Insidious, Lief and RÃ*an debate all things great and small.

[BeardofPants]

Yeah, but only mods can change the thread title... which is why I was asking if FM was still gonna change it or not.

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

So basically it wasn’t necessarily the ritz carrlton no but it sure was nice to have a guaranteed four squares for the rest of your life and a roof over your shoulders and companionship. All that is really really important to your typical human.

I thought you thought that "all that is really really important to your typical human" was to pass on their genes ...

One would think that in general, it would be easier to pass on your genes WITHOUT having to work around that vow of chastity (even tho some obviously did!)

I'm sure quite a few monks did the things your articles quoted. After all, as G.K. Chesterton says (rough quote) "Original sin is the only Christian doctrine that can be definitely proven!" But I'm also sure that many monks DID keep their vows and enter the monastaries sincerely. And I don't see how THAT would help them pass on their genes!

[Rían]

(ps - thanks for the reference links, Merc!)

[Lief Erikson]

RÃ*an, this might be important in answering some of what you said:

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

And mating avoidance in order to buttress the genes of relatives occurs in countless occasions in nature. And makes sense genetically. So we certainly could have this built into our genes as well.

So my current argument is that the monastic abstinence was so great it seems highly improbable it would fit with this gene buttressing example. The arguments have been going back and forth.

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Lief E (say it fast! ;) )

I think it is so powerful within us because it mirrors God's nature. God is love. That he should make love the most powerful force in our lives, in the physical universe, make sense.

response by IRex
its amazing how different perspectives can lead to such vast differences in opinion on the very same subject. To you its quite clearly the reflection of gods nature. To me its quite obviously the most important emotion we have because it reinforces the coupling instinct and the protection instinct thus allowing us to breed and pass on our genes. For without love spending all the time and resources and energy it takes to be with a mate and to take care of your offspring would seem ridiculous.

Well, I must say - I read those last 2 sentences and I must point out again that if that's all IRex thinks of love, then his opinions about genes make a fair amount of sense for HIM to hold, altho I'm not aware of any scientific data that backs it up. .

However, those opinions don't make any sense for ME to hold, because I see more than he sees, apparently. His explanations don't fit what I see, so I can't assent to them without compromising my intellectual integrity. I don't see love's purpose as only (or even primarily) to pass on one's genes. I see much more than that, so I won't be satisfied with explanations that don't take what I see into account. Perhaps IRex may say that we're not aware that the urge to pass on our genes is behind what we call love. If he says that, then I say why are we ignorant of that while he is somehow aware of it?

For me, Christianity fits what I see. IRex's explanations leave out a lot of what I see. He's welcome to hold his opinions if they fit all he sees

So the genes need something awful powerful to keep us bound to our mate and our offspring in a way such that it greatly insures their survival and the successful passage of our genes. Enter love…

And how do you know the genes need this? Is it just your guess, or do you have some proof?

Intense bonding between the mated couple means the female is more assured of a faithful partner for her child and the male is guaranteed of a female willing to give up the costly investment of a human egg and nine months of her life hosting his genes.

Given this assumption, one would think that everyone would cheer on a man that dumps his wife if she is infertile. I think most people would, in fact, call him a cad. And rightly so, IMHO

All very animal really.

No, not really, IMHO

We can just label the emotions because we are conscious of them. But even though we are conscious of them we are not immune. It still controls us and shapes us just like it does the animals.

Then why can we choose against our emotions?

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

Well, I must say - I read those last 2 sentences and I must point out again that if that's all IRex thinks of love, then his opinions about genes make a fair amount of sense for HIM to hold, altho I'm not aware of any scientific data that backs it up. .

However, those opinions don't make any sense for ME to hold, because I see more than he sees, apparently.

Actually, Insidious recently acknowledged the validity of that statement (I believe). He told me that he sees only two figures at work, genes and environment, while I see three: genes, environment and the soul. Whether he thinks what I see makes sense from my worldview or not, I still don't know .

Sorry for talking over your shoulder Insidious! You're just not alive right now .

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

Then why can we choose against our emotions?

I think he would argue that those choices against our emotions also are ruled by genes. You see, I've argued with him on this before . One herd instinct might call us to rescue a drowning man, but a survival instinct would argue against it. The two battle in the individual and the strongest in that individual wins.

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

So my current argument is that the monastic abstinence was so great it seems highly improbable it would fit with this gene buttressing example. The arguments have been going back and forth.

Thanks, but my objection is a little different. My objection to what IRex is presenting is that he shouldn't be able to have it both ways. He says (quote forthcoming about genes wanting to survive and make babies), then when we provide evidence against this, he has the same answer - those genes want to survive and make babies! It's pointed out that people have a self-preservation instinct and he says it's because of those pesky genes that want to reproduce, and then we point out that people are courageous and go AGAINST the self-preservation instinct, and by golly if it's not the fault of those VERY SAME genes! They make some people cowards and some couragous?

And I'm still awaiting a reference for the article where the genes were interviewed and they said this! (I imagine it was probably on NPR )

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

I think he would argue that those choices against our emotions also are ruled by genes. You see, I've argued with him on this before . One herd instinct might call us to rescue a drowning man, but a survival instinct would argue against it. The two battle in the individual and the strongest in that individual wins.

I've argued with before about this too, but you guys have had it to yourselves too much lately, and I decided to get back into the discussion after several busy and fun days off

If there are two battling instincts, and they were ONLY instincts, then how would we be aware of the battle?

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

Thanks, but my objection is a little different. My objection to what IRex is presenting is that he shouldn't be able to have it both ways. He says (quote forthcoming about genes wanting to survive and make babies), then when we provide evidence against this, he has the same answer - those genes want to survive and make babies! It's pointed out that people have a self-preservation instinct and he says it's because of those pesky genes that want to reproduce, and then we point out that people are courageous and go AGAINST the self-preservation instinct, and by golly if it's not the fault of those VERY SAME genes! They make some people cowards and some couragous?

In different people genes might be dormant, and in other people the genes might be active. Isn't it possible genes might operate differently from one person to another?

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

I've argued with before about this too, but you guys have had it to yourselves too much lately, and I decided to get back into the discussion after several busy and fun days off

If there are two battling instincts, and they were ONLY instincts, then how would we be aware of the battle?

Genes impact the mind as well, and have selected the mind as a learning instrument. One person might be brought up in circumstances where he's been led to be self centered. Another might be brought up in a place where he's encouraged to be giving. The genes have enabled each one to learn, and each one to come to different conclusions and behave differently. The struggle between the genes might come up in the mind.

What am I doing? I just love to argue with everybody! Unfortunately I need to get off now, though . I'll respond more in an hour or two.

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

I cant see a soul. I cant measure a spirit.

But you take things on faith all the time! Do you have friends? Do you think they like you? I imagine they do But do you deny that their friendship exists because you can't see it or measure it in a lab?

But I can observe a million examples of genetics effecting various organisms in every way shape and form imaginable. You can even break down more mysterious behaviors like altruism and such that would at first blush seems contradictory to the genetic model.

Yes, you can break it down given the assumed fact that genes made you do it. I can make up things that would support any behavior, too.

With humans, the difficulty is in that our consciousness allows us to speculate on why we do what we do. And its hard to get around that fact that we are aware of our awareness and STILL admit that we act like a machine nevertheless.

But why "admit" that we act like a machine? I think out consciousness disproves that.

It seems incongruous and backwards. But if we follow it from point to point to point you can see it.

I would say that if it seems incongruous and backwards, then it's a hint that it probably IS incongruous and backwards And all I've seen of the point-to-point explanation is your conjecture. I just don't see evidence for it.

And it follows the very same models we see in nature.

But we can't tell what animals think ... so how can we say it follows the very same models we see in nature?

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

In different people genes might be dormant, and in other people the genes might be active. Isn't it possible genes might operate differently from one person to another?

Scientific theories are by definition repeatable, measureable, predictive and able to be falsified. How can one scientifically prove that a gene is forcing a behavior if it produces different behaviors?

A valid theory would be "THIS gene, given this input, produces THIS behavior", because the theory is repeatable (i.e., yields the same results every time), measureable, predictive and able to be falsified. Now a theory that runs "this gene can produce ANY behavior" is none of those. Yet IRex seems to claim that whatever behavior we see, the genes produced it. He's welcome to that opinion, and he seems to feel it sincerely and have thought about it a lot, and I respect that, but I don't think he can put it forward as a fact.

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

Genes ... have selected the mind as a learning instrument.

Oh come now! Don't you start talking as if the genes just gave you an exclusive interview! I'd like to see your transcript of the interview, please

One person might be brought up in circumstances where he's been led to be self centered. Another might be brought up in a place where he's encouraged to be giving. The genes have enabled each one to learn, and each one to come to different conclusions and behave differently. The struggle between the genes might come up in the mind.

I agree that genetics affects the mind (as I know all too sadly; one of my nieces died from complications of Down's ), but yet I see no proof that genes are primarily responsible for how people "come to different conclusions and behave differently." I think genetics certainly influence things, but are by no way the final word. In myself, I'm aware of instinct, and of conscience (a moral sense imprinted into the very fiber of my being that tells me "that's the right thing to do", or "that's wrong!"), and am aware of being influenced ("I reeeely want those earrings, and no one is looking!"). Yet I'm aware that there is something that chooses between these, and even chooses what it considers to be wrong sometimes, and regrets it. And that LAST bit is what really convinces me that there is something apart from genetics, and that something is what I refer to as my soul.

What am I doing? I just love to argue with everybody! Unfortunately I need to get off now, though . I'll respond more in an hour or two.

And I'll hopefully be asleep! G'nite and an early "good morning" to IRex , who will probably beat me to this thread, given his time zone.

[Lief Erikson]

This is great. Okay.

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

Oh come now! Don't you start talking as if the genes just gave you an exclusive interview!

I don't believe in everything I've been arguing for . I was trying to bring across some of Insidious Rex's views so that we could move forward easily when he wakes up into new, uncharted terrain.

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

I would say that if it seems incongruous and backwards, then it's a hint that it probably IS incongruous and backwards

Actually, many of the great scientific discoveries have been counter-intuitive.

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

And all I've seen of the point-to-point explanation is your conjecture. I just don't see evidence for it.

That I'm also interested in . I've been very cautious about going there though, as I don't want to attempt to enter into a crash course in genetics, and that's what it would take to effectively argue. Glad you brought it up though, at last .

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

But why admit that we act like a machine? I think out consciousness disproves that.

I suppose by a machine he means predictable. Humans on mass are normally fairly predictable. However, there is such an enormously large number of cases that go against what one would expect from a normal gene inclination that I am convinced we aren't like machines (or animals, since that's the term Insidious Rex prefered when I used 'robot' ), we aren't predictable. I think that many human behaviors don't fit with the normal gene model. Though they might if they were only a very few isolated incidents, the vast number of examples is powerful to me. Look at the suicide rate per year. Suicides are utterly against the pattern of spreading genes. One doesn't either observe any suicides amongst animals. Really one doesn't have to look too much further then that, but then there are loads of other examples of massive contrary-to-gene inclination. The extent of the monastic order in the Medieval Ages, for example. The fact that poor families do better in spreading genes then do rich families. The fact that many people convert to Christianity when the belief brings no benefits and only hard losses, including likely death. Etc.

[Hemel]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

To breed as needed and not expend that kind of investment when not necessary? I think so. What do YOU think?

No. Because you're suggesting extent of breeding is based on whether you're rich or poor. But wealth is a social thing, and so your argument is based on social circumstances. (As might be, incidentally, poorer people having numerous children ... I understand some societies believe in this in order that the parents be guaranteed of support in their old age.) But I'd have thought that pure genetic drive would have been more inclined to get everyone breeding as much as possible.

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

Actually, many of the great scientific discoveries have been counter-intuitive.

Yes, but something being counter-intuitive is neither an indication nor a proof that it's right! If anything, I would say something looking wrong is more often an indicator that it IS wrong. That was my point.

But it's not a big deal.

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

Simply pointing out some similarities . I don't really know what you mean by equivalent, in this case.

equal to. Don’t ask me what we were talking about though.

Yes, I agree with you that genetic research has a lot going for it and current positions on it contain a lot of truth. It seems a huge leap to say that's all there is, though (to me).

understandable (for you).

Your eyes are still closed. I've seen spirits, and I can provide you with other accounts aside from my own of people that have.

im certainly open to such things. I wont reject these notions flat out like certain religious people do for scientific notions. On the contrary id LOVE to see these kind of phenomenon fleshed out in usable data format. That would be huge in my opinion.

I've been able to sense them, discern where they are, what they're doing, whether they're good or evil, sometimes even details about what they look like. Sure, it's not exactly a common spiritual gift. But it does exist. You're lucky to find a firsthand witness .

do you also believe in palm reading and mind reading and all different manner of the supernatural? If not why not?

I can't dissect one of course. Is that what you'd need?

I think a dead spirit on a lab table would be the ultimate treasure trove of proof.

For the record, there are millions of Christian spiritual experiences also. That's not even getting into the vast numbers of spiritual experiences among nonChristians (Buddhists, Hindus, New Ageists and many cults). So yes, there's a lot of evidence for genetics. But for the reality of the spiritual there's an overwhelming multitude of evidence existing from thousands of years ago and carrying right on into modern days.

I think we may differ on what we consider “proof of reality� really.

We'll never get that good.

you never know. I would think since that’s the view you support that you would feel positive about the prospects of finding verifiable concrete data for the existence of the spiritual nature of man or of the universe. Don’t hedge your bets on it now. Im leary of people who say oh we’ll never know really but I know for sure already so just trust me.

We have common knowledge of a lot of things today that were essentially unknowable 2000 years ago. So why cant we be that much further ahead in our knowledge base in another 2000 years?

Look at the computer in front of you. It's an incredibly complex machine, and you know virtually nothing about how it works. However, you can enormously appreciate the benefits you receive from it. You can play computer games or operate computer programs to accomplish complex mathematical equations without having to understand all of how the computer works. You gain from it without in your own mind being able to quantify it, slice it apart, know exactly how it ticks. You don't need that knowledge in order to appreciate it and work with it. Other people know how various parts of it work. Probably no one alive knows exactly how every part of it works. Hundreds of different people know how tiny different fragments of it work.

The fact that it does work is enough for you, without all of the dissection, without having to understand every detail of this machine.

So it is with Christianity.

Well actually I think I understand a lot of how a computer works. Enough at least to make most things that happen with the computer make sense. I put computers together so im aware how the components connect up and work with each other to make it into “one machine�. I also know enough about binary language to realize the real basics on how a computer does what it does. Do I know every conceivable twist and nuance? No. but once you have strung together enough knowledge from OBSERVABLE DATA then you are pretty much already there. I don’t see it as a magic box that does what I want it to do. I see it as a machine and I treat it as such. Same thing with humans. What we do know of how humans work (and we know a lot) gives us a pretty full picture of the MACHINE that is the human being. Thanks to reams and reams of observable data (despite certain peoples insistence that there is no worthwhile data). But we don’t yet have reams and reams regarding the spiritual side of the human being (if there is one) so we cant follow the same logic of assumption with that. Now I realize you are going to say that you DO have lots of personal data regarding spiritual experiences and such but it cant really be translated into useful data because its unverifiable. How come I haven’t experienced such things if it’s the way we are as humans? How come millions of others haven’t either? Could it be that its something going on inside you that your brain interprets as a spiritual experience? We can have powerful dreams that feel SO real at the time. I guess I would need to intensively study your experiences and see if they parallel experiences in many other humans and draw some data out of that and hopefully get a picture of something if its there.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

Quote:
Your eyes are still closed. I've seen spirits, and I can provide you with other accounts aside from my own of people that have.

im certainly open to such things. I wont reject these notions flat out like certain religious people do for scientific notions. On the contrary id LOVE to see these kind of phenomenon fleshed out in usable data format. That would be huge in my opinion.

What do you mean by 'usable data format'?

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

Quote:
I've been able to sense them, discern where they are, what they're doing, whether they're good or evil, sometimes even details about what they look like. Sure, it's not exactly a common spiritual gift. But it does exist. You're lucky to find a firsthand witness .

do you also believe in palm reading and mind reading and all different manner of the supernatural? If not why not?

I haven't got opinions on all of those things yet. I'll do my best to give you a good answer, though.

I'd have to hear the experiences or learn more about what's said before I could decide whether I believe it or not. Also I tend to look at it from a Christian standpoint. If what I hear sounds convincing, I will look into whether it may have been a demon or whether it might have been God. In real life I sometimes ask God to tell me whether there's a demon behind a situation or not.

So my normal system I'd say would be first: Hear the account. Second (if it sounds convincing): Ask God about it.

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

Quote:
I can't dissect one of course. Is that what you'd need?

I think a dead spirit on a lab table would be the ultimate treasure trove of proof.

Certainly would be.

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

Quote:
For the record, there are millions of Christian spiritual experiences also. That's not even getting into the vast numbers of spiritual experiences among nonChristians (Buddhists, Hindus, New Ageists and many cults). So yes, there's a lot of evidence for genetics. But for the reality of the spiritual there's an overwhelming multitude of evidence existing from thousands of years ago and carrying right on into modern days.

I think we may differ on what we consider “proof of reality� really.

I never used the word "proof". I said "evidence". Eyewitness accounts alone are important enough to cause the condemnation of people in court at times. Discounting them all on matters such as religion seems silly (Woops, now I've used that word! ).

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

Quote:
We'll never get that good.

you never know. I would think since that’s the view you support that you would feel positive about the prospects of finding verifiable concrete data for the existence of the spiritual nature of man or of the universe. Don’t hedge your bets on it now. Im leary of people who say oh we’ll never know really but I know for sure already so just trust me.

We have common knowledge of a lot of things today that were essentially unknowable 2000 years ago. So why cant we be that much further ahead in our knowledge base in another 2000 years?

No real reason. It was just my opinion.

I'm not either asking you just to trust my own experience. I'm asking you to take it into account and weigh it in your mind, along with other Christian experiences, as you decide your own stance on this matter.

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

Well actually I think I understand a lot of how a computer works.

How about the microchips in the computer? Do you know a lot about each of them?

Really, the computer is amazingly complex. So is God. You gradually learn more about the computer. You gradually learn more about God. You don't know how all of the computer works before you use it. You utilize most of its services without understanding the programs those services come from. With God, you do the same. We gain things from God, learn about his nature, experience things of the spiritual realm without knowing the processes of how all of those things work. We come to understand a lot more about how they work though, then does the scientist who is determined to approach such things by purely scientific, physical matter reaching methods.

Though I won't argue that you know a lot about computers in comparison with most users. Couldn't argue that, and it'd be pointless.

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

Enough at least to make most things that happen with the computer make sense.

Somehow I strongly doubt that.

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

I put computers together so im aware how the components connect up and work with each other to make it into “one machine�. I also know enough about binary language to realize the real basics on how a computer does what it does. Do I know every conceivable twist and nuance?

The complex intricacies of how a machine works are beyond most of us.

Look around you. Wherever you're sitting right now, I'm certain you're nearby many machines, from a lightbulb down to a wristwatch (if you're wearing one). We gain massive benefits from plumbing, from lighting, from cars, from computers, printers, clocks, phones . . . vast numbers of things to our every day lives when we have no idea how they work. Or if so, only the vaguest of ideas.

So you don't have to know everything about something in order to believe in it or in order to accept its reality and incorporate it into your everyday life. Prayer is a part of my everyday life. The microwave is a part of yours. Do you understand everything about the microwave? Definitely not. Do I understand everything about prayer? Definitely not.

When you put something into the microwave and press the buttons, usually it heats up properly. When I pray over something, usually that thing changes according to my prayer. You accept microwaves, I accept prayer. When you don't know as much about heating things up, what time to put it in for and such, the food often turns out cold or too hot. When I didn't know as much about God, a smaller number of my prayers were answered. Does that mean that either one of us ditches the mechanism? Definitely not.

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

No. but once you have strung together enough knowledge from OBSERVABLE DATA then you are pretty much already there.

Not everything has to be observable in order to be accepted as existent. Atoms were accepted as reality before they could be observed, because the evidence was strong enough to convince the scientists.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

I don’t see it as a magic box that does what I want it to do. I see it as a machine and I treat it as such. Same thing with humans. What we do know of how humans work (and we know a lot) gives us a pretty full picture of the MACHINE that is the human being. Thanks to reams and reams of observable data (despite certain peoples insistence that there is no worthwhile data). But we don’t yet have reams and reams regarding the spiritual side of the human being (if there is one) so we cant follow the same logic of assumption with that. Now I realize you are going to say that you DO have lots of personal data regarding spiritual experiences and such but it cant really be translated into useful data because its unverifiable. How come I haven’t experienced such things if it’s the way we are as humans? How come millions of others haven’t either?

I could offer you a Biblical explanation. I think that's what you'd have to turn to, in answering that question. Unless of course you chose to look to the answers offered by other religions.

One thing I will tell you right from the outset: If you actually want to go into this search, a major shortcut to finding the right answer is to pray that God will reveal himself to you.

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

Could it be that its something going on inside you that your brain interprets as a spiritual experience?

One could argue that about some of them. Many are objective type evidences, of course. I guess what you would call verifiable data . I'll be fine with sending you some, though some of the most powerful experiences I've had are not prophecies and words of knowledge. Most powerful to me, anyway. I can understand them not being as useful to you.

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

We can have powerful dreams that feel SO real at the time. I guess I would need to intensively study your experiences and see if they parallel experiences in many other humans and draw some data out of that and hopefully get a picture of something if its there.

I could help .

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

I wont reject these notions flat out like certain religious people do for scientific notions.

Yes, it's unfortunate when anyone rejects ideas without thinking them through. As far as scientific notions - personally, I think each person should look at the ACTUAL data when evaluating scientific matters, in addition to being aware of what is actual data as opposed to guesses based on actual data, and make their own conclusions, always keeping in mind that current scientific notions could very well be wrong, as is often found out as we gain new and better instruments.

I would think since that’s the view you support that you would feel positive about the prospects of finding verifiable concrete data for the existence of the spiritual nature of man or of the universe.

I think that "things that can be measured in labs" (sounds like a Jeopardy category! ) is only a small subset of "things that are in the universe".

Don’t hedge your bets on it now. Im leary of people who say oh we’ll never know really but I know for sure already so just trust me.

Whew! I'm leery of people like that, too!

We have common knowledge of a lot of things today that were essentially unknowable 2000 years ago. So why cant we be that much further ahead in our knowledge base in another 2000 years?

I think we'll be further ahead in our knowledge base in another 2000 years (if we make it that long without blowing up the planet ), because we'll have better instrumentation, but "things that exist but can't be measured in labs" will STILL be "things that exist but can't be measured in labs", even in 2000 years. Or 20,000. Or 200,000. etc. etc. etc. (in memory of the movie "Anna and the King of Siam")

Well actually I think I understand a lot of how a computer works.

What's 8 + 4 in hex? I imagine you know that It's fun to work in different number bases!