relationship where none exists.
It’s kind of like how, just shortly after the death of a loved one, every perturbation in our eyesight, every wistful breeze we feel, or a whiff of something that reminds us of a childhood ambience is made out to be some kind of supernatural “presence” — “Nagparamdam ang yumaon” (“the deceased is making its presence felt”) as the Old Farts would say in the vernacular.
The brilliant thinker Nassim Taleb calls this the narrative fallacy. The venerable George Lucas for his part prefers a far cooler term: the Jedi Mind Trick.
Whatever we choose to call it, organised religion, cults, con artists, advertisers, and politicians have so brilliantly — and profitably — exploited this flaw in human thinking architecture since time immemorial. Tragically it is the weak- and small-minded that are most vulnerable to its effects.
============
Join us on Facebook!
Popularity: 1% [?]
What do you mean where none exists?
Good post Benigs. Take Wowoweee and ABS-CBN’s (Channel 2) gratuitous use of mass hypnosis to enslave the Filipino mind. A sock on the Lopezes and like-minded oligarchs. Just watch that mindless telenovela “May Bukas Pa” (Si Santino at si Bro, LOL — classic hypnosis by the Lopezes). It’s a kind of hope in tomorrow that stunts and enslaves minds. These media barons know what they are doing and continually do so because the practice earn them multi-billions in profits annually.
“Tragically it is the weak- and small-minded that are most vulnerable to its effects.”
The phenomenon of the “weak-and-small-minded” sort is rather the effect not the cause. It’s the cumulative and pervasive, continuous hosing of the socio-cultural media and other social institutions that have resulted to weak and small minds . You have been lucky Benigno — the Filipino masses on the other have been exploited, used and abused for generations.
If these mind diversions help us to forget our problems. Then, it is okay.
madonna,
my wife ha a different perspective on telenovelas. she worked hard and most of the time 12 hours. afterwards she would slumber on a couch and say: “twelve hourse of reality, now my shot at my fantasay”. her perspective about these “mind-hypnosis” is very healthy and not destructive as Benign0 would suggest and mind you, she has more money than Benign0.
why bring out your wifes money here? It not you money anyway. hmmmm this is really very common to husbands of nurses and PT in the US. Mag yayabang pero hindi na nila pera at pinagpaguran. OK lang sana mag yabang pero iapagyabang mo yung achivement at credentials mo. Not your wife’s. geezzzz.
rego… your comment is humorous.
now here is a woman… listen.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WXX_gMFeWlc
rego,
i just trying to match benign0′s over bilib sa sarili. actually my wife has no money, but Benign0 does not know this. :)
rego,
how come you were silent when Benign0 said that to be a winner in order to fnck the prom queen, you must “be like him”, but you find it objectionable when i make a “satirical parody” on Benign0′s “like me meme’s?”. are you one of the Pavlovian specie trained only to repond on a set of input from a master with salivating approval and would be vicious on other even if the input is identical?
ponder that for a moment, then make some sensible reply.
btw, my previous entry about my wife is to highlight that mind-hypnosis does not affect people across the board with same numbing-debilitation. some look at it as respite and an entertainment after hard day’s work.
Hay naku jcc, unlike you hindi ako palamunin ng nurse. Although I have two sister who are pt and a couple of relatives who are nurses and doctors here . I have to work my ass off to earn a living here .so hindi ko kayang batayan lahat ng post dito sa FV….Nagkataon lang po na nabasa ko yung post mo so nagreact ako according to how I feel after reading it.
Wowowee and ABS-CBN’s telenovelas is a good way of keeping the jologs as… jologs.
Providing the jologs with more sophisticated entertainment might change their cultural and social outlook. The jologs might geet a boost in their cultural capital and they suddenly mutate and challenge the Lopez’s konyotic empire.
The Lopezes might as well be saying this with a Marie Antoinette accent – “Keep em’ at bay – let ‘em watch wowowee and telenovelas”.
It takes two to tango. All is well in the islands. :D
Terrible thing to waste huh? Its a nice piece benign0 I liked it.
Enjoy this beningn0. Even Simon did.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9z0h1NNk1Ik&feature=related
Who was it who said that a life is the sum total of one’s experiences?
Don’t overdo the ‘knowledge is power’ bit though. You might become Doctor Faustus. :(
Thanks for the link.
We are still in the very early stages of knowing the Human Brain. We know only 10% of it.
Reality, conciousness, subconciousness, dreams, etc…we still dont understand.
We have to learn more of the brain’s faculties. The Brain is a very powerful tool in the human body. It is a portable transmiter in the universe.It controls your bodily functions, emotions and actions.
I believe in the saying:
“Whatever the minds of men can concieve, it can be achieved.”
W. Clement Stone
benigno, in light of what you’ve said about the human brain, could anyone else still doubt the existence of the Power that created it? and, assuming you believe it was created, for what purpose do you think it was?
The power-that-be that created FILIPINO brain must be sick in the head!
WE’RE LEFT IN THE DUST BY OUR RECENTLY INDEPENDENTITIZED NON-ENGLISCHTZES SPEAKING COUNTRIES who doesn’t believe in what we believe.
I love this God thingie!
Our blank human brain was made a repository of fantastical biblical cinderella stories. Now, we lost our creativity, dynamism, inventiveness and brilliance. Because our only textbook what and who made the world is in one big fat thick book called the Bible!
If VAtican says the world is flat so be it! If the Vatican says the sun revolves around the earth so be it! NO QUESTIONS ASKED!
If someone questions the VAtican your are ex-communicated, polite way of saying exterminated, executed, assasinated!!!!
HA!HA!HA!HA!@
“in light of what you’ve said about the human brain, could anyone else still doubt the existence of the Power that created it?”
Correct me if am mistaken, but isn’t this an argument from incredulity?
define your terms. why “incredulity”? do you comprehend what that means?
From a common definition of argument from incredulity – it means “An argument from personal incredulity is when the person making the argument has solely their particular personal belief in the impossibility of the one scenario as “evidence” that the alternative scenario is true (i.e., the person lacks relevant evidence specifically for the alternative scenario).”
Better yet – from TALKORIGINS.ORG
Claim CA100:
It is inconceivable that (fill in the blank) could have originated naturally. Therefore, it must have been created.
This argument, also known as the argument from ignorance or “god of the gaps,” is implicit in a very many different creationist arguments. In particular, it is behind all arguments against abiogenesis and any and all claims of intelligent design.
Response:
1. Really, the claim is “I can’t conceive that (fill in the blank).” Others might be able to find a natural explanation; in many cases, they already have. Nobody knows everything, so it is unreasonable to conclude that something is impossible just because you do not know it. Even a noted antievolutionist acknowledges this point: “The peril of negative arguments is that they may rest on our lack of knowledge, rather than on positive results” (Behe 2003).
2. The argument from incredulity creates a god of the gaps. Gods were responsible for lightning until we determined natural causes for lightning, for infectious diseases until we found bacteria and viruses, for mental illness until we found biochemical causes for them. God is confined only to those parts of the universe we do not know about, and that keeps shrinking.
Ben:
Just saw a sentence which somehow was similar to a sentence I read on the TalkOrigins website.
Claim CA100:
It is inconceivable that (fill in the blank) could have originated naturally. Therefore, it must have been created.
This argument, also known as the argument from ignorance or “god of the gaps,” is implicit in a very many different creationist arguments. In particular, it is behind all arguments against abiogenesis and any and all claims of intelligent design.
Response:
1. Really, the claim is “I can’t conceive that (fill in the blank).” Others might be able to find a natural explanation; in many cases, they already have. Nobody knows everything, so it is unreasonable to conclude that something is impossible just because you do not know it. Even a noted antievolutionist acknowledges this point: “The peril of negative arguments is that they may rest on our lack of knowledge, rather than on positive results” (Behe 2003).
2. The argument from incredulity creates a god of the gaps. Gods were responsible for lightning until we determined natural causes for lightning, for infectious diseases until we found bacteria and viruses, for mental illness until we found biochemical causes for them. God is confined only to those parts of the universe we do not know about, and that keeps shrinking.
bencard,
non-believers always find incredulous things on matters that believers have seen as creddulous. As Ding G. said, different folks, different stroke. would not want to start a debate with non-believers.. .. it is not healthy. :)
@bong
question, lets take god of gaps as given….
1) whats wrong w it?
as long as things are unexplained, invariably there will always be the unexplained, then whats wrong with acknowledging the possibility of supernatural sources. (But not denying the search for a natural explanation)
since we can’t rule it out logically speaking, why rule it out?
2) even if we can explain phenomena in excruciating detail, we’d still have “where did it come from” as an answerable question. an example here is evolution. even if we understood 100% the process of evolution, there would be an unerasable gap: how did evolution come about?
yipee, bong, now you know how to cite! that’s an achievement on your part to equal the conquest of mt everest. celebrate!
whether i learned to cite just now is irrelevant to the thread topic.
another red herring.
Gabed:
Still goes back to… Really, the claim is “I can’t conceive that (fill in the blank).” Others might be able to find a natural explanation; in many cases, they already have. Nobody knows everything, so it is unreasonable to conclude that something is impossible just because you do not know it.
(fill in the blank) – “where did it come from”; “how did it take place”.
Talking serpents?
burning bushes?
eternal damnation because you didn’t go kiss padre damaso’s arse?
ano ba yan, panay awaiting moderation. cr*p
cute phrase but, as far as i’m concerned, there is no such thing as “god of gaps”. if there ever is gap that the finite human mind cannot comprehend, there is faith and revelation, in addition to physical evidence of creation like the star systems, galaxies, the physical universe(s), and, of course, the human body that includes the complex brain. God cannot be fathomed in human terms, using human techniques and the so-called science. all the things you mentioned as arising from “natural causes”, i.e., viruses, mental illness, lightning, etc., beg the question as to WHO created those natural causes down to the ultimate beginning. for instance, the natural cause of lightning, i.e., friction in the athmosphere, or diseases, i.e., viruses and bacteria does not simply end there.
i really don’t want to re-start a debate on this subject but your use of dubious terms like “argument from incredulity” is repugnant to my own beliefs and understanding.
“Argument from incredulity” is far from a dubious term. It is part of a long list of logical fallacies that need be enumerated here.
The long and short of it is “I can’t explain it, therefore it has to be created” – which, I, too find repugnant to my own beliefs and understanding.
On the matter of faqith and revelation, the claim implicitly equates faith with believing things without any basis for the belief. Such faith is better known as gullibility. Equating this sort of belief with faith places faith in God on exactly the same level as belief in UFOs, Bigfoot, and modern Elvis sightings.
I agree that we disagree on this matter.
I have quite a lot of reason to doubt that it was created, actually. So given that, I have no reason to speculate as to what purpose the human mind serves in the universal scheme of things.
What I described in the blog is a simplification of what Hofstadter describes as an iterative process of building a mind with the brain as the physical medium in which this transpires.
An iterative process in this sense does not require a “designer” much the same way as the process of forming a snowflake crystal (though the end result may be pretty) is merely governed by the physical properties of water.
Formation of the mind is governed by the physical properties of the brain. But it so happens that the brain in the physical sense, is a massively-interconnected data processing instrument that allows a massively-intricate relational representation of data within it.
And even then…
Given an INFINITE amount of time (or an infinite number of finite universes), everything and every possible combinations of things with a non-zero (be it an infinitessimal value) probability of happening WILL happen. Not only that, it will happen an infinite number of times.
So even if the probability of atoms happening to randomly come together to form a human brain is immensely unlikely, it’s probability of happening is still non-zero.
very interesting!
i have an argument tho that makes theism more “likely”…
if the universe we exist in now comes from a random process, then the universe with the current specification has a positive probability of existence, but is unlikely in the sense that millions of things have to “be just right” for the universe to look exactly like it does now.
in this case, we can ask, since our universe now is the realization of a random process, have factors would make it MORE LIKELY that this universe to be the actual realization of the random process.
That factor would be God.
An example would be usefull… lets say that this universe is so unlikely that its probability is given by getting 100 million tails in row of flipping a coin. if its an unbiased coin, 50-50 either side, that would be (1/2)^100milllion. tiny! but positive.
you can ask the question, what kind of coin would make 100 million tails in a row more likely?
the answer: its a biased coin, biased in favor of tails.
so GOD plays the part of the bias (i.e. a bias for the existence of life, free will, etc)
[the technical term for this is Maximum likelihood...]
GabbyD, even if said coin were unbiased, the probability of an outcome of 100 million tails occuring when said coin is flipped 100 million times is still non-zero (even if it is infinitessimally so). So it CAN happen, and it WILL happen given an infinite amount of time. Not only that, it WILL happen an INFINTIE number times over an INFINITE amount of time.
Quite simple, really. ;)
how dare you speak in “infinite” terms? that’s the arrogance of ignorance.
Bencard, what is it specificaly about how I articulate my views on infinity do you find “arrogant”?
I merely discuss it in terms of its mathematical significance.
@ben
actually, all benign0 is doing is arguing that its possible, or specifically anything is possible…
from a rational point of view, if truly ANYTHING is possible, then GOD is possible too.
we’re back where we started.
GabbyD, are you suggesting that God’s existence is subject to the rigours of mathetmatics and the laws of the physical world? :D
nah. what i’m suggesting is that an “Anything is Possible” theory of the universe is meaningless and has no explanatory power.
it has more meaning if you think about maximizing the probabitly of the universe existing the way it is [see my maximum likelihood idea above], but even then, it doesnt solve the fundamental objection… there exists a small probability that [insert state of the universe here]….
benigno, even the greatest REAL minds in all the history of mankind never pretend to speak, in authoritarian manner, in infinite terms. to define infinity is to limit it, which is absurd and contradictory. even einstein, sagan or hawking humbly admitted that hey have not even scratch the surface of infinity. for instance, the relativity theory is scientifically known not to function inside a black hole.
to make it simpler; shuffle a deck of cards…the arrangement happened. the probability of ever doing the same arrangement by shuffling again and again? not much.
bert,
that’s because you only have 52 cards in a deck. but when you consider the universal constants (e.g., the value of g) or the fundamental forces, where they are just right for life to exist, you need a big tambiolo as vast as the multiverses to not get overwhelmed by the right permutation of events to get these fixed and constant.
anthropic principle–they just have to be favorable to human life for us to exist. now that’s worth contemplating on the meaning of our existence.
benigs, whats infinite number of finite universes? you mean mathematically “countable” despite its infinite number?
are you saying that there is an infinitesimal possibility that the computer you are using to post your comments “randomly” created itself?
How do scientist explain the existence of the universe?
Through a bunch of theories like the big bang theory.
That means that they too can’t explain everything but they can formulate a theory for it.
So what’s the difference?
philosophers cum mathematicians too like descartes, says they think therefore they are.
what a lame way of explaining one’s existence.
From: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA201.html
Claim CA201:
Evolution is only a theory. It is not a fact.
Source:
State of Oklahoma. 2003. House Bill HB1504: Schools; requiring all textbooks to have an evolution disclaimer; codification; effective date; emergency. http://www2.lsb.state.ok.us/2003-04hb/hb1504_int….
Response:
1. The word theory, in the context of science, does not imply uncertainty. It means "a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena" (Barnhart 1948). In the case of the theory of evolution, the following are some of the phenomena involved. All are facts:
* Life appeared on earth more than two billion years ago;
* Life forms have changed and diversified over life's history;
* Species are related via common descent from one or a few common ancestors;
* Natural selection is a significant factor affecting how species change.
Many other facts are explained by the theory of evolution as well.
2. The theory of evolution has proved itself in practice. It has useful applications in epidemiology, pest control, drug discovery, and other areas (Bull and Wichman 2001; Eisen and Wu 2002; Searls 2003).
3. Besides the theory, there is the fact of evolution, the observation that life has changed greatly over time. The fact of evolution was recognized even before Darwin's theory. The theory of evolution explains the fact.
4. If "only a theory" were a real objection, creationists would also be issuing disclaimers complaining about the theory of gravity, atomic theory, the germ theory of disease, and the theory of limits (on which calculus is based). The theory of evolution is no less valid than any of these. Even the theory of gravity still receives serious challenges (Milgrom 2002). Yet the phenomenon of gravity, like evolution, is still a fact.
5. Creationism is neither theory nor fact; it is, at best, only an opinion. Since it explains nothing, it is scientifically useless.
When I said let's agree to disagree, it does not mean that anything you said was wrong.
I am not questioning evolution.
I am not questioning that the earth itself existed 4.5 billion years ago and that the first unicellular organism came here via metorites or what ever 2 billion years ago.
Who ever said that science and religion can not co exist.If you assume that creationist does not believe in science,you are assuming too much.
Let us go back to explaining facts by theories like the big bang theory, Boy I am waiting for that simulation to finally happen.
Radiation therapy in cancer treatment,pest control,pharmaceuticals:Great!
ok so this is because of what i said that the way scientist explain things are by a bunch of theories,which I think you validated by your 5 points.
as to facts:
since you are talking of evolution,let me put it in another way.
Heloicentrism was not a catholic idea it was ptolemy's. Then of course, came copernicus and galileo.
even facts can be recanted. So beliefs can evolve as well.
Aristotle thought physics,but during the time of newton,he found many things were quaint.
so even the study of physics evolves.
ok ,enough from me.
karl, i don’t think there is any creature on earth other than man (with normal faculties) who can “think”. even the dumbest one you can imagine has that ability.
bencard,
I agree!
bencard, kg,
we have been on this road before. my take is that whenever i want to strenghen my faith i read Francis Collins and not Dawkins. Different folks, different stroke. People are free to believe and to disbelieve. Would be a waste of time and energy to impose our own belief on non-believers.
When an article is secular in nature, injecting the concept of belief on a secular topic, such as this specific post, will naturally attract its diametrical opposite – disbelief.
Consider this, when you are in front of a criminal/civil , will you be able to convict a suspect on the basis of your faith that the suspect committed the crime? And if your faith that the suspect committed the crime is proven otherwise by the material evidence, will you still pursue the suspect out of faith?
As you told bencard, let's agree to disagree.
karl, i hear you. this was a matter of "btw, it's really not a matter of imposing one's point of view. it's more of probing and exposing that an assertion is full of holes."
i have no problem calling a physical constant as "god", even at the point of using the word "god" with equivocation to be a common meaning for a universal force that can be expressed as mathematical equation as has been done by Pascal. equivocation being the use of the word "god" as a term with many meanings as an infinite expression of a quality such as speed (varying from speed of of a snail to speed of light), luminosity, or even an aggregagte index of all these inifinite qualities.
however, to say that this universal force has got anything to do with a deity who will whack your arse to eternal fire or take you to paradise if you lick its divine butt (as in going to church, giving tithes, kneeling before temples, as practiced and claimed – and disputed as to which has the mutually exclusive monopoly of the truth by the permutations of the abrahmaic religions) is a nonsequitur.
on that ground we agree to disagree.
but jcc, you have to read dawkins with a critical eye to know where he is coming from and to examine his ideas. he is just another man with a point of view, not the repository of truth.
i think, from my perspective, dawkins’ problem, as any other non- believer, is his inability to think of God in divine or transcendental terms. his test of God’s existence, e.g. science, is what the human mind is capable of comprehending. i say a test-tube god is no god. a god whose existence can be proven by human science cannot be the one omnipotent GOD.
btw, it’s really not a matter of imposing one’s point of view. it’s more of probing and exposing that an assertion is full of holes.
Karl, aren’t you confusing scientific theory with pure conjectures? Surely, it’s not just a “bunch of theories” but collection of facts that explains phenomena.
I am not that well read about such things but Descarte’s “I think, therefore I am” is well known enough for me to encounter it many times in my life. From what I can tell, he was not explaining his existence but rather he proves that he exists (to himself).
And, what’s more lame, science explaining the universe with it’s theories based on its collection of facts at the same time always improving theory as new facts come in or religion that says don’t bother because the only explanation is god?
Science is the first to admit it’s mistakes. God on the other hand would never “lower” himself to admit mistakes but is reduced to being the god of the gaps because he holds reign over the things science and yet to explain — a kingdom ever shrinking.
“I think, therefore I am” is the foundation of western philosophy.
Descartes was not only speaking for himself and to himself,when he said that. He even made several books about it,so it was intended for a wide audience.
Scientific theory consists of empirical data and ideas.
How can you say all ideas are at all times can be called facts.
so because of that, scientific theory can be as good as any pure conjecture.
I am the type of catholic, that thinks that during the dark ages till the late 19th century. Catholicism was at its darkest stage, with the spanish inquisition and whatnot.
I am the type of catholic, that thinks that pinoys are giving to much reverence to mary and exaggerated in its devotion to the black nazarene and others.
So mistakes are done, we live we learn.
About who is the first to admit mistakes,that is immaterial.
What happens after the apology or admission of mistakes is more important.
Thank you, Presto.
Science is the first to admit it’s mistakes.
The personification of science, nothwithstanding, Thomas Kuhn’s treatise on the history of science states that this is not the case. Scientists are dragged kicking and screaming before they give up their paradigm.
And god of the gaps is a silly argument. God isnt in the gaps. He’s in the discoveries.
and the discovery is
… rain isn’t caused by “God” watering his garden… goodbye “God of rain”
… thunder isn’t caused by “God” shouting… goodbye “God of thunder”
… lightning isn’t caused by “God” hurling bolts from “heaven”… goodbye “God of lightning”
great discoveries indeed.
and my discovery is, one modern neanthertal person finally uncovered (another cause for celebration, on top of learning how to cite) these metaphors were created by early cromagnon ancestors of his who were trying to fathom an understanding of their environment with awe and great wonders. they never claimed they found themselves already working in a science laboratory.
different level of understanding, different language. to borrow benigs, it’s as simple as that. :wink:
“faith” is the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, heheh.
Faith is a cop-out. If the only way you can accept an assertion is by faith, then you are conceding that it can’t be taken on its own merits.
Dan Barker, "Losing Faith in Faith", 1992
you did not notice the "heheh", heheh.
bert,
how could he notice? he's busy cutting and pasting.
emilie is too busy looking at my handsomeness than to read the message.
Seriously? This is an argument?
“Awaiting moderation” means if they agree with your Blog Post. They
will publish it. If they dont agree. They will not publish it. Some
sort of Censorship in the Blogosphere.
Anybody practicing it are Political propagandists, Journalista and
self Styled Opinion Makers paranoid of losing their Jobs. Or just
plain Stupid People who wants the “status qou”. They are afraid of
changes. Blog Posts must be ororiginal from the hearts and minds of
Blog Posters. Otherwise we will not be able to bring out what Blog
Posters really think.
All this long-winding blog has to state simply is this – “nothing comes through the mind that does not first pass through the senses” – period.
It will be a good start to read philosophy and then science – it will be hard to invent one.
Problem with this, I am always led to the the limbo of meaningless utterances with a blog like that has not fundamental philosophical or scientific basis.
The work of a wordsmith is just that. Can seem like interesting.
Stidi ka lang dyan Bencard.
As I said, I merely discuss the concept of infinity as a mathematical construct here. The certainty of even the most improbable given infinite time is as much a mathematical statement as saying that the term 1/x approaches infinity as x approaches zero.
No need to make “infinity” out to be some kind of abyss that swallows up the arrogant fools of your personal lore. :D
There is God. And the God is the beginning. And the end is by humans.
God-the-beginning has nothing to do with our fate. Man has to do with our fate.
Men made God personal.
It seems majority here believe that God pulls strings on our life. So what has God done to Filpinos?
LET US PROTEST BEFORE THE CHURCH!!!! I WANT MY PRAYERS ANSWERED! I WANT IT NOW!
As much as I previously said that I was your fan, I think you need to brush up on your cognitive science. Most scientists now believe that the blank slate model of the mind (tabula rasa) just ain’t valid. Our brain does have some things to start with, and these are evolutionarily determined. Just as we have a predisposition for language and a predisposition for human-type morality, etc….
I recommend Pinker’s book.
I like the drawing though. Eye scream.
‘mathematical statement as saying that the term 1/x approaches infinity as x approaches zero.’
FYI, I am a double major in Mathematics and Political Science.
My take:
limit of f(x)
Too soon on the big key. Let me repeat:
mathematical statement as saying that the term 1/x approaches infinity as x approaches zero.’
FYI, I am a double major in Mathematics and Political Science. (Full disclosure, also known in another thread, as ‘Show Me Your Credentials’)
My take:
limit of f(x)as x –> infinity = GOD (Supreme Being, Divine Power)
where f(x) = science
x = knowledge, discoveries, etc.
As benign0 would have it:
It’s simplicity is just amazing, it’s the truth!
Phil Manila:
I don’t have a problem if you will call a mathematical concept or Planck’s constant or the speed of light as “god”,.
Now, will this mathematical precept “limit of f(x)as x –> infinity = GOD” damn your wife/sister/mother to eternal damnation if they enter a temple while they have menstruation?
Huh? That is an underhanded appeal to emotion. Are you trying to be cute, funny, or what?
Try looking at the math context of my response to benign0?
BTW, I have not noticed the Lord of Pure Science around, your great knignt DJB. :)
Now, will this mathematical precept “limit of f(x)as x –> infinity = GOD” damn your wife/sister/mother to eternal damnation if they enter a temple while they have menstruation?
Or let’s try another one. will this mathematical precept “limit of f(x)as x –> infinity = GOD” appear as a burning bush?
Or let’s try another one. will this mathematical precept “limit of f(x)as x –> infinity = GOD” damn you to hell because you did not have confession?
No, this is not an underhanded appeal to emotion. You can easily answer the answer the question with a yes or no.
DJB’s presence is irrelevant to whether this mathematical precept “limit of f(x)as x –> infinity = GOD” damns you to hell because you did not have confession.
Sorry. Didnt mean to be glib. It's just that I dont have time to dally too long in this site as real life takes too much of my time, so I just wanted to see real arguments. Anyway, carry on.
Jeg? it's too simple to be considered an argument? Is saying Yes or No that complicated?
Mr. beningO,
If you are trying to make your point across Philippine society, I think your way of writing is too intellectual. Good for university setting but not for public.
The best way to convey is practical, hands-on, and shortest but concise way possible. I did teach at a state university (21 years ago) before migrating to the US. I find this effective.
I informed a few alumni to use simple words as possible. I also informed them that the main reason for the rise of the United States is being PRAGMATIC and PRACTICAL, meaning SPEED & ACCURACY in communication is priority.
Don’t let people find a dictionary, that’s a delay. Especially in a topic about changing the millions of lives of people.
"Unfortunately our minds sometimes form the wrong connections or tell the wrong story from the data it perceives."
Everything basically is influential… that's the basics for hypnotism,first you introduce 'facts' then purposely mix em with something false but people would still buy it.. it's everywhere, just look at media plus the power of repetition.
"Tragically it is the weak- and small-minded that are most vulnerable to its effects."
I think the perfect example of your title is the illusion of money's worth.. seriously, the whole economic system is making the vast majority think and therefore believe that most things in the world has a tag price…in this context, it wouldn't surprise me if people would accept a world price for the air we breathe per minute.
one key is missing though, the human brain is not only capable of cognition processes…well especially if you take into account language acquisition, plus how people develop their morals… t's been proven empirically that people learn through emotions (Damasio's 'we feel therefore we learn'). And its true, coz that's basically how we construct our own personal realities.. we make sense out of everything around us using our own individual minds and how we presently feel. It's a shame though that mainstream education encourages us to have a standardized way of thinking and putting individual feelings way out of school boundaries, isnt it true when u think about any mainstream curricula? Which only causes imbalance in our nature, we're unique.. isn't it a proof that our DNA's are basically the same but that small percentage makes all the difference? hell even twins who are genetically the same are still different persons.
people need to wake up and think out of the box… the society right now is basically withholding that freedom :D
+5 votes on this comment
another +5 votes from me.
if you chance upon a naked young woman in the woods and your "feelings" were aroused so you raped her, are you saying you are justified because you just obeyed your feelings? in a free-for-all society, who do you think will likely survive?
I see your point… I'm not saying that we only have to obey our emotions just because we're presently feeling them, what I was trying to say is that it is part of the way we decide on things. Feelings and cognition go hand in hand as well as communicating, choosing, and finally acting…each is very important
Can I ask you, can you think without emotions?? as absolute as it may sound, I think that it would be impossible for a normal person to even be aware in withholding any type of emotion when thinking, when communicating with others, when choosing what to do, and when doing actions…they all include compassion, or fear, or happiness or a mixture, etc
In a free-for-all society, education is a key factor… we have to learn to be in touch with our inner feelings, why and how you come up with those and how to act on them.. it's all part of the processes in our brain.
in our life, we experience a lot of dilemmas… like the scene you stated
one of the famous dilemmas was cited by Kohlberg: if your wife was dying of cancer, and the only cure available was someone's discovery which he refuses to give to anyone unless he gets a lot of money or a patent, and you're poor, would you steal the cure??
*or something like that*
bottom line is, emotions and thinking are inseparable. that's basically what makes us different from 'thinking machines' or computers… they don't feel