![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 54 to 78 of 126. Go back in thread:
Posted by bigbertha on November 15, 1999, at 22:40:50
In reply to Re: Depression, Evolution 2E, posted by CC on November 15, 1999, at 0:46:13
>Elizabeth:
>"Appeals to authority aren't inherently bad, but I think it is a good idea to look at where
the authorities' opinions came from. If you can't find good reasons there, then arguably
they should not really be considered "authorities."">CC:
These "authorities" have had 2000 years+ of study to base their ideas on, thats good enough for me.
Well that might work for you but let's look at some people who had
opposing views having "real" consequences:1. Probably THE biggest thorn in Jesus' side (no pun intended!)
was the authorities better known as the Pharisies, Sudduccies,etc.
Learned men naturally became the "authorities", because reading/writing
skills were taught on a limited basis. And what happens when access to info
is restricted? Control. The Starchamber sets the rules (see the Book of Numbers!)
because they know challenges will be few. As I recall, Jesus blasted them for
just this thing - creating imposssible rules that THEY themselves didn't follow.
And look what happened at HIS annual review!2. Martin Luther challenged the Catholic Church authorities on their interpretation
of the New Testatment. Although a firebrand, he didn't set out to cause the rupture
but after much debate he realized he had to "walk the walk". Oh yes, there was also
that thing about selling indulgences, and other clerical liberties with the "rules",
but again that's what happens when checks and balances are missing.
3.Women Suffragettes, Ghandi, ML King, Rosa Parks, etc, etc,
took at the racist "ideas" that had been studied by "learned
authorities" who established "their" rules and said "I don't think so!"CC, I'm certain you'll think of many examples. but as JLennon said:
"Whatever gets you through this life..."
Posted by CC on November 15, 1999, at 23:52:52
In reply to See No Evil?, posted by bigbertha on November 15, 1999, at 22:40:50
These people all had faith in something, didn't they? The Beatles at one time thought they were more popular than Christ. Do you now any Beatlist that practice Beatlism?
Posted by Elizabeth on November 16, 1999, at 3:05:41
In reply to Re: See No Evil?, posted by CC on November 15, 1999, at 23:52:52
> These people all had faith in something, didn't they? The Beatles at one time thought they were more popular than Christ. Do you now any Beatlist that practice Beatlism?
I think my sister may fall into that category!
Posted by CarolAnn on November 16, 1999, at 9:15:19
In reply to the Beatles, posted by Elizabeth on November 16, 1999, at 3:05:41
Yes...I do like Sonny & Cher(even though they're wwaaayyyy before my time, okay maybe only slightly "way" before).
Anyway, are we suuurrrre we don't want to go to a new thread on this discussion?
If anyone does want to start again, please take the initiative. I'm just too darn co-dependent to rock the boat!
It just seem as if there is always a reply to be made, with every possible *last* post. CarolAnn
Posted by Elizabeth on November 17, 1999, at 2:58:45
In reply to Re: Depression, Evolution (to Elizabeth), posted by CarolAnn on November 13, 1999, at 16:10:11
Sorry I seem to have missed this one. Am responding now.
> Well, yes Elizabeth, but there are many scientific hypotheses and theorys that are considered to be absolute truths, even with no real way to test them.
I wonder what you consider to constitute "evidence." Really none of the examples you give is at all comparable to mystical claims. To wit:
The big bang heory is based on the fact (observed) that galaxies are moving away from each other at a speed that increases with distance. The most reasonable interpretation of
this observation is that, from any position in
the universe, galaxies are moving away from each other in the same way.This is consistent with the predictions of Einstein's general theory of relativity and
the cosmology he based on it: the universe is expanding. GR is not only consistent with the BB theory, it's also consistent with another theory, the steady-state theory, which says that the universe is eternal, but that new matter is created from nothing in between the galaxies as they separate. This ultimately forms new galaxies, so according to SS, the universe
looks pretty much the same from whatever point in space it is being observed from, but also from whatever point in time. The SS theory is the only
serious rival to the BB presented so far. It fails miserably: far-away galaxies show clear evidence of evolution: early galaxies are ragged and scraggly, and there are more radio galaxies and quasars at great distances than there are in
our region of the universe. So the universe doesn't look even roughly the same no matter when you look. Furthermore, the cosmic background radiation cannot be interpreted in any way suggested by SS or any other conceivable theory, whereas, as was shown definitely in 1990, ALL the observational evidence falls precisely on the curve predicted by the BB. Furthermore again, the
amount of helium and deuterium (heavy hydrogen) predicted by BB is equal to the amount found in the universe today, if you into account the (calculable) amount of helium produced from hydrogen in stars. If that's not enough, since the 1970's BB has been combined with the new physical theories of the elementary particles
(electroweak theory and quantum chromodynamics) to give a much more powerful theory that makes it possible to calculate in detail the processes that occurred in the first seconds after BB. Those physical theories are supported by
overwhelming evidence - many different experiments, all favoring the theories - and all that evidence also supports the theory combined
with them - namely, BB.
Posted by CC on November 17, 1999, at 4:04:32
In reply to science superior to religion? (CarolAnn), posted by Elizabeth on November 17, 1999, at 2:58:45
"God does not play dice with the universe" Einstein. Elizabeth, where did you hide all the dark matter! Do neutrinos have mass? Do protons have a half-life? What caused the big bang? What about galaxies accelerating away from us? What causes that? How come Quasars give of the energy of 10^10 stars, but are not much larger than a star? What known process could generate that much energy? Current cyclotrons can generate 10^9 eV. It is estimated we would need a cyclotron or other device that could generate energies around 10^40 eV to get the elusive graviton to show itself, is this possible? Why do galaxies spin more like spokes of a wheel rather than like water going down a drain, that is faster toward the center?? Are all the forces interacting with matter known?
Posted by Adam on November 17, 1999, at 13:37:35
In reply to Re: science superior to religion? (CarolAnn), posted by CC on November 17, 1999, at 4:04:32
> "God does not play dice with the universe" Einstein.
Einstein made mistakes, just like everybody else. Einstein refused to accept the implications of the uncertainty principle, and thus its complete validity.
However, the uncertainty principle has withstood every experimental test. Einstein initially believed in a static universe, despite the fact his own theories
demonstrated such a scenereo was impossible, and tried to add an additional term to his equations (describing an unobserved repulsive force created by matter and
energy to counteract gravity) to preserve his cosmological preconceptions. When later observational evidence showed unequivocably that this "cosmological
constant" was ill-conceived (though perhaps still useful in explaining what appears to be an accelleration in the expansion of the universe) he described this
as "the worst mistake of my life".>Do neutrinos have mass?
It would appear that they do. Neutrinos seem to exist simultaneously as a mixture of wave states. These waves can shift out of phase, and this out-of-phase mixing
results in a wave of different amplitude, which yields a neutrino of a different type. The only way the waves can shift out of phase is if they represent different
inertial states (one will propogate more slowly than the other), which means they have mass. This wouldn't account for all the dark matter, but some of it.>What caused the big bang?
It just happened. The implications of applying quantum physics to cosmology is that, if the sum of the matter and energy in the universe and the energy of its expansion
is zero, then it can arise spontaneously out of nothing. Virtual particles do this all the time in the vacuum, and if they are created near a black hole, they can become
"real". These things happen because, given certain restrictions (the uncertainty principle), there's no reason why they can't. It makes as much sense to ask "why should
there be a universe" as it does to ask "why shouldn't there be?">What about galaxies accelerating away from us? What causes that?
It is thought that initially the universe was infinitely dense, but that due to quantum fluctuations, this state was unstable. At some point the universe expanded slightly and
thus cooled. This cooling led to a "phase transition" where matter and energy became differentiated through the creation of quantum fields that define the properties of particles.
Given the huge density of matter and energy at that time, these "scalar fields" had an enormous positive potential energy that, in effect, repelled gravitational attraction. This
huge energy density caused space and time to expand, at a rate (according to General Relativity) proportional to the square root of the density of matter and energy. The universe
got very big very quickly (sometimes referred to as the inflationary phase) and then started to slow down as the denstity decreased and gravity became more important. What is
important to remember here is that space and time are expanding, and carrying everything along with it. Everything appaers to be flying away from everything else because the
intervening space is increasing in size. That's why there's no center of the universe and that partly why everything appears roughly the same no matter what direction you look.
Everything is the "center". The center just got bigger.
>How come Quasars give of the energy of 10^10 stars, but are not much larger than a star? What known process could generate that much energy?Quasars have been shown through observations with the Hubble Telescope to be early galaxies with a highly energetic center. It is beleived that extremely masssive black holes
are found at the centers of quasars and that, given the fact we are glimpsing an early phase of galactic evolution, the center of the galaxy is dense, highly dynamic, and that
a huge amount of the matter in the galaxy is falling into the black hole. As the matter spirals in, it gets very dense and moves very fast, creating a lot of energy through
plain old friction, and also releasing a lot of "cyclotron" radiation as particles get accelerated to close to the speed of light. There are still active galaxies to be found
(so-called radio galaxies) relatively close to us, and there is even a powerful radio source near the center of our own galaxy. The origin of this energy is most likely a
massive black hole. It is likely that all galaxies at one time were quasars, or nearly as energetic, and as time passes, they settle into a calmer state like that of our own
Milky Way.>It is estimated we would need a cyclotron or other device that could generate energies around 10^40 eV to get the elusive graviton to show itself, is this possible?
There may be other ways to "observe" the graviton. Observations of the orbital periods of binary pulsars (extremely dense and massive dead stars or neutron stars orbiting each
other) have shown changes predicted by Gen. Relativity to be caused by the loss of gravitational energy through "gravitational waves". So these binary systems are radiating
gravitational energy (everything does, you just need really massive orbiting objects to detect the effect). All matter/energy is quantized. The quanta of gravitational energy
must be the graviton.>Why do galaxies spin more like spokes of a wheel rather than like water going down a drain, that is faster toward the center??
They don't rotate like spokes of a wheel. Things revolve faster near the center due to the law of conservation of angular momentum.
>Are all the forces interacting with matter known?
There may be another force (besides electric, weak nuclear, strong nuclear, and gravitational) represented by Einstein's old cosmological constant. Some astronomers think, due to
unexpected differences in the brightness of supernova in distant galaxies, that light from those supernova is getting stretched out more than can be accounted for by the predicted
rate of expansion of the universe, which should be slowing down. In other words, the rate of expansion may be slowly speeding up, and this might be due to an undescribed repulsive
force. This is a very controversial conclusion, and is nowhere near being resolved, because there may be flaws in the assumptions about star evolution that inform the accelerating
expansion theory.
Posted by Bob on November 17, 1999, at 13:48:06
In reply to Re: science superior to religion? (CarolAnn), posted by CC on November 17, 1999, at 4:04:32
> "God does not play dice with the universe" Einstein.
"Stop telling God what to do." Niels Bohr to Einstein.Besides, the quote is about quantum mechanics, which ironically received its earliest big boost from Einstein's paper on the photoelectric effect (for which he won the Nobel Prize). Einstein also said, "God is subtle, but he is not malicious" which has been interpreted as "God may have created the universe as a puzzle for us to solve but, however He did it, He wouldn't have done it using quantum mechanics!" And then there was, I believe, Stephen Hawking, the first to apply quantum mechanics to black holes successfully, who said, "Not only *does* God play dice, sometimes he throws them where you can't see them!"
CC, lots of your questions are being explained fairly well. The Hubble has contributed quite a bit here, such as finding evidence of blackholes at the centers of most galaxies (lending credit to the primary explanation on the nature of quasars). *All* galaxies are moving away from us -- that's a central tenet of Big Bang theories. THAT should be acknowledged -- that there is no one Big Bang Theory, but litterally hundreds of them. The data from the COBE satellite, out of George Smoots' shop, pretty much eliminated 95% of those by demonstrating that there is a non-uniform distribution of background radiation (most contenders could not explain anything other than a uniform distribution). Work over the last few decades on "quantum" gravity has been making inroads into why spiral galaxies both spin the way they do and FORM the way they do, since the simple accretion-disk theories applied to planetary systems fail miserably at this. So, for any of your questions, science is making good progress on coming up with an answer. Even for the missing mass problem -- the bias in the cosmology community for a closed universe (big bang, big crunch, rinse, repeat...) smacks of how Occam's Razor and the notion of elegance can blind scientists to other, better explanations (such as the universe via the big bang truly being a unique event), but there's progress nonetheless.
So much for what science can answer and for what religion cannot. Religion won't give us explanations on how things work based upon true prophecy or the self-serving proclamations of authorities.
On the other hand, while one day we may be able to say how the universe came to be what it is today, science will never be able to explain "Why the universe?" or even "Why *this* universe?"
Apples and oranges, folks. The notion of science being better than religion, or religion being better than science, is non-sense when each stays within the bounds of what it can explain.
Bob
Posted by Adam on November 17, 1999, at 15:38:03
In reply to Re: science superior to religion? (CarolAnn), posted by Bob on November 17, 1999, at 13:48:06
> On the other hand, while one day we may be able to say how the universe came to be what it is today, science will never be able to explain "Why the universe?" or even "Why *this* universe?"Again, given the older theories about the big bang, it is plausible to conclude that teh universe arose spontaneously, with no causative event,
no plan behind it, no higher consciousness, nothing. It just is. In this case it makes as much sense to say why does it exist as to ask what
came before. There was no "before" in real time (though you can theoretically survey the process mathematically in "imaginary time").One competing theory on the origin of the universe I'm not all that familiar with proposes that our universe is an extention of a much more expansive
structure, a "megaverse" that has always existed. Due to random fluctuations in whatever quantum fields defined the structure of what came before,
portions of this megaverse can spontaneously inflate, sometimes at an enormous rate of speed, and give rise to whole sub-universes, of which ours is
one. The initial conditions defined at the moment of inflation give rise to the constants of nature that are true for that particular region. Given
the infinite extent of this megaverse, and the infinite opportunity for universes to bud off from it (and subsequent universes to bud off of those),
there are an infinite number of possible conditions, some amenable to life, some not. We happen to occupy a universe that has certain physical constants
that allow for the kind of life that we know to develop and intelligent creatures such as ourselves to ask questions like why (the anthropic principle,
I believe, perhaps the "weak anthropic prinicple"). Since there are an infinite number of possiblities, it was bound to happen at some point. Why this
universe? Because we couldn't exist in another one.
>
> Apples and oranges, folks. The notion of science being better than religion, or religion being better than science, is non-sense when each stays within the bounds of what it can explain.I agree that it's apples and oranges, but I don't feel that religion "explains" anything. It used to be that faith was our only guide, and that nothing in
the universe made sense without being ibued with a divine spirit. What seemed inexplicable (like forces at a distance) was attributed to the hand of God.
History has shown nothing but a retreat from this spiritually-centered world view to a mundane one. Where those who practice science in one way or another
converge on plausible explanations for the most fundamental questions, distinct faiths have only found common ground, or brought all humanity closer to a
state of mutual understanding, where they have abandoned their most dogmatic principles. More often then not, what influences this transition from religious
dogma to ecumenical liberalism is the supplanting of old, mutually exclusive mythical ideas with unifying principles bestowed upon us by science.What science perhaps can never do is tell people how they ought to feel. I see no fatal problem with faith (so long as it isn't imposed on me or anyone else,
by means violent or otherwise) because I have known and sometimes loved perfectly rational, intelligent, informed people who practiced religion and derived
great joy in it. Religious faith has inspired such movingly beautiful creations of literature and music and art, I would feel deeply saddened if it were all
suddenly taken away. What will inspire future creators to compose another requiem mass, write another Upanisad, move with the grace and serenity of tai chi.
I have participated in Latin masses, Bhuddist chants, read part of the Pesach Hagadah. I even helped organize the Divali celebration at my college and adapted
part of the Ramayana as a play. To lose religion seems a terrible thing to me, and at the same time, I cannot truly understand it or be a part of it, and I
predict it is slowly dying. But the rise of fundamentalism in many parts of the world in reaction to this trend is even more disturbing. I do not feel a sense
of pride in our country when I know kids in Kansas aren't being taught evolution.Perhaps we can strike a balance between the need for accurate, scientific theories to guide us into the future, and the redemtive and joyful aspects of faith.
I'm not hopeful that this can be achieved, and I can't imagine what the world will be like bereft of one or the other.
Posted by Scott L. Schofield on November 17, 1999, at 19:57:29
In reply to science superior to religion? (CarolAnn), posted by Elizabeth on November 17, 1999, at 2:58:45
> Furthermore, the cosmic background radiation cannot be interpreted in any way suggested by SS or any other conceivable theory, whereas, as was shown definitely in 1990, ALL the observational evidence falls precisely on the curve predicted by the BB
My friend's father was the co-discoverer of the background radiation. They stumbled upon it by accident when they were testing a new radio antenna meant to track Telstar. If I remember correctly, the magnitude of the radiation was about 3 degrees Kelvin. (There is a funny story regarding this measurement that involves pigeons).
Don't forget dark matter. If it doesn't exist, the universe might expand forever.
Opinion:
I'm not sure how far this topic will go, but I figured I'd drop in anyway. I think that there is a tendency for man to wage war against uncertainty. However, some of the greatest twentieth century physicists were comfortable with uncertainty. Certainly, Heisenberg must have been, although I'm not absolutely certain.
Both science and religion spend quite a bit of time and energy trying to fill in the gaps. What seems to get lost within the many quandaries pursued by both is spirituality. Spirituality can act as a bridge between the two - if you let it. I don't see any conflict between spiritualism and atheism. Often, I think science and religion argue over the existence of something that neither can define.
- Scott
Posted by CC on November 17, 1999, at 20:57:22
In reply to Re: science superior to religion? (CC), posted by Adam on November 17, 1999, at 13:37:35
"the sum of the matter and energy in the universe and the energy of its expansion
is zero"So energy of expansion = total energy of matter and energy? Wouldn't these energies be additive rather than cancelling each other out?
"It is thought that initially the universe was infinitely dense, but that due to quantum
fluctuations, this state was unstable. At some point the universe expanded slightly and
thus cooled. This cooling led to a "phase transition" where matter and energy became
differentiated through the creation of quantum fields that define the properties of
particles."Where did this infinitely dense unstable thing come from? If it came from a "megaverse" then where did the megaverse come from? I don't see how anything can come from nothing. The model of the beginning of our universe started with "something". If something can come from nothing it should be observable. Virtual particals can come into existance but only for a very short time. What about conservation of mass and energy? It still looks like a "first cause" issue to me, albeit a very complex one. Do you know anything about string theory? I was wondering if the "collapsed dimensions" would allow strange interactions between matter not explained by electromagnetic or other energies. Can you tell me how something can come from nothing and if so is it anything more than pure speculation?
Posted by CC on November 17, 1999, at 22:54:07
In reply to Re: science superior to religion? (CC), posted by CC on November 17, 1999, at 20:57:22
I have heard that the theory of evolution has some major problems with it. The birds, the pre-cambrian explosion, gaps in the fossil record, no fossil record of microorganisms to speak of, falsification of data, etc., etc.. I also heard that the statistical probability of chlorophyll assembling itself under ideal circumstances was 10^40 against. Can anybody comment on whether this is a reasonable number? And doesn't it just take one contradiction to invalidate a theory?
Posted by Elizabeth on November 18, 1999, at 0:25:27
In reply to Re: science superior to religion? (CarolAnn), posted by Adam on November 17, 1999, at 15:38:03
> What science perhaps can never do is tell people how they ought to feel.
Why should *anything* tell people how they "ought" to feel?
On another note (pun intended):
>Religious faith has inspired such movingly beautiful creations of literature and music and art, I would feel deeply saddened if it were all
>suddenly taken away.Hmm...the same claim has been made of depression. (e.g., what if Dostoevsky, Salinger, Mozart, etc., had been on Prozac?). Does that make depression a good thing that shouldn't be eliminated? (And how do we know that depression, or religion, is required for inspiration?)
(For that matter, speaking of Dostoevsky, it's been hypothesized that his apparent mood disorder may have been related to temporal lobe epilepsy. Does that make epilepsy a good thing?)
> What will inspire future creators to compose another requiem mass, write another Upanisad, move with the grace and serenity of tai chi.
> I have participated in Latin masses, Bhuddist chants, read part of the Pesach Hagadah. I even helped organize the Divali celebration at my college and adapted
> part of the Ramayana as a play. To lose religion seems a terrible thing to me, and at the same time, I cannot truly understand it or be a part of it, and I
> predict it is slowly dying.I wrote a "little mass" as my final project for a music composition course in college. It's not Bach (actually Palestrina was the inspiration), but it shows something I think: it doesn't require faith to write a mass or to be moved by it. (A lot of Catholic-style masses have been written by Protestants, and Brahms reinvented the requiem.)
I don't think faith is required to be inspired, either. I've found at least two of the classes I've taken deeply inspiring (Allan Hobson's sleep class, and a course of my dad's that I sat in on).
For that matter I've sometimes experienced brief spontaneous episodes of "inspiration" or ecstasy (sort of like being moved by a beautiful piece of music or a sad story, only more so). (This seems to be predictive of panic attacks, interestingly enough.)
Posted by CC on November 18, 1999, at 0:29:11
In reply to The validity of the theory of evolution., posted by CC on November 17, 1999, at 22:54:07
Here is challenge for all you scientist out there. Starting with non-living matter, create living matter. Use what ever chemicals you like and any enviroment you like. No cheating by using any form of living matter or material from dead organisms of any kind. Virus doesn't count. Does this sound unreasonable? If sheer chance can generate life then it ought to be a cinch for intelligent sentient beings. Get back to me when you have succeeded.
Posted by Elizabeth on November 18, 1999, at 0:29:50
In reply to Re: science superior to religion? (CarolAnn), posted by Scott L. Schofield on November 17, 1999, at 19:57:29
> I think that there is a tendency for man to wage war against uncertainty. However, some of the greatest twentieth century physicists were comfortable with uncertainty. Certainly, Heisenberg must have been, although I'm not absolutely certain.
I think there is a tension between accepting uncertainty, and yet still seeking to learn what is not yet known. (That is, feeling okay about not knowing everything without becoming a total slacker.)
> Spirituality can act as a bridge between the two - if you let it. I don't see any conflict between spiritualism and atheism.
Question: how do you define spirituality? I've mostly heard it used as a thin veil for religion.
Posted by bigbertha on November 18, 1999, at 0:44:30
In reply to The validity of the theory of evolution., posted by CC on November 17, 1999, at 22:54:07
> doesn't it just take one contradiction to invalidate a theory?
Uh, isn't the Bible a little out of whack if that
is the case? For example: Strange that there is such a taboo
against incest, but if Adam & Eve were the only game
in town.... Or maybe Eve was the REAL reason Cain wanted
the #1 slot?
Posted by CC on November 18, 1999, at 1:09:39
In reply to Re: contradiction., posted by bigbertha on November 18, 1999, at 0:44:30
Uh, isn't the Bible a little out of whack if that
is the case? For example: Strange that there is such a taboo
against incest, but if Adam & Eve were the only game
in town.... Or maybe Eve was the REAL reason Cain wanted
the #1 slot?The Bible is not represented as a theory. Adam and Eve were not sister, brother, mother or father etc.. Cain killed his brother, not his father. Insults generally indicate a lack of real material.
Posted by Adam on November 18, 1999, at 2:50:49
In reply to Adam: inspiration, posted by Elizabeth on November 18, 1999, at 0:25:27
>
> Why should *anything* tell people how they "ought" to feel?
>
I think you may be reading more into that than I intended it to mean. I never meant to imply
that anything "should" tell people how they ought to feel. But I know some people do yearn for
something that will, and I don't think they'll find such answers in science, beyond learning
that we may have an innate sense of "morality" that was shaped by evolutionary forces, and thus
have some cause to be optimistic about humanity. For some this doesn't seem to be enough. Far
be it from me or anyone else to tell them they are silly for feeling this way.>
> Hmm...the same claim has been made of depression. (e.g., what if Dostoevsky, Salinger, Mozart, etc., had been on Prozac?). Does that make depression a good thing that shouldn't be eliminated? (And how do we know that depression, or religion, is required for inspiration?)Are you implying that religion should be eliminated? I guess as far as depression goes, (don't hold
me to textbook definitions, here) I don't think it should be eliminated completely. The relentless
despair that ruins lives and drives people to self-destruction, sure. But nobody wants a Brave New World,
either. The idea of life without affect is what made Huxley's vision so frightening, and I think some
amount of depression is necessary to appreciate joy. I'm not at all implying that you thus need religion
to appreciate science, just that faith has not been entirely without value.
> (For that matter, speaking of Dostoevsky, it's been hypothesized that his apparent mood disorder may have been related to temporal lobe epilepsy. Does that make epilepsy a good thing?)Who would suggest such a thing? Of course not. I love Dostoevsky's work, but I would gladly give it up
if it meant he didn't have to suffer. I think the closest I ever got to true love was with a woman who
had TLE. She was brilliant, beautiful, could draw a perfect likeness of me in about three seconds, and had
an extremely impressive creative talent. (No harsh speculation about how I let her go...it's complicated).
Anywhow, I don't know in what way TLE influenced her talents, controlled by Tegretol as it was, but I would
hazard a guess that Dostoyevsky might still have been dark and brilliant without it.
>
>
> I wrote a "little mass" as my final project for a music composition course in college. It's not Bach (actually Palestrina was the inspiration), but it shows something I think: it doesn't require faith to write a mass or to be moved by it. (A lot of Catholic-style masses have been written by Protestants, and Brahms reinvented the requiem.)
>
> I don't think faith is required to be inspired, either. I've found at least two of the classes I've taken deeply inspiring (Allan Hobson's sleep class, and a course of my dad's that I sat in on).
>
I think these things are wonderful, and I envy your talents and a father who must be quite an intellectual.
(what does he teach?) Again, the intent was not to rule out the possibility of inspiration in the absence
of faith. Isn't a little nostalgic hyperbole OK once in a while? It may very well be that faith just isn't
worth the trouble it's caused, but I'm not prepared to make that judgement. If and when it finally vanishes,
I think there will be cause for some sadness, because it hasn't been all bad, and has inspired a lot of
beauty.> For that matter I've sometimes experienced brief spontaneous episodes of "inspiration" or ecstasy (sort of like being moved by a beautiful piece of music or a sad story, only more so). (This seems to be predictive of panic attacks, interestingly enough.)
I hope that all transcendant experiences aren't the product or precursor of complex partial seizures, hallucinogens, or
extreme states of agitation.
Posted by Scott L. Schofield on November 18, 1999, at 7:50:35
In reply to Re: science superior to religion? (CC), posted by CC on November 17, 1999, at 20:57:22
> "the sum of the matter and energy in the universe and the energy of its expansion
> is zero"What about entropy?
- Scott
Posted by Scott L. Schofield on November 18, 1999, at 8:08:02
In reply to Uncertainty - Scott, posted by Elizabeth on November 18, 1999, at 0:29:50
> > I think that there is a tendency for man to wage war against uncertainty. However, some of the greatest twentieth century physicists were comfortable with uncertainty. Certainly, Heisenberg must have been, although I'm not absolutely certain.
> I think there is a tension between accepting uncertainty, and yet still seeking to learn what is not yet known. (That is, feeling okay about not knowing everything without becoming a total slacker.)How about the thrill of the adventure?
> > Spirituality can act as a bridge between the two - if you let it. I don't see any conflict between spiritualism and atheism.
> Question: how do you define spirituality? I've mostly heard it used as a thin veil for religion.I can only define (or at least try to define) my own spirituality. As I see it, there are as many definitions of spirituality as there are individuals. For any one individual, there may be as many definitions as there are days in the year. Spirituality is not a thin veil for judeo-christian religions in that these religions attempt to create a single definition for all.
- Scott
Posted by Scott L. Schofield on November 18, 1999, at 8:17:21
In reply to Rascal's wager, posted by CC on November 18, 1999, at 0:29:11
> Here is challenge for all you scientist out there. Starting with non-living matter, create living matter. Use what ever chemicals you like and any enviroment you like. No cheating by using any form of living matter or material from dead organisms of any kind. Virus doesn't count. Does this sound unreasonable? If sheer chance can generate life then it ought to be a cinch for intelligent sentient beings. Get back to me when you have succeeded.
Will I have four billion years to get the job done?
Oh yeah, and I'll need plenty of lightning too.
(Just an exercise in rhetoric).
- Scott
Posted by Bruce on November 18, 1999, at 8:25:24
In reply to Re: Rascal's wager, posted by Scott L. Schofield on November 18, 1999, at 8:17:21
> > Here is challenge for all you scientist out there. Starting with non-living matter, create living matter. Use what ever chemicals you like and any enviroment you like. No cheating by using any form of living matter or material from dead organisms of any kind. Virus doesn't count. Does this sound unreasonable? If sheer chance can generate life then it ought to be a cinch for intelligent sentient beings. Get back to me when you have succeeded.
>
> Will I have four billion years to get the job done?
>
> Oh yeah, and I'll need plenty of lightning too.
>
> (Just an exercise in rhetoric).
>
>
> - Scott
CC - would a computer that displays consciousness count as 'living' in your eyes?Bruce
Posted by Scott L. Schofield on November 18, 1999, at 8:45:09
In reply to Re: Rascal's wager, posted by Bruce on November 18, 1999, at 8:25:24
> > > Here is challenge for all you scientist out there. Starting with non-living matter, create living matter. Use what ever chemicals you like and any enviroment you like...
> > Will I have four billion years to get the job done?
> >
> > Oh yeah, and I'll need plenty of lightning too.
> >
> > (Just an exercise in rhetoric).
> >
> >
> > - Scott
> CC - would a computer that displays consciousness count as 'living' in your eyes?
>
> Bruce
That's an interesting question. Have you ever watched "Star-Trek - The Next Generation"? They have wrestled with this question on numerous occasions. Most of these episodes involve their android crewman, Data.As far as my personal feelings on the subject - if it gives good head, it can call itself anything it likes.
- Scott
Posted by Scott L. Schofield on November 18, 1999, at 10:46:05
In reply to Re: Depression, Evolution (CC), posted by Elizabeth on November 14, 1999, at 23:00:16
> > If you could prove God exists, there would be no need for "faith".
I think something may been missing from this thread. I don't see that anyone has attempted to define just what it is they think God is. Has anyone? Some people define or regard God simply as existence. Using this definition, the existence of God has been proven. Existence exists, doesn't it.
I've never been one for blind faith. I much prefer the rewards that sighted faith provides. Just look around.
> Well, exactly; it's an untestable hypothesis. (And do we really have need for it? Laplace didn't....)Who is Laplace? I envy you your wealth of education.
> > I think Christians generally believe that without faith, nothing can be accomplished.
I haven't spoken to enough Christians regarding this topic to know if this is true or not. It does seem that it is religion that has inspired most of the great feats of mankind, especially those of antiquity. This may no longer be true in the industrial age.
> Plenty of people have accomplished great things without needing to appeal to an object of religious faith.
> > The good thing about Mainstream Christianity is that you have something besides your own personal experiences to guide you, the Scripture and the hierarchical higher ups.
I think that this can be a good thing.
> > What about my question, do you think "man" is capable of solving the problems currently facing us?> One question is, is it possible for people to *accept* that some problems will go unsolved? (Any Buddhists out there?)
What's a Buddhist / Zen Buddhist?
Inquiring minds want to know.
- Scott
Posted by CarolAnn on November 18, 1999, at 10:46:33
In reply to science superior to religion? (CarolAnn), posted by Elizabeth on November 17, 1999, at 2:58:45
>>>CarolAnn's comments are below these:
> I wonder what you consider to constitute "evidence." Really none of the examples you give is at all comparable to mystical claims. To wit:
>
> The big bang theory is based on the fact (observed) that galaxies are moving away from each other at a speed that increases with distance. The most reasonable interpretation of
> this observation is that, from any position in
> the universe, galaxies are moving away from each other in the same way.>>>My comments:
>>>Elizabeth, I was particularly using this analogy to respond to your statement that you could not believe in mystisism because all the theories were untestable. I think my point about untestable scientific "truths" still stands, because even in your above paragraph, you use the words "reasonable interpretation" which, is based on scientific *knowledge* but the examples are still called "theories" because they are not completely testable. Again, my point was that if we can accept such theories as absolute truths, maybe we should at least keep our minds open enough to gain the knowledge required to determine if certain *mystical* theories might also turn out to be absolute truth. As far as "evidence" the fact is that there are many scientists who use the exact same information to discount all of the example theories.
Please remember that none of my writings has been an attempt to impose my views on anyone. They have all been intended to explain my belief that the best way to find our own "absolute truths" is to keep our minds constantly open to any and all knowledge in order to keep developing the belief or *dis*belief system that will bring our own personal comfort to our lives.CarolAnn :)
Go forward in thread:
Psycho-Babble Medication | Extras | FAQ
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.org
Script revised: February 4, 2008
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/cgi-bin/pb/mget.pl
Copyright 2006-17 Robert Hsiung.
Owned and operated by Dr. Bob LLC and not the University of Chicago.