http://www.openculture.com/2012/06/rich ... being.html
This is a great thought experiment about evolution.
You can see why some people don't want to accept it, and if you're not familiar with the science, it would be hard to believe.
And you can pretend that Christianity and other religions are compatible with it, but they're really not. If there is some kind of soul unique to humans, when was it put in?
-
In total there are 6 users online :: 0 registered, 0 hidden and 6 guests (based on users active over the past 60 minutes)
Most users ever online was 871 on Fri Apr 19, 2024 12:00 am
Richard Dawkins Explains Why There Was Never a First Human Being
Forum rules
Do not promote books in this forum. Instead, promote your books in either Authors: Tell us about your FICTION book! or Authors: Tell us about your NON-FICTION book!.
All other Community Rules apply in this and all other forums.
Do not promote books in this forum. Instead, promote your books in either Authors: Tell us about your FICTION book! or Authors: Tell us about your NON-FICTION book!.
All other Community Rules apply in this and all other forums.
-
-
- One with Books
- Posts: 2752
- Joined: Thu Dec 30, 2010 4:30 am
- 13
- Has thanked: 2280 times
- Been thanked: 727 times
Re: Richard Dawkins Explains Why There Was Never a First Human Being
great thought experiment
it leaves the hindu concept of brahman looking more feasible than the christian orthodox theology.
i'm interested in which if any religious metaphors from the various traditions end up surviving as time goes by, perhaps they too will evolve or die out.
i suppose a concept that has merit will occur to someone eventually even if it has died out. only it will no longer carry the baggage of the tradition it previously was attached to.
an adaptable non dogmatic approach seems best
but the brahman concept has the "unchanging" part behind (and over, under, sideways, down, amidst, around and beyond etc) the changing part, so that's interesting.
i thought star wars, the matrix and avatar for example all had a bit of "brahman" in them. though none of them were specifically "hindu" movies.
it leaves the hindu concept of brahman looking more feasible than the christian orthodox theology.
i'm interested in which if any religious metaphors from the various traditions end up surviving as time goes by, perhaps they too will evolve or die out.
i suppose a concept that has merit will occur to someone eventually even if it has died out. only it will no longer carry the baggage of the tradition it previously was attached to.
an adaptable non dogmatic approach seems best
but the brahman concept has the "unchanging" part behind (and over, under, sideways, down, amidst, around and beyond etc) the changing part, so that's interesting.
i thought star wars, the matrix and avatar for example all had a bit of "brahman" in them. though none of them were specifically "hindu" movies.
- ant
-
- BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
- Posts: 5935
- Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2011 12:04 pm
- 12
- Has thanked: 1371 times
- Been thanked: 969 times
Re: Richard Dawkins Explains Why There Was Never a First Human Being
OMG! This one was the best reply to the article. It made me laugh my ass off!
HaHaha!
"The entire point of science is lost somewhere in the entrails of “logical” conjecture the moment one tries to defend Dawkins’ thought experiment as being anything more than an exercise in how to think like a naturalist. Implied is the assumption that nature is an objective, arbitrary, non- mental, non- spiritual process we are somehow luckily situated to perceive and interpret from our extremely limited, equally arbitrary glimmer of “empiricism”.
That being said, the thought experiment is not irrelevant because it can’t be proven, it’s irrelevant because human thought produced it. Have we forgotten that human thought transcends and therefore easily detached itself from the intelligence of nature? Oh I forgot. Nature can be awe inspiring and mysterious but not cognitive. I rest my case."
Hahahahabahah! Too funny!
Thanks for the laugh, Dexter.
This post was meant as a joke, right?
Or was this more of a "How to think like Richard Dawkins" exercise?
HaHaha!
"The entire point of science is lost somewhere in the entrails of “logical” conjecture the moment one tries to defend Dawkins’ thought experiment as being anything more than an exercise in how to think like a naturalist. Implied is the assumption that nature is an objective, arbitrary, non- mental, non- spiritual process we are somehow luckily situated to perceive and interpret from our extremely limited, equally arbitrary glimmer of “empiricism”.
That being said, the thought experiment is not irrelevant because it can’t be proven, it’s irrelevant because human thought produced it. Have we forgotten that human thought transcends and therefore easily detached itself from the intelligence of nature? Oh I forgot. Nature can be awe inspiring and mysterious but not cognitive. I rest my case."
Hahahahabahah! Too funny!
Thanks for the laugh, Dexter.
This post was meant as a joke, right?
Or was this more of a "How to think like Richard Dawkins" exercise?
- Dexter
-
- I dumpster dive for books!
- Posts: 1787
- Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2010 3:14 pm
- 13
- Has thanked: 144 times
- Been thanked: 712 times
Re: Richard Dawkins Explains Why There Was Never a First Human Being
You are easily amused by your own ignorance.ant wrote: Hahahahabahah! Too funny!
Thanks for the laugh, Dexter.
This post was meant as a joke, right?
Or was this more of a "How to think like Richard Dawkins" exercise?
Did you think this was just idle speculation by Dawkins?
I thought you weren't a creationist? Does your anti-science stupidity know no bounds?
You should try reading a book about evolution.
- geo
-
- pets endangered by possible book avalanche
- Posts: 4780
- Joined: Sun Aug 03, 2008 4:24 am
- 15
- Location: NC
- Has thanked: 2198 times
- Been thanked: 2201 times
Re: Richard Dawkins Explains Why There Was Never a First Human Being
How old are you, Ant? I'm guessing about 12.ant wrote:OMG! This one was the best reply to the article. It made me laugh my ass off!. . .
-Geo
Question everything
Question everything
- geo
-
- pets endangered by possible book avalanche
- Posts: 4780
- Joined: Sun Aug 03, 2008 4:24 am
- 15
- Location: NC
- Has thanked: 2198 times
- Been thanked: 2201 times
Re: Richard Dawkins Explains Why There Was Never a First Human Being
Dawkins always brings out the trolls. Thanks for posting.
By the way, Schrodinger's cat is also a thought experiment.
As Dawkins says, this is a way to envision evolution. Using a human life to illustrate that there's no point we can demarcate the transition from a toddler to a preschooler or adolescent to adult.
Dawkins used a similar analogy in THE DEVIL'S CHAPLAIN (paraphrased here in The Guardian):
By the way, Schrodinger's cat is also a thought experiment.
As Dawkins says, this is a way to envision evolution. Using a human life to illustrate that there's no point we can demarcate the transition from a toddler to a preschooler or adolescent to adult.
Dawkins used a similar analogy in THE DEVIL'S CHAPLAIN (paraphrased here in The Guardian):
http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2003/ma ... reducationConsider this experiment in temporal ingenuity. You are holding your mother's left hand. At the same time, she clutches her own mother, your grandmother, with her right. Your grandmother then holds her mother's hand, and so on into the past.
With each individual allocated a yard of private space, your ancestral queue snakes off into the Industrial Revolution, through the Middle Ages and on into prehistory, until, 300 miles down the line, it eventually reaches the missing link, the common ancestor that humans shared with chimpanzees six million years ago.
Now imagine a similar, parallel queue emerging from that common ancestor, this time following the chimpanzee side of her family - until it reaches the present day. 'You are now face to face with your chimpanzee cousin, and you are joined to her by an unbroken chain of mothers holding hands,' Dawkins observes.
The crucial word in this sentence is, of course, 'unbroken', for at no point on Dawkins's seamless chain of primates does one link differ in any substantive way from the next. There is only imperceptible change, one species eliding effortlessly into the next. There are no jumps in which one animal abruptly turns into a totally different kind of creature, no sudden hurdling of species barriers, an idea that so bothers opponents of natural selection. There are only tiny, unnoticeable transformations
-Geo
Question everything
Question everything
Re: Richard Dawkins Explains Why There Was Never a First Human Being
An exercise in atheist worship of atheist gods, this time the atheist god pointing out the obvious but doing so because it's another attack on theism that posited a mythical beginning that most all religious people I know recognize as such. But Dawkins has to find something to get at theists so here we have this little tidbit tossed to the worshipers who dutifully swallow the guff and pass it on as atheist divine revelation. What's so stupid about Dawkin's little propaganda piece is that his own holy scientists have been labeling "First Man" "First Woman" for decades, we recall Lucy do we not? and we don't hear a peep out of him about this--only attacking the "unscientific" reasoning..of others, meaning theists, certainly not scientists who are always above prejudicial thinking, never get their results wrong, never fudge experimental evidence to prove a theory, are in short, inhuman gods, fully worthy of worship by mortal men.
- geo
-
- pets endangered by possible book avalanche
- Posts: 4780
- Joined: Sun Aug 03, 2008 4:24 am
- 15
- Location: NC
- Has thanked: 2198 times
- Been thanked: 2201 times
Re: Richard Dawkins Explains Why There Was Never a First Human Being
Wow!sonoman wrote:An exercise in atheist worship of atheist gods, this time the atheist god pointing out the obvious but doing so because it's another attack on theism that posited a mythical beginning that most all religious people I know recognize as such. But Dawkins has to find something to get at theists so here we have this little tidbit tossed to the worshipers who dutifully swallow the guff and pass it on as atheist divine revelation. What's so stupid about Dawkin's little propaganda piece is that his own holy scientists have been labeling "First Man" "First Woman" for decades, we recall Lucy do we not? and we don't hear a peep out of him about this--only attacking the "unscientific" reasoning..of others, meaning theists, certainly not scientists who are always above prejudicial thinking, never get their results wrong, never fudge experimental evidence to prove a theory, are in short, inhuman gods, fully worthy of worship by mortal men.
-Geo
Question everything
Question everything
- Dexter
-
- I dumpster dive for books!
- Posts: 1787
- Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2010 3:14 pm
- 13
- Has thanked: 144 times
- Been thanked: 712 times
Re: Richard Dawkins Explains Why There Was Never a First Human Being
What are you babbling about? If you think Dawkins is wrong about evolution, please explain.sonoman wrote:An exercise in atheist worship of atheist gods, this time the atheist god pointing out the obvious but doing so because it's another attack on theism that posited a mythical beginning that most all religious people I know recognize as such. But Dawkins has to find something to get at theists so here we have this little tidbit tossed to the worshipers who dutifully swallow the guff and pass it on as atheist divine revelation. What's so stupid about Dawkin's little propaganda piece is that his own holy scientists have been labeling "First Man" "First Woman" for decades, we recall Lucy do we not? and we don't hear a peep out of him about this--only attacking the "unscientific" reasoning..of others, meaning theists, certainly not scientists who are always above prejudicial thinking, never get their results wrong, never fudge experimental evidence to prove a theory, are in short, inhuman gods, fully worthy of worship by mortal men.
- Interbane
-
- BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
- Posts: 7203
- Joined: Sat Oct 09, 2004 12:59 am
- 19
- Location: Da U.P.
- Has thanked: 1105 times
- Been thanked: 2166 times
Re: Richard Dawkins Explains Why There Was Never a First Human Being
You would only misunderstand this if you had no clue how the mechanisms of evolution would unfold. The first man and first woman refer to the oldest known specimens. Go searching for a quote from any of the scientists who discovered these "firsts", and you'll see that none of them actually hold the silly notion that they are truly the first organisms of a species.sonoman wrote:What's so stupid about Dawkin's little propaganda piece is that his own holy scientists have been labeling "First Man" "First Woman" for decades, we recall Lucy do we not?
Evolution happens gradually, sometimes accelerated, sometimes slowly, but always along a gradient. A gradient which corresponds to small genetic changes with each generation. What we find in fossil remains are points along the gradient, waypoints on a map.
Do you understand the mechanism of evolution? What are you attempting to criticize? Why not criticize leap years? After all, can we truly pinpoint the position of the Earth in spacetime, considering that not only the solar system but also the galaxy is moving as well as the Earth? Why not criticize the nitrogen cycle? Has anyone actually seen a nitrogen molecule flow through this entire cycle? You criticize it because you lack the capacity to understand physical systems. It may only be a thought experiment, but it's not far off the mark.ant wrote:This post was meant as a joke, right?
Or was this more of a "How to think like Richard Dawkins" exercise?
“In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and has been widely regarded as a bad move.” - Douglas Adams