Powerful evidence for Design?

[tonyrey]

There is only one hermetically sealed argument around here - and that is the one that dispenses with reason in favour of an invulnerable and unassailable private revelation which is unfalsifiable and unverifiable by lesser mortals…

1. What evidence is there that the experience is valid and verifiable?
2. If the experience is subjective how can it be proved to be authentic (even though it may be authentic) to some one other than yourself?

 

[Gaber]

1. What evidence is there that the experience is valid and verifiable?
2. If the experience is subjective how can it be proved to be authentic (even though it may be authentic) to some one other than yourself?

Do it, and find your answers beyond a shadow of doubt. My telling you of the wonders of El Dorado wont do you a smidge of good, and neither, if you are dying of thirst, my descrioption of the veritable glass of water that is offered. You have to drink it for it to have its effect.

 

[tonyrey]

Do it, and find your answers beyond a shadow of doubt. My telling you of the wonders of El Dorado wont do you a smidge of good, and neither, if you are dying of thirst, my descrioption of the veritable glass of water that is offered. You have to drink it for it to have its effect.

You have failed to answer my questions:

1. What objective evidence is there that the experience is valid and verifiable?
2. If the experience is subjective how can it be proved objectively to be authentic (even though it may be authentic) to some one other than yourself?
3. Are subjective experiences considered to be valid evidence in a court of law?

 

[Gaber]

You have failed to answer my questions:

1. What objective evidence is there that the experience is valid and verifiable?

You claim objectivity as an actuality where there is none such. The appearance of an “outside me” is accountable in other ways, none of which have you as an observer seeing something “out there” as it is, and as if there was some “thing” other thatn as a category in your mind due to its limitations of perception to about 1%. of the EM spectrum, let alone whatever else there might be.

1. If the experience is subjective how can it be proved objectively to be authentic (even though it may be authentic) to some one other than yourself?

What is the necessity of that? Either you go and find out, and have something to reason from that is solid, or you remain using your relative subject/object awareness and its limits until you discover what is beyond it which includes it anyway. It doesn’t matter. I’m just saying that it IS, and that your remarkably intellectualized explanation does not take that into account. It is information. Do with it what you will.

1. Are subjective experiences considered to be valid evidence in a court of law?

No, though that is all there actually is. Have you delved at all into the nature of witnessing? Do you actually think that there is such a thing? How many have died because they were objectively “proven” to be the murderer?

Try sometime to elicit a consistent sotry about a witnessed event from, say, ten people. Each one will have some things that sort of go into a story line. Do any towo of them relate the incident in exactly the same words, exactly the same details in exactly the same order, etc, etc, etc.? Is that objectivity? Or is it approximation from perspectives with filters?

Shown a gun, there are as many interpretatons of “gun” in the room as there are people. “Shot” has various implications and meanings for different people. “Died” has remarkably many interpretations and “legally dead” is stilll being argued. Show me yourself. Now. Present yourself to me. How would you do it? Objectrively.

If there was objectivity there would be no “versions” of the Bible, a Magesterium, the need for “infallibility,” or any number of things. Objective? In The Dehumanization of Art, Ortega y Gasset describes a scene contained in a room where a man is dying. What is objective about it? The wife, children, friends, doctor, priest, each are having a different expereince of tehe event relative to their impression of the man and their own relationships and interpretations of their knowledge of him, whethere direct or hearsay. the man himself is having a classically subjective expereince. State, if you can, including every level from sub-atomic to Cosmic what is “objectively” happening in the room! And what is the room in?

Again, ibid, consider a painting of a scene. Whatever is inconclusively and partially cliamed to constitute the painting, what is it experientially? To the picture hanger? The canvas salesman? To the framer? The gilder? The artist? The viewers? Ae they seeing it a s window and puttiing themselves in a bucolic countyr scene? Or does the vison of one or two of the visitors stop at the plane of the “window-pane” and see patterns and forces, rhythms and harmonies? Do those two see the same ones? At the quantum level, where does the painting stop and the frame or the air begin? Can you tell? “Objective” adapts to the viewpoint of the observer.

“Objectivity” is a fictional convention restricted to certain low level needs of 4D navigation and consensus communicatioon. It does not as a thing in iteslf exist. I challenge you to find it. Devote your lifetime to it and the next and the next and the next. How will you grasp it? With what? The only absolutely solid unshakable incontrovertiable truth of your life or anyone’s it their ability to say “I am.”

After that, all is contents, conjecture, and convention. If it were not so, ther would be no need of arbitrations, wars, counselling, magesteriums, dogmas, or anything of the like. All those exist because in the last analyisis all there is is the subjective experience of one’s life and the feeling that there is more than what constitutes person, its contents. And that is correct, because fundamentally one os more than person.

Person is the mask of what is made in the image and likeness of God, and what that is can be discovered. Call it prayer, work, grace or whatever, it can be discovered. And it can be discovered no matter what you do or don’t beleive if you are simplyu intent on knowing how it is that “I am.” What is “I am?”

And that question, on order to fit the exigencies of Catholic teaching can be more politically correctly asked as “How do I know God?” Or What/Who is God?" The result is the same, because to know God you have to ultimately analyze yourself as part of your picture, and whatever you discover about God you have to account as being within the scope of your perceptions and expereince, therfore as part of yourself, because there cannot be anything that you see as not you that isn’t you in a real way anyway.

It is a lovely trap. God loves you more than you can ever humanly or religously imagine. You have no choice, ultimatley, but to discover beyond your rationalizations how and what that Love is. That is inevitable. And any arguing or intellection about that, pro con, or indifferent, is just preparation for the arrival of the Unexpected.

 

[tonyrey]

You claim objectivity as an actuality where there is none such…

“Objectivity” is a fictional convention restricted to certain low level needs of 4D navigation and consensus communicatioon…

1. If objectivity is a fictional convention all your statements are subjective and can be safely ignored!
2. That is a fact you refuse to face in every post you write.
3. You need to apply your conclusion to your own attempts to communicate with others who don’t experience your experiences.
4. There has to be **some common objective ground **if you wish to communicate with anyone but yourself.

 

[Gaber]

1. If objectivity is a fictional convention all your statements are subjective and can be safely ignored!

It is not so much safety. There isn’t that, really, either, especially in retreat from inquiry. A since objectivity is a fictional convention, I have been safely ignoring yours.

1. That is a fact you refuse to face in every post you write.

Actually that is a fact I promote in everything I wirte. Have you actually read anything I’ve written?

1. You need to apply your conclusion to your own attempts to communicate with others who don’t experience your experiences.

You are an example of how that seems not to work.

1. There has to be **some common objective ground **if you wish to communicate with anyone but yourself.

See #1. Actually if I was to speak very exactly, I would have to say that there is neither objectivity or subjectivity. There. That ought to be better.

 

[prodigalson2011]

It is not so much safety. There isn’t that, really, either, especially in retreat from inquiry. A since objectivity is a fictional convention, I have been safely ignoring yours.
Actually that is a fact I promote in everything I wirte. Have you actually read anything I’ve written?You are an example of how that seems not to work.
See #1. Actually if I was to speak very exactly, I would have to say that there is neither objectivity or subjectivity. There. That ought to be better.

I suggest a name for Gaber’s unique spiritual philosophy: Confusionism.

 

[Gaber]

I suggest a name for Gaber’s unique spiritual philosophy: Confusionism.

“Confusion say:…” I love it! thanks for the laugh!

 

[tonyrey]

It is not so much safety. There isn’t that, really, either, especially in retreat from inquiry. A since objectivity is a fictional convention, I have been safely ignoring yours.
Actually that is a fact I promote in everything I wirte. Have you actually read anything I’ve written?You are an example of how that seems not to work.
See #1. Actually if I was to speak very exactly, I would have to say that there is neither objectivity or subjectivity. There. That ought to be better.

Therefore no further rational discussion is possible.

 

[Gaber]

Therefore no further rational discussion is possible.

You are claiming that some of your discussion was rational? Rationalized, yes. But you never reasoned from the premise of no mind. So your rationalizations are irrelevant to the point. And as I pointed out, there is no reason to Being. But Beiing allows reason to be used, or appear to be reasonable even given false (incomplete) premises. Nice chatting with you.

 

[prodigalson2011]

You are claiming that some of your discussion was rational? Rationalized, yes. But you never reasoned from the premise of no mind. So your rationalizations are irrelevant to the point. And as I pointed out, there is no reason to Being. But Beiing allows reason to be used, or appear to be reasonable even given false (incomplete) premises. Nice chatting with you.

The idea of “reasoning from the premise of no mind” presents a glaring contradiction in terms. Being itself does not allow reason to be used. The state of “being” can be ascribed to everything from elementary particles to mountains, neither of which are capable of reason. It is specifically the being of mind that allows reason to be used.

I’m afraid I have to agree with tonyrey; any discussion with you, insofar as you adhere to your current views, is futile because it is ultimately relativistic. You reject any discussion based on logical discourse in favor of your subjective experience (and yes, it is subjective, regardless of your dismissal of the concept–just because I say I’m a zebra doesn’t make me a striped African equid).

Words have more or less clearly defined meanings and they must if we are to communicate effectively. If we are to throw out the ideas of “objectivity” and “subjectivity” what are we left with? Absurdity. If there is no objectivity, there is no ultimate truth, and if there is no subjectivity, there are no minds to apprehend any truth that might exist. Therefore, your very claim of “knowledge” becomes a claim to nothing at all. It’s absurd.

I did intend my previous comment to be funny and not offensive, but I must confess it certainly falls under the umbrella of the adage of “honesty through jest.”
Your style of discourse could be compared to a fighter who continually throws blocks and never takes the offensive. When a reasonable point is made, it is deterred with some new obscurantist stymie. I think the most honest (not to say that you’re being deliberately dishonest) move you could make would be to acknowledge that your philosophy is averse to reason and rational discussion.

 

[reggieM]

Examples? so there is no philosophy of reigion? Or religious philosophy? Or there is philosophy that is strictly secular?

Those are better questions, Gaber.
Philosophy is entirely a secular science. One does not have to accept theological truths to recognize the correctness of philosophical conclusions.
Again - it’s like math. A mathematical formula is a secular proposition. Muslims, atheists, Jews – all can recognize the validity of the conclusion.
It’s the same with logic.

If so, why are you applying said secular philosophy to what is ultimately a reigious idea: that there is a “designer” of the Universe?

Again, great question.
First of all, the Design Argument does not necessarily specify anything about “a designer”. There are other philosophical arguments that support the proposition that there can only be one God.
In the same way, the argument from First Cause is not a religious teaching. It’s a philosophical proof based on the first axiom that every effect has a cause.
This says nothing about the Holy Trinity or the Divinity of Christ, for example.

The idea that the Universe shows evidence of having been Designed (and therefore necessarily the product of intelligence) is an important argument against those who claim that everything we observe is the product of blind, accidental processes alone.

You have wisely opposed that error (of origin by accident) by asserting that the Universe is not the product of accidental occurrences.

At the same time, you do not affirm the Design Argument – believing (it seems) that there is a third alternative other than Chance or Design.

I would like to hear your views on that. What is that alternative for the origin of something that is not either blind chance (through natural laws) or Design?

 

[edwest2]

Examples? so there is no philosophy of reigion? Or religious philosophy? Or there is philosophy that is strictly secular? If so, why are you applying said secular philosophy to what is ultimately a reigious idea: that there is a “designer” of the Universe?
An atheist, as anyone can, can use reason to the best of their ability, sometimes correctly, given the limited premises of an argument. But no philosopher of whatever stipe can take themselves out of the equation, and they cannot remove the requirement that whatever, even secular or atheistic argument is put forth, has to fit into Reality and not contreadict it or the integrity of theor own actual structure in aarenes as distinct from a cnjectured one. It seems to me that you are attempting to legitimize the presence of conjecture in philosphical thinking by compart"mental"iszing it.
Perhaps it seems that way from your perspective. In any case, once discovered, as you seem to have allowed that I might have in some kind or degree, that new understanding can legitimately inform the structure of philosophy since Wisdom is, at least in your defineiton, I am sure, a gift of God as well. Otherwise Franklin Merrel-Wollfe could not have usefully titled one of his excellent works The Philosophy of Consciousness Without an Object.
This is why we pray – so that God can enlighten us in ways that we cannot find on our own. But people who do not pray or even believe in God can find some degree of wisdom – and that’s what philosophy is. It’s the use of natural reason to discover truths.

Theological truths, however, go beyond what human nature alone can find – they come from God, through grace. And here we have yet another artificially imposed limitation from a position of incomplete or partial relevant expereince based on an assumption unproved simply by lack of completed inquiry. And that is fine, of course. But you ae making the mistake, perhaps, that I did: not allowing for something completely unpredicted by your premises from entering your expereince and pulling the rug completely out from what you think you stand on. THINK you stand on.

You both, and more of you, I am sure, are so adamant in your belief in correctness that you are shooting yourselves in the foots, (sic) the foot being the symbol of under-standing. Just allow that there is at least a third position that your self assessed hermetically sealed argument doesn’t allow for. I was, mentally, kind of where you are, and now perforce can’t be. Wasn’t my idea, I guarantee you. So lighten up on the insistance of being so absolutely right. Want to make God laugh? Construct a proof. Blessed good mind excercies, though, lol!

Love and Peace.

---

There was a time when such elaborate - thinking - was something I though was worth it. Once you have the right answer, it’s the right answer. There cannot be another right answer. But, not referring to you, some make it their mission or hobby to not find the truth but to come up with loopholes or distractions. And it cannot be ruled out that there are a few that simply hate the idea of God or religion, so they must construct another distraction, which cannot be properly called a correct alternative in any way, shape or form.

I feel I should address the “boredom” issue, which I believe is the greatest secular sin or looked at as the equivalent of living in hell. For the average person, there are so many people out there that need some kind of help, and organizations exist that you can volunteer for, and there are people who just need someone to talk to. I knew a man who visited with people at nursing homes.

Peace,
Ed

 

[tonyrey]

There was a time when such elaborate - thinking - was something I though was worth it. Once you have the right answer, it’s the right answer. There cannot be another right answer. But, not referring to you, some make it their mission or hobby to not find the truth but to come up with loopholes or distractions. And it cannot be ruled out that there are a few that simply hate the idea of God or religion, so they must construct another distraction, which cannot be properly called a correct alternative in any way, shape or form.

I feel I should address the “boredom” issue, which I believe is the greatest secular sin or looked at as the equivalent of living in hell. For the average person, there are so many people out there that need some kind of help, and organizations exist that you can volunteer for, and there are people who just need someone to talk to. I knew a man who visited with people at nursing homes.
Peace,
Ed

Before applying the term “perspicacity” to your post I checked its full meaning and came across the following:

In Descartes’ scheme, intelligence consisted of two faculties: perspicacity, which provided an understanding or intuition of distinct detail; and sagacity, which enabled reasoning about the details in order to make deductions. Rule 9 was De Perspicacitate Intuitionis (On the Perspicacity of Intuition). He summarised the rule as Oportet ingenii aciem ad res minimas et maxime faciles totam convertere, atque in illis diutius immorari, donec assuescamus veritatem distincte et perspicue intueri.
We should totally focus the vision of the natural intelligence on the smallest and easiest things, and we should dwell on them for a long time, so long, until we have become accustomed to intuiting the truth distinctly and perspicuously.
In his study of the elements of wisdom, the modern psychometrician Robert Sternberg identified perspicacity as one of its six components or dimensions; the other five being reasoning, sagacity, learning, judgement and the expeditious use of information.[3] In his analysis, perspicacity was described as …has intuition; can offer solutions that are on the side of right and truth; is able to see through things — read between the lines; has the ability to understand and interpret his or her environment.
—Robert J. Sternberg , Wisdom: its nature, origins, and development
In an article dated October 7, 1966, the journal Science discussed NASA scientist-astronaut program recruitment efforts: To quote an Academy brochure, the quality most needed by a scientist-astronaut is “perspicacity.” He must, the brochure says, be able to quickly pick out, from among the thousands of things he sees, those that are significant, and to synthesize observations and develop and test working hypotheses.

-wikipedia

The term not only aptly describes your post but is pertinent to the issue. %between%

 

[Gaber]

There was a time when such elaborate - thinking - was something I though was worth it. Once you have the right answer, it’s the right answer. There cannot be another right answer. But, not referring to you, some make it their mission or hobby to not find the truth but to come up with loopholes or distractions. And it cannot be ruled out that there are a few that simply hate the idea of God or religion, so they must construct another distraction, which cannot be properly called a correct alternative in any way, shape or form.

I feel I should address the “boredom” issue, which I believe is the greatest secular sin or looked at as the equivalent of living in hell. For the average person, there are so many people out there that need some kind of help, and organizations exist that you can volunteer for, and there are people who just need someone to talk to. I knew a man who visited with people at nursing homes

Peace,
Ed

Thank you. edwest. for your thoughts. So of course you have had the expereince that an answer is quite sufficient until the need for a further or deeper one arises. It is called the process of maturation. And from the viewpoint of a child an explanation of a dynamic that a child hears may have no relevance in their scope of comprehension, thier answers being totaly sufficient for their stage. And that is as it should be.

I know and understand about the “boredom” idea. I live with some folks who define their life mission as avoiding reality. They persue vampire movies and TV series with get avidity to the point where I spend as much time in my studio or elswhere as possible. In fact, my work is in four countries and in a the International collection of a large corporation. A curator of th Ufitzi said she had never seen anything like it, and my works are said to be 3D versions of an accoladed artist. I have been published and published about. I have run seminars in a branch philosophy and other subjects. I am currently editing a book (notwithstanding my horrible spell-checkless typing here) for a Phd who has appeared on Dr. OZ because of his nearly miraculous innovative work. I’m frequently asked to critique photos, paintings, and other works by artists and galleries, one of which I volunteer in. I have two jobs, one helping my girlfriend who is an award winning designer. I maintain the gardens and physical plant of a home on an acre plus property. I do specialty painting in and around high end homes. I get up at 5AM to have a start on such a day, and include meditation and prayer in my acitivities. I feed the animals, and make lunch for my girlfriend who has a 9>5 before starting on my own activities. I do occasionally do restoration work at a local Catholic church, their statues being somewhat in disrepair. I have read my poetry and short essays to TV audiences and occasionally give talks on subjects of interest to me. I read constantly, several books at a time.

I found all of this very very tediously boring, so about three months ago I took an intensive course in Senior Peer Counseling, and am engaged in home and office visits with seniors 55 on up. I go to staff meetings on a weekly basis to keep up on our client load and I disseminate information about our service, as I do for about three lical artists groups. I also make nearly daily visits to my 86 yo mother and shop for her, fix things at her home, water, and work with her on the computer, and occasionally take her out of town for medical proceedures and tests.

I also had a 30 year association with and worked in the home of a metaphysician of a caliber that Mother Teresa and her entourage stayed for a week with him as guests so they could havee their questions answered. One of them said “We have found St. John Chrysostom!” He was also consulted by Jesuit scholars and other religious, both from East and West, and was privy on visiting the cathedral in Asisi to all the sections that visitors are barred from. I have seen Catholic priests weep at his feet for resoplving their conundrums. That and top marks in religion and theology in the
Catholic school system is what I grew up in, and is the source of my boredom.

So right about now how about you and your cheering section re-evaluate your bs azzs-umptions and grow a set and get real.

Thank you for your time and perspicacity.

 

[tonyrey]

There was a time when such elaborate - thinking - was something I though was worth it. Once you have the right answer, it’s the right answer. There cannot be another right answer. But, not referring to you, some make it their mission or hobby to not find the truth but to come up with loopholes or distractions. And it cannot be ruled out that there are a few that simply hate the idea of God or religion, so they must construct another distraction, which cannot be properly called a correct alternative in any way, shape or form.

I feel I should address the “boredom” issue, which I believe is the greatest secular sin or looked at as the equivalent of living in hell. For the average person, there are so many people out there that need some kind of help, and organizations exist that you can volunteer for, and there are people who just need someone to talk to. I knew a man who visited with people at nursing homes.

To be absolutely convinced one has the right answer and others are sadly mistaken is a sign of unenlightened hubris…

 

[Gaber]

To be absolutely convinced one has the right answer and others are sadly mistaken is a sign of unenlightened hubris…

I have by far less proposed an answer than a method of discovering for yourself what is behind the rationlaizing mind. If you are so capable of detecting what is unenlightened, where is your curiosity for what makes your thinkum dinkum? It can’t be in your mind.

 

[edwest2]

Thank you. edwest. for your thoughts. So of course you have had the expereince that an answer is quite sufficient until the need for a further or deeper one arises. It is called the process of maturation. And from the viewpoint of a child an explanation of a dynamic that a child hears may have no relevance in their scope of comprehension, thier answers being totaly sufficient for their stage. And that is as it should be.

I know and understand about the “boredom” idea. I live with some folks who define their life mission as avoiding reality. They persue vampire movies and TV series with get avidity to the point where I spend as much time in my studio or elswhere as possible. In fact, my work is in four countries and in a the International collection of a large corporation. A curator of th Ufitzi said she had never seen anything like it, and my works are said to be 3D versions of an accoladed artist. I have been published and published about. I have run seminars in a branch philosophy and other subjects. I am currently editing a book (notwithstanding my horrible spell-checkless typing here) for a Phd who has appeared on Dr. OZ because of his nearly miraculous innovative work. I’m frequently asked to critique photos, paintings, and other works by artists and galleries, one of which I volunteer in. I have two jobs, one helping my girlfriend who is an award winning designer. I maintain the gardens and physical plant of a home on an acre plus property. I do specialty painting in and around high end homes. I get up at 5AM to have a start on such a day, and include meditation and prayer in my acitivities. I feed the animals, and make lunch for my girlfriend who has a 9>5 before starting on my own activities. I do occasionally do restoration work at a local Catholic church, their statues being somewhat in disrepair. I have read my poetry and short essays to TV audiences and occasionally give talks on subjects of interest to me. I read constantly, several books at a time.

I found all of this very very tediously boring, so about three months ago I took an intensive course in Senior Peer Counseling, and am engaged in home and office visits with seniors 55 on up. I go to staff meetings on a weekly basis to keep up on our client load and I disseminate information about our service, as I do for about three lical artists groups. I also make nearly daily visits to my 86 yo mother and shop for her, fix things at her home, water, and work with her on the computer, and occasionally take her out of town for medical proceedures and tests.

I also had a 30 year association with and worked in the home of a metaphysician of a caliber that Mother Teresa and her entourage stayed for a week with him as guests so they could havee their questions answered. One of them said “We have found St. John Chrysostom!” He was also consulted by Jesuit scholars and other religious, both from East and West, and was privy on visiting the cathedral in Asisi to all the sections that visitors are barred from. I have seen Catholic priests weep at his feet for resoplving their conundrums. That and top marks in religion and theology in the
Catholic school system is what I grew up in, and is the source of my boredom.

So right about now how about you and your cheering section re-evaluate your bs azzs-umptions and grow a set and get real.

Thank you for your time and perspicacity.

Funny. It reminds of the title of the SF book, Childhood’s End. Sadly, a few people live under the calendar fantasy rule: Look, it’s the 21st Century - things have/must change. Your insulting closing does not deter me one bit, and I’m very impressed by your resume.

I’ll restate because you seem to think I meant something I never wrote: 2 + 2 = 4. It’s true. It’s the correct answer, and no other correct answer exists.

I’d recommend a book to you but you seem to have a full schedule. And we could compare lifetime achievements and ongoing projects but that wouldn’t add any value to this discussion. I’ll end by simply pointing out that man has not changed one bit over the last 2,000 years, and that design is actual, not apparent. Things don’t just appear to be designed, they are.

Peace,
Ed

 

[Gaber]

Funny. It reminds of the title of the SF book, Childhood’s End. Sadly, a few people live under the calendar fantasy rule: Look, it’s the 21st Century - things have/must change. Your insulting closing does not deter me one bit, and I’m very impressed by your resume.

I’ll restate because you seem to think I meant something I never wrote: 2 + 2 = 4. It’s true. It’s the correct answer, and no other correct answer exists.

I’d recommend a book to you but you seem to have a full schedule. And we could compare lifetime achievements and ongoing projects but that wouldn’t add any value to this discussion. I’ll end by simply pointing out that man has not changed one bit over the last 2,000 years, and that design is actual, not apparent. Things don’t just appear to be designed, they are.

Peace,
Ed

Yes, me too: “The opinions expressed in this book are not those of the author.” Works either way, at least, depending on viewpoint and referent for “author.”

But what is Man? The alleged “designer body?” Or is it what allows the “driver” of that vehicle to be present upon awakening each morning to witness the event, and the successive assuming of “I,” the bodymind, and the world fabricated by it? And since the claims of man’s existence on this planet range from 250,000 (OK, 6K if you’re a NE) to several millions of years, how are you in a position to say there has been no change, 2K being miniscule on that scale? As Heinlein indicated in Gulf what gives man superiority is not his body but the quality of his thought:

"…We define thinking as integrating data and arriving at correct answers. Look around you. Most people do that stunt just well enought to get to the corner store and back without breaking a leg. If the average man thinks at all, he does silly things like generalizing from a single datum. He uses one-valued logics. If he is exceptionally bright, he may use two-valued ‘either-or’ logic to arrive at his wrong answers. If he is hungry, hurt, or personally interested in the answer, he can’t use any sort of logic and will discard observed fact as blithly as he will stake his life on a piece of wishful thinking. He uses the technical miracles created by superior men without wonder nor surprise, as a kitten accepts a bowl of milk. Far from aspiring to higher reasoning, he is not even aware that higher reasoning exists. He classes his own mental process as being of the same sort as the genius of an Einstein. Man is not a rational animal; he is a rationalizing animal.

"That is why there is always room at the top, why a man with a leetle more on the ball can so easily become governor, millionaire, or college president–and why homo sap is sure to be displaced by New Man, because there is so much room for improvement and evoloution never stops.

Here and there among ordinary men is a rare individual who really thinks, can and does use logic in a single feild–he’s often as stupid as the rest outside hei study or his laboratory–but he can think, if he is not disturbed, sick, or frightened. This rare individual is responsible for all the progress made by the race; the others reluctantly adopt his results. Much as the ordinary man dislikes and distrusts and persecutes the process of thinking he is forced to accept the reslults occasionally, because thinking is efficient compared with his own maounderings. He may still plant his corn by the dark of the moon, but he will plant better corn developed by better men than he.

"Still rarer is the man who thinks habitually, who applies reason, rather than habit pattern, to all his activity. Unless he masks himself, his is a dangerous life; he is regarded as queer, untrustworthy, subversive of public morals; a pink monkey among the brown monkeys–a fatal mistake. Unless the pink monkey can dye homself brown before he gets caught.

"The brown monkey’s instinct to kill is correct; such men are dangerous to all monkey customs.

"Rarest of all is the man who can and does reason at all times, quickly, accurately, inclusively, despite hope or fear or bodily distress, without egocentric bias or thalmic disturbance, with correct memory, with clear distinction between fact, assumption and non-fact. Such men exist, (edwest2,) They are “New Man”–human in all respects, indistinguishable in all appearnces or under the scalpel from homo sap, yet as unlike him in action as the Sun is unlke a single candle.

~RA Heinlein, Gulf, short novel in *Assignment in Eternity * c 1949, '53, '81 RAH

So that is where change is, and in the direct understnding of what place thought and discursive thinking have in the human expereince relative to awareness itself, and all that applies, especially in religous understanding.

For clarity, I only provided a partial resume because of your comments about boredom. They were silly and unwarrented and deserved the percieved insult, especially as it included by inference Tonyrey’s praise of your statement. So I am sure in fact that you are a very nice person, and we might even enjoy a beer together, but as far as what I imagine about your book, you as a thinker in this particular consideration, make a good case that your recommendations regarding “design” and those of your company should not be just tossed aside lightly. They ought to be thrown with great force. (Thank you Dorothy Parker.) Otherwise you seem to be doing rather well.

BTW, one of my favorite Asimov books is Adding a Dimension

 

[edwest2]

Yes, me too: “The opinions expressed in this book are not those of the author.” Works either way, at least, depending on viewpoint and referent for “author.”

But what is Man? The alleged “designer body?” Or is it what allows the “driver” of that vehicle to be present upon awakening each morning to witness the event, and the successive assuming of “I,” the bodymind, and the world fabricated by it? And since the claims of man’s existence on this planet range from 250,000 (OK, 6K if you’re a NE) to several millions of years, how are you in a position to say there has been no change, 2K being miniscule on that scale? As Heinlein indicated in Gulf what gives man superiority is not his body but the quality of his thought:

So that is where change is, and in the direct understnding of what place thought and discursive thinking have in the human expereince relative to awareness itself, and all that applies, especially in religous understanding.

For clarity, I only provided a partial resume because of your comments about boredom. They were silly and unwarrented and deserved the percieved insult,especially as it included by inference Tonyrey’s praise of your statement. So I am sure in fact that you are a very nice person, and we might even enjoy a beer together, but as far as what I imagine about your book, you as a thinker in this particular consideration, make a good case that your recommendations regarding “design” and those of your company should not be just tossed aside lightly. They ought to be thrown with great force.(
Thank you Dorothy Parker.) Otherwise you seem to be doing rather well.

BTW, one of my favorite Asimov books is Adding a Dimension

Yes, Heinlein. I don’t worship men. And I’ll just point out that men, especially over the last century, have increasingly used science in precisely the way I speak of it.

“thrown with great force” Yes, we could probably sit down and have a good discussion. This anonymous internet thing is a stumbling block in that regard. However, I think your extremist view has certain similarities with what you only think is an extremist view from myself and others who see the world correctly. Aside from that - what harm are we causing?

Peace,
Ed