For the context of the following comments please click on the hyperlinks above them.
hessianwithteeth (responding to kevinosborne99) – “We know many things for certain, like that things evolve, that large portions of your DNA is used to translate into proteins, that we need oxygen to survive, that objects are attracted to massive bodies by gravity. Some thing remain uncertain but as we move on we truly stand on the shoulder of giants letting the success of the past help guide us is(sic) solving ever more complex problems.”
I’m sure that you have considered the beauty of simplification as well.
That “solving ever more complex problems” is just one of countless pastimes we engage in.
Is it science that we apply when learning not to lie and steal, to love and empathize?
Jesus, Buddha, Gandhi, Martin Luther King. Countless saints and earnest shamans. They all have shoulders too.
(Responding to hessianwithteeth’s response to the above. )
Let us consider that the simplicity I refer to, is more akin to the simplicity of “Right” hemisphere processing.
At least consider the complementary nature of the “linear/holistic” dyad.
While we are at it. Consider the simplicity of “Singularity” as the foundation of the above mentioned dyad and all others.
The knowledge gained by insight into this, in my assessment, is a deeper and vastly superior knowledge than the piece meal, slice and dice learnings we gain from science. (at least as we know it so far).
I am not a scientist. So, don’t have a horse in that race. Except, that I live in a world with “simple minded creationists” on one side and “recombinant geneticists” on the other. Nuclear weapons specialists and deranged Jihadists.
What I like about science is it’s storytelling potential. But without wiser people implementing it’s discoveries we just get more of the same-old-same-old.
(Responding to hessianwithteeth’s response to the above.)
My guess is that your problem with my use of “Singularity”, is that you are thinking in terms of “singularities”.
I have no control over your habits of thought.
With a little triangulation, the above two statements should suffice as a definition.
As for my comparision to “simpleminded creationists”, I was not referencing geneticists in general, but specifically pointed at those who imagine that it is OK to mix and match DNA between species.
Just because we can do it; Regardless of consideration for the experience of the entity they have manipulated into existence. It’s sense of self awareness lacking in any integrated context. The definition of suffering.
It’s like teaching Chimpanzees language so that they can have our experience of “self concept”. Like this is some sort of “holy grail”, rather than a shackled soul.
Again, a little triangulation, translation and speculation may be required. But this should help you understand my emphasis on “Singularity”. Which I call God.
Think of it as returning to the beginning with knowledge of the mistakes that can be made.
This is an ancient theme. And bears repeating.
(Responding to hessianwithteeth’s response to the above.)
Your first 3 paragraphs were a fair assessment. Though quite sterile. As though a seed had fallen on stone.
The genetics part got pretty far from my points, especially once you got rolling. But, I do appreciate your efforts at editing this time.
I’m not going to go back over my viewpoint, just assume that it was an attempt to articulate from a monistic world-view.
I will address some assumptions that I find to be lingering within your own.
hessianwithteeth – “…you probably shouldn’t talk about genetics you don’t seem to know the first thing about it.”
Gee. How do genes work then? Where is instinct located in the genome? Monarch’s one-way trips to and from Mexico etc.?
hessianwithteeth – “Us taking genes and moving them about is little more then artificial selection in a lab.”
Nothing artificial about it. We are as a species “horsing” around with blinders specific to our own kind.
hessianwithteeth – “…we’ve just learned how to harness these process.[sic]”
Just because we can. Like thinking we are worthy of playing around with nuclear fission.
hessianwithteeth – “Now I define suffering as a state of undergoing pain, distress, or hardship. Not some existential crises by something which problem ([sic] probably?) couldn’t even think.”
For some reason you assumed I was talking about plants. (Though, I for one, do not assume lack of sentience even there.)
hessianwithteeth – “These traits are limited, to us chordates, and those which higher order brains. Otherwise there is just no point in being able to have cognitive abilities.”
“just no point”? Based on what degree of cognitive ability?
hessianwithteeth – “Again the point of all this is that Genetic modification isn’t really any different then what nature does,…”
At least with nature, the agent of change is playing-with-a-full-deck.
(Responding to my comment on the video “BBC The Atheism Tapes – Collin McGinn – 1 of 6”)
brmckay – “So the God he doesn’t believe in is just as incomplete and unlikely.”
IntuitiveLeap – “maybe i am thick in this regard, but your statement is self-contradictory as far as i can tell. maybe you can explain how it is intended to be sensible?”
As usual, when atheists declare that God does not exist, it is actually god/s they are talking about.
This is not an honest, or at least earnest, attempt at contemplation upon the nature of God. i.e. Existence, Reality, Entirety, Self Awareness (at local and Universal scale), Etc.
If Infinitude, as in Singularity, and what that might mean, does not come into consideration, you are NOT in the ballpark. In my opinion, it is a waste of time, except for entertainment or politics.
To anthropomorphize God is to project the relativity of our experience upon what is both everything-and-nothing. The Great Paradox. Our role would be to restore ourselves to that primal completion. Not the other way around.