| Author |
Message
|
| streamSystems |
 Posted: Thu Jan 31, 2008 3:01 am Post subject: intelligent design hypothesis |
 |
|
Banned
Joined: 22 May 2007
Posts: 950
Location: a reality you have all yet to properly explain
|
(I think this belongs here)
I was wondering whether or not that the reality, social of course, that we invariably shape using our sciences can actually feedback onto us, and actually have us "adapt" to our own theories of science and technology, however advanced or disabled?
Like, if we developed a type of non-biologically compatible science, one that didn't quite explain the way we actually perceive, as a science, could we, in developing that non-biological science, in developing a non-biologically compatible reality, a synthetic reality, could we "adapt" to that, and thus evolve ourselves to adapt to that synthetic environment?
Can we, for instance, formulate for ourselves what is possible and what is not based on how entrenched we have become in set axioms of space-time, 1000's of years old?
(If no one knows what I am talking about, just ask me to be more precise).
_________________
Does a theory of everything therefore need to be purely theoretical and only account for the known laws and forces in handling the improbability of fortune telling?
the www feature below can explain it better. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
| Ophiolite |
| Posted: Thu Jan 31, 2008 9:25 am Post subject: Re: intelligent design hypothesis |
|
|
Forum Radioactive Isotope
Joined: 25 Jul 2005
Posts: 4804
Location: Scotland
|
[quote="streamSystems(If no one knows what I am talking about, just ask me to be more precise).[/quote]Please be more precise.
_________________
The Universe is not only weirder than we imagine it is weirder than we can imagine. J.B.S.Haldane. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| serpicojr |
| Posted: Thu Jan 31, 2008 10:16 am Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Professor
Joined: 17 Jul 2007
Posts: 1128
Location: JRZ
|
This is one of the most lucid and interesting posts you've made. I don't have an immediate response beyond, "Yes, I think what you're suggesting is possible."
My thoughts right now are whether anything like that is already happening. Would you consider our ability to overcome various genetic maladaptions and possible subsequent ripples through the gene pool to be examples of what you're talking about? Consider the following hypothetical argument: myopia is theorized to be genetically determined in part; people with moderate myopia, such as myself, presumably should have a higher mortality rate (unless perhaps the human tendency has always been to help along those with poor eyesight); but we've been correcting vision for centuries now; hence, myopia is no longer selected out of the gene pool. Is this an example of what you're talking about? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Ophiolite |
| Posted: Thu Jan 31, 2008 10:21 am Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Radioactive Isotope
Joined: 25 Jul 2005
Posts: 4804
Location: Scotland
|
I understand your interpretation serpico, but this does not appear to be what SS is talking about. You are discussing our ability to adapt to the changed environment that is a consequence of the application of our scientific theories and resultant technology.
He specifically talks of "actually have us "adapt" to our own theories of science and technology". That seems to me to be quite a different matter. I await with interest his clarification.
_________________
The Universe is not only weirder than we imagine it is weirder than we can imagine. J.B.S.Haldane.
Last edited by Ophiolite on Thu Jan 31, 2008 10:51 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| serpicojr |
| Posted: Thu Jan 31, 2008 10:49 am Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Professor
Joined: 17 Jul 2007
Posts: 1128
Location: JRZ
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| streamSystems |
| Posted: Thu Jan 31, 2008 11:43 am Post subject: |
|
|
Banned
Joined: 22 May 2007
Posts: 950
Location: a reality you have all yet to properly explain
|
I don't have an agenda or theory of my own on this one. I am looking for clarification myself on the matter: has anyone heard any ideas on such a subject. My interpretation of it is that on the negative scale, on the down-side, we could be cutting ourselves from the nature-tree, de-evolving, by employing the use of an illegitimate science, and on the up-side, on the positive scale of things, we could be refining our ability to adapt to nature. The question is, "how reasonable are the sciences we employ to our ability to be conscious". Sure, science should represent the finest talents of our ability to be aware and reasoning, but do we ever ensure the sciences we employ are justly suited, what with all our theories of new dimensions and the like, to our biological performance? I would like to read some papers on this subject. I do think we have done a service to ourselves over the millennia through the employment of certain sciences and associated axioms, but I would like to read of papers that can highlight such to be the case, "cause and effect". More to this, I would like to read some papers on the idea that we invariably adapt to our own industrial-scientific swamp.
_________________
Does a theory of everything therefore need to be purely theoretical and only account for the known laws and forces in handling the improbability of fortune telling?
the www feature below can explain it better. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Wolf |
| Posted: Thu Jan 31, 2008 12:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Lycanthrope
Joined: 15 May 2007
Posts: 1014
Location: Here
|
It's a big subject, unfortunately.
First, what is the body's ability to change itself based on the conscious? (How strong is the placebo effect, for example? Can it actually grow me horns if I want them?)
Second, what level of consciousness must there be, in order to effect such a change? (If conscious adaptation were possible, why don't we see it all over the place in animals? Unless it requires a threshold level of consciousness...)
Third, what is the level at which the collective unconscious can effect the individual, and can that effect be enough to change the person?
_________________
Wolf
---------------------------------------------------------
"Be fair with others, but then keep after them until they're fair with you." Alan Alda |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| streamSystems |
| Posted: Thu Jan 31, 2008 12:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Banned
Joined: 22 May 2007
Posts: 950
Location: a reality you have all yet to properly explain
|
To answer that question, those questions, we would need to standardise juman perception and behavior with an ultimate "model" of human perception and behavior, it would seem. To find that ultimate model of human perception and behavior we would need to conduct a comparative study on different models of human perception and behavior and their relationship to their respective sciences and the impact their industries associated to their sciences had on them as a people. maybe one could study the different civilisations, the sciences they employed, and thus the societies they constructed, and how that in turn impacted on the people, to their success or failure.
_________________
Does a theory of everything therefore need to be purely theoretical and only account for the known laws and forces in handling the improbability of fortune telling?
the www feature below can explain it better. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Wolf |
| Posted: Thu Jan 31, 2008 12:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Lycanthrope
Joined: 15 May 2007
Posts: 1014
Location: Here
|
Isn't that more the impact of the collective unconscious on the society rather than the impact on the species? (Unless we count self-preservation as something to adapt.)
_________________
Wolf
---------------------------------------------------------
"Be fair with others, but then keep after them until they're fair with you." Alan Alda |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| streamSystems |
| Posted: Thu Jan 31, 2008 12:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Banned
Joined: 22 May 2007
Posts: 950
Location: a reality you have all yet to properly explain
|
I think it is more plausible to consider that as a species we segregate our ability to survive and adapt BEST to nature based on how we decide to "reconstruct" our reality and surround ourself with that reconstruction.
We segregate our ability as a species in that there are various cultures, and associated sciences, we adopt, that set us apart from others, which then offers us a different chance of survival to others.
As a species, we would have to regard ourselves globally, and the impact that we have on nature, globally, good or bad, and the impact it in turn has on us, good or bad.
As a primary observation of humanity, us, as a species, it has only been through the last 200 or so years of our 4000-5000 year civil-evolution that we have decided to become "purely" "seperate" from space-time, in that our sciences have not presented models of ourselves as people, as an awareness, in models of the atom and the universe, as has been the case throughout our social evolution in the past.
From the ancient Egyptian civilisation where it was the purpose of the greatest citizens to link with the stars, to Medieval sciences in search of the elixer of life, and zodiac body, the emphasis was not just on pertinent observation of the geometry and mechanics of space-time, but our purpose and link within it...........until our time.
(Wolf, just out of interest, how long has your "collective unconscious" been around for there to be a scientific impact-study of that collective unconscious on the species? Has it been around for centuries, millenia, or is it onlyt a recent phenomena?)
_________________
Does a theory of everything therefore need to be purely theoretical and only account for the known laws and forces in handling the improbability of fortune telling?
the www feature below can explain it better.
Last edited by streamSystems on Thu Jan 31, 2008 1:50 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Robbie |
| Posted: Thu Jan 31, 2008 1:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Ph.D.
Joined: 08 Aug 2006
Posts: 606
Location: Dublin, Ireland
|
Go read a philosophy doctrine by a metaphysicist.
_________________
There is not enough love & kindness in the world to permit us give it away to imaginary beings.
Nietzsche |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| streamSystems |
| Posted: Thu Jan 31, 2008 1:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Banned
Joined: 22 May 2007
Posts: 950
Location: a reality you have all yet to properly explain
|
Who?
_________________
Does a theory of everything therefore need to be purely theoretical and only account for the known laws and forces in handling the improbability of fortune telling?
the www feature below can explain it better. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| streamSystems |
| Posted: Thu Jan 31, 2008 1:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Banned
Joined: 22 May 2007
Posts: 950
Location: a reality you have all yet to properly explain
|
Who?
Well, actually, ignore that statement.
Answer that question for me when this post is moved to pseudo-science.
_________________
Does a theory of everything therefore need to be purely theoretical and only account for the known laws and forces in handling the improbability of fortune telling?
the www feature below can explain it better. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Ophiolite |
| Posted: Fri Feb 01, 2008 2:24 am Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Radioactive Isotope
Joined: 25 Jul 2005
Posts: 4804
Location: Scotland
|
| streamSystems wrote: |
As a primary observation of humanity, us, as a species, it has only been through the last 200 or so years of our 4000-5000 year civil-evolution that we have decided to become "purely" "seperate" from space-time, in that our sciences have not presented models of ourselves as people, as an awareness, in models of the atom and the universe, as has been the case throughout our social evolution in the past.
|
I don't see this at all. In the past two hundred years we have vastly improved our understanding of the Universe, our place within it, and our own character. The difference between our current, very secure place in 'space-time', related in depth and in detail to 'atoms and the universe', and the relationship in the past, is that our current relationship is clear, more objective, more conscious of sources of misperception, more free of superstition, more realistic, than any that has gone before.
_________________
The Universe is not only weirder than we imagine it is weirder than we can imagine. J.B.S.Haldane. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| streamSystems |
| Posted: Fri Feb 01, 2008 3:06 am Post subject: |
|
|
Banned
Joined: 22 May 2007
Posts: 950
Location: a reality you have all yet to properly explain
|
I agree.
But I do think our "objectivity" has detatched us from the "flow" we could otherwise be in with space-time.
I think previous civilisations had more "rhythm" to their place in space-time, to nature......in sacrifice of an objectivity that borders on detachment.
_________________
Does a theory of everything therefore need to be purely theoretical and only account for the known laws and forces in handling the improbability of fortune telling?
the www feature below can explain it better. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
