Live data from Hacker News

Can Evolution Have a ‘Higher Purpose’?

nytimes.com

91–100 of 132 posts

Re: Can Evolution Have a ‘Higher Purpose’?

#91
post #42
post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"the answer is almost always nothing" That's just not true. The whole area of Christian Apologetics attempts to answer many of the questions that are raised.

> Christian Apologetics attempts to answer many of the questions that are raised With respect, either you misunderstand the point you are responding to, or you misunderstand apologetics, as actually practiced and taught in evangelical institutions. Apologetics, in the evangelical sense (like all terms, it has had varied practical forms), is the rational defence of pre-existing doctrine. It deals with epistemology, na…

One visit to carm.org or reasonablefaith.org with any questions outside the parameters you've set and you'll see there are ample examples to the contrary.

Re: Can Evolution Have a ‘Higher Purpose’?

#92
post #16

Do you think it's reasonable that conversations like this are fine on HN, but anytime I bring up Christian thought on the matter I am pressured to "not talk religion"? Wrestling with these top shelf Maslow's questions like "why am I/we here?", "what is the meaning of life" and other big life questions are common among all of us. So why the willingness to conjecture that (we live in a simulation | aliens may have seed…

It may be a fine line that separates philosophy and religion, but their respective "theaters of the mind" are pretty different. Possible worlds that are built on novel premises or inferred from unrecognized patterns are likely to interest anyone who has an imagination. That's true even for nutty worlds like simulacra and multiverses. But possible worlds that must conform to dogma, especially when it's structured and…

Dogma is no different than our skeletal system. Freedom of movement is enhanced in our bodies because we have something firm and fixed to pull against. Imagine being a human blob without bones. Is that freedom to move?

Philosophy without a fixed reference is just endlessly chasing your tail. If you are satisfied with that experience, then have at 'er :)

And sorry, but faith doesn't mean imagination is forbidden. Ever heard of C.S. Lewis?

Re: Can Evolution Have a ‘Higher Purpose’?

#93
post #34
post #16

Do you think it's reasonable that conversations like this are fine on HN, but anytime I bring up Christian thought on the matter I am pressured to "not talk religion"? Wrestling with these top shelf Maslow's questions like "why am I/we here?", "what is the meaning of life" and other big life questions are common among all of us. So why the willingness to conjecture that (we live in a simulation | aliens may have seed…

The problem with Christian thought on these matters is that it is mostly a dead end. Christian creationism is stated as "god revealed it in bible and hence true" and it is not a result of curious human beings questioning themselves and trying to answer those questions and coming up with theories (Like in Buddhism or Hinduism). The problem with this is that you can't really evolve those ideas further refining them and…

I agree with you, but only in some circles of Christian thought. Like I said before Christianity is not a monolithic community, it is multi-faceted. There are many Christian believers that are able to rationally dialogue about reason and faith. If you reach a dead end, find another circle. You will likely be surprised as I was how many questions have well reasoned answers.

Re: Can Evolution Have a ‘Higher Purpose’?

#94
post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Every community I have been a part of (church, family, techs, software development, Ruby Programming, etc) have been multifaceted. I will only talk about my camp, Evangelical Christians, because that's what I know. When I was a new Christian back in 1990 I was a bit baffled by the anti-intellectualism I witness among my friends at a local Pentecostal church. I found a sufficient answer in the book "Fit Bodies Fat Min…

My theory on why certain kinds of people believe in things like religion has to do with different styles of information collection and perceiving the world. Religion is often adapted, or rejected, on moral grounds, rather than strict evidence grounds, because it's a lot more relevant to life on Earth than it is to who created the world at the end of the day. Given that, it's not too surprising that religion can affec…

You're right. The Bible starts with the first five books, but then begins to unfold an incredibly compelling narrative rooted in culture and history right up until approximately 2016 years ago give or take a few years.

Have a look at thebibleproject.com, and the "Read Scripture" app on iPhone/Android. The Bible has a record that is truly worth a read: first printed book ever to be published (Gutenberg), the most translated book on the planet, the most printed book in all human history, more archaeological artifacts and manuscript evidence than any other book.

With a pedigree like that, doesn't it warrant an honest investigation into its central message?

Re: Can Evolution Have a ‘Higher Purpose’?

#95
post #41
post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Every community I have been a part of (church, family, techs, software development, Ruby Programming, etc) have been multifaceted. I will only talk about my camp, Evangelical Christians, because that's what I know. When I was a new Christian back in 1990 I was a bit baffled by the anti-intellectualism I witness among my friends at a local Pentecostal church. I found a sufficient answer in the book "Fit Bodies Fat Min…

"But consider this: Harvard, Yale, Oxford, and Princeton are all Universities that started off as Christian seminaries. Their roots are founded in the idea that academics and reasoning are inherently noble pursuits." The key here is that they started off as Christian seminaries. Are they any longer? Perhaps this same reasoning led them to stop being Christian seminaries in the first place.

(facepalm)

Did you even bother to search their websites?

http://www.ptsem.edu/

http://hds.harvard.edu/

http://divinity.yale.edu/

http://www.theology.ox.ac.uk/home

Re: Can Evolution Have a ‘Higher Purpose’?

#96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Many-worlds interpretation of QM does not mean that different universes have different fundamental constants. It's more generally accepted now that the values of the constants were contingent on conditions in the very early universe. This doesn't mean that a fork off of, say, our world right now would get different constants, but that in the early-universe time period there would be forks getting different values…

> It's more generally accepted now that the values of the constants were contingent on conditions in the very early universe. Cite? I'm unaware of any such consensus. > We don't have evidence of the universe being infinite in extent, though. The universe's density seems to be very close to the critical density: http://astronomy.swin.edu.au/cosmos/C/Critical+Density http://www.space.com/24309-shape-of-the-universe.htm…

When I was doing my thesis work I was reading papers which argued that quite a few, and perhaps all, of the "fundamental" constants were free to take on values during a brief period in the early history of the universe and took on their observed values due to contingency or chance of conditions which obtained in the early universe. This seemed relatively uncontroversial and was often repeated by reputable sources. Certainly nobody seemed to be arguing that the particular values we observe are logically-necessary consequences of physics, and in fact people typically observed that physics as we understand it works just fine with different values; it just gives rise to different behavior.

But at any rate you seem not to be a particularly pleasant interlocutor, and like you I'm tired of repeating myself.

Re: Can Evolution Have a ‘Higher Purpose’?

#97
post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> but I can't see any way that NPCs in a virtual reality/simulated universe can be conscious If in the future we have even faster computers, and ability to scan all the molecules in your brain (at good enough resolution, but not beyond Heisenberg). Then we simulate the chemistry going on. Do we now have consciousness in a computer? It is hard to see how billions of neurons together create consciousness. Just like how…

The previous discussion with naasking is here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11823781 At this point I have nothing further to add.

It might be worth trying on the idea that you don't exist.

At least not in the way you might imagine. Consider where your consciousness goes when you fall asleep and aren't dreaming. Or when you're put under for surgery. I don't know if you've been put under, but for me one moment they were putting the mask over my face, and the next moment I awoke and the surgery was finished. I didn't experience any passage of time. You could say I wasn't here or didn't exist during that period.

It seems like certain things have to be occurring in the brain to say that you are awake, conscious and here. So this consciousness has certain dependencies, now what are they? Can we deactivate certain parts of your brain and you still feel here? I think so, but if we take away enough, you're no longer here. And I think if we add them back, your experience becomes more vivid and here, like slowly coming to in the morning, or when a deaf person has a hearing implant added so they can hear again.

So having the feeling of being here is a higher order thought, depending on the hardware faculties to be functioning. And that hardware can be substituted for non-biological equipment and you can be conscious of the readings of the sensor. It also comes in degrees, meaning we can be more or less here.

Which is to say, maybe the NPC doesn't have to be biological. It just needs to have the same dependencies to exist that exist now for you. You couldn't be reading this in your sleep, you read it when all the dependencies exist to say, "hmmm, that's interesting but my left frontal lobe says..."

PS. I hear you have nothing further to add, but my own left frontal lobe was compelled to chat. Apologies if it disturbed you, have a good one.

Re: Can Evolution Have a ‘Higher Purpose’?

#98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's more generally accepted now that the values of the constants were contingent on conditions in the very early universe. Cite? I'm unaware of any such consensus. > We don't have evidence of the universe being infinite in extent, though. The universe's density seems to be very close to the critical density: http://astronomy.swin.edu.au/cosmos/C/Critical+Density http://www.space.com/24309-shape-of-the-universe.htm…

When I was doing my thesis work I was reading papers which argued that quite a few, and perhaps all, of the "fundamental" constants were free to take on values during a brief period in the early history of the universe and took on their observed values due to contingency or chance of conditions which obtained in the early universe. This seemed relatively uncontroversial and was often repeated by reputable sources. Ce…

The Wikipedia article (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dimensionless_physical_constan...) states: "The complete standard model requires 25 fundamental dimensionless constants (Baez, 2011). At present, their numerical values are not understood in terms of any widely accepted theory and are determined only from measurement."

Paul Dirac, and a few others argued that the relative strengths of the electromagnetic and gravitational forces between elementary particles (e.g. within the hydrogen atom) is directly related to the age of the universe, i.e. that gravity is still becoming weaker, rather than acquiring its current strength close to the big bang.

I'm interested in this subject - in particular the proposed mechanism and dimensionless constants involved, but can't find any papers arguing the conditions in the early universe determine their values.

Re: Can Evolution Have a ‘Higher Purpose’?

#99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The previous discussion with naasking is here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11823781 At this point I have nothing further to add.

It might be worth trying on the idea that you don't exist. At least not in the way you might imagine. Consider where your consciousness goes when you fall asleep and aren't dreaming. Or when you're put under for surgery. I don't know if you've been put under, but for me one moment they were putting the mask over my face, and the next moment I awoke and the surgery was finished. I didn't experience any passage of time…

You've made some good points not in the original discussion, e.g. on anaesthesia. Perhaps it suspends itself for the duration, goes somewhere else (not necessarily a physical place) and doesn't keep its memory of that when you come round.

My position can be summarized thus: if someone made a Sonic the Hedgehog toy which could interact meaningfully with its environment I would entertain the possibility it had some rudimentary consciousness. But unlike the character in the computer game, that wouldn't be a simulation. Could the character you see on the screen in the computer game be conscious? I don't think so.

Re: Can Evolution Have a ‘Higher Purpose’?

#100
post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It may be a fine line that separates philosophy and religion, but their respective "theaters of the mind" are pretty different. Possible worlds that are built on novel premises or inferred from unrecognized patterns are likely to interest anyone who has an imagination. That's true even for nutty worlds like simulacra and multiverses. But possible worlds that must conform to dogma, especially when it's structured and…

Dogma is no different than our skeletal system. Freedom of movement is enhanced in our bodies because we have something firm and fixed to pull against. Imagine being a human blob without bones. Is that freedom to move? Philosophy without a fixed reference is just endlessly chasing your tail. If you are satisfied with that experience, then have at 'er :) And sorry, but faith doesn't mean imagination is forbidden. Ever…

To Lewis, Narnia was a world that was never possible. As fantasy, it was literary allegory, intended for the entertainment of children, nothing more.

But even in fantasy, Lewis felt obliged to invent a Christ figure (Aslan). So even in his dreams he was bound by the surly bonds of his faith. His dogma was truly inescapable.

Post reply on HN