I don’t mean to make this blog just a surrogate for TED, but when I come across a great talk, I just feel I have to share. Below is an incredibly moving talk by eminent physicist and pioneer of quantum computing, David Deutsch about the place humanity enjoys in the cosmos, and how we are simultaneously an insignificant spec of “chemical scum” and the hub of all existence.
Categories:
Tags: Astronomy, David Deutsch, Philosophy, Physics
I watched this speech twice. What troubles me is that it seems to be loaded with speculation built on more speculation. When a scientist starts to speak of things billions of light years away, billions of light years ago, is he not really speaking beyond the limits of what we actually can prove with facts?
From Deutsch’s talk, I understand him to say one reason we exist is because of the presence of knowledge which utilizes the necessary resources–matter, energy, and evidence–to produce a life-supporting environment. And although those three resources are abundant else where, the knowledge is missing.
Where’s that knowledge come from? or the matter, or energy, or evidence. Or heat? Or time? Or cause? Where does any of that originate?? Do atheists presume these elements always existed?
As far as evolution is concerned (maybe this is a dumb question), why does it emphasize physical modifications of species? Thousands of different species have acquired similar or same abilities as other species (ie. walking, hunting, constructing a dwelling, communicating), yet there is not even one other species on our planet anywhere which has the ability to reason. Does science have an answer for that? Especially since knowledge is so critical to our survival? Shouldn’t there be other species who have so far advanced their mental capacities to actually be able to reason? Why do only humans, though we all are ancestors of the same chemical scum, have the ability to reason… The parrot and dolphin are perhaps advanced in mental capacities (though still considerable limited) yet physically they more resemble a primitive species. Is that plausible? Should our ancestors from whom we evolved over millions (billions?) of years, still exist? Shouldn’t there be half ape-like cavemen walking the earth too? Like you see in the museums linking us to the full ape creature which DOES exist?
I kind of got off the subject of the video, but these are questions I always wanted to ask.
I can’t help but consider the whole theory of evolution a myth. When a scientist starts building a case on scientific speculation, it carries about as much weight for me as Scripture would carry for you. So it is pointless to present such fabrications unless you can back it up with fact.
Hard as it is for you to believe, there is actually an avalanche of hard scientific evidence which speaks to the trustworthiness of Scripture and affirms creation. Dawkins did not even scratch the surface of positive proofs, but I’ll eventually get to that in my blog…
By: rostock on 2008 May 7
at 04:27 UTC
Woops. Sorry, that comment is a little long.
By: rostock on 2008 May 7
at 04:28 UTC
that’s fine. long comments tend to be thoughtful comments, and thoughtful comments are the best. I don’t have time to respond (haven’t even read it yet) as I’m right in the middle of finals, but I will eventually…
By: JJ Berg on 2008 May 7
at 04:37 UTC
to answer your question about why we are the only species with the capability to reason:
In short, evolution isn’t about becoming “more advanced.” It’s about surviving. Coincidentally, this article was just published in the NYT yesterday addressing that particular question. For the large majority of animals, it is advantageous for them to simply act by instinct, repeating actions automatically, and by doing so a very large number of them will survive and reproduce, and their offspring will essentially be “dumber” than the parent generation, because the ones who act more on instinct, and less on “reason” (or in this case a much simpler form of intelligence, but analogous to reason) are the ones that survive to produce offspring, thereby passing on the “instinct” genes. Essentially, being smart isn’t always what’s best for survival, and survival is what natural selection is all about.
By: JJ Berg on 2008 May 7
at 21:04 UTC
And the little bit at the end of the article there I think fairly well answers why there’s no half-ape like caveman still walking around. For creatures like us, intelligence is paramount to survival, and those less intelligent branches of the genus Homo, of which we are the sole surviving species, simply couldn’t compete with us. We wiped them out, likely by direct methods, such as war, and indirect ones, such as being more adept at gathering resources.
By: JJ Berg on 2008 May 7
at 21:11 UTC
And as far as validity of evolution is concerned, there’s always this website, offering an extremely thorough explanation of why it is not just a myth.
By: JJ Berg on 2008 May 11
at 07:31 UTC
I read the article about the ability to learn. I don’t believe it addresses the question asked about reason.
I understand that many species have the ability to learn. I have a dog. She has learned different commands. I say “Sit!” she knows to sit. I say “Down!” She knows to lay down. I say “Off!” She knows to get off. If she does something she knows she is not allowed to do, like jump on someone (she weighs a hundred pounds), I scold her and command her to a position of submission.
But the commands must always be to be black and white. There can never be gray areas.
If my dog pounces randomly at her bone and starts to jump around playfully (remember, she weighs a hundred pounds), her claw may happen to dig into my bare toe which hurts like a banshee! Or her pouncing may cause the record to skip. I cannot scold her for that. She’s innocent. She’s just being a dog. I can’t forbid her from being a dog. I can’t explain to her “Fido, you can play with your bone, but not when I have a record on because you’ll cause it to skip.” She isn’t capable of discerning when it is okay to pounce on her bone. She can’t understand why her jumping around can cause injury to my foot, she’s not even aware. She’s just playing. All I can do is take her outside to run around and play.
She definitely (like many species) has the ability to learn. But she does not have an ability to reason. Humans are unique in that regard.
When you say that being “smart” is not always best for survival…does that apply to EVERY specious except humans?
Is it not strange that there is not even just ONE other species that has the ability to reason? Not just learn, but actually reason–to exercise discernment, to think abstractly and to argue intelligently just as you and I are doing here. I would sound ridiculous having this conversation
with my dog.
Is reason so absolutely destructive for ALL species except for humans? How sure are you about that? Especially considering that every species, including humans, apparently came from the same “chemical scum,” and through the generations developed similar traits and abilities common among numerous different species. Why is reason reserved only for the human species? Don’t you question that?
By: rostock on 2008 May 12
at 00:40 UTC
It will take me awhile to look at that website–there’s a lot of pages to read and I am not a fast reader. Thank you for the resource. I will bookmark it and check it out in chapters.
I do hope your finals went well.
By: rostock on 2008 May 12
at 00:43 UTC
Go well, actually. Their this week actually. It’s just that the last week in the run up to them it’s been probably more busy than it will be with finals this week. But thanks for the well wishes.
Undoubtedly it takes forever to get through that site. I myself certainly haven’t been through it all, but it is sort of considered the best source on the internet to explain evolution. The fact is that it is an extremely complicated issue, and I think that’s why it’s often so hard to explain, because it really takes an entire website like that one do it justice.
By: JJ Berg on 2008 May 12
at 01:03 UTC
With regard to reason:
This is dangerous, because I’m going to make “armchair propositions”, which only have a basis in science so far as that I am making suggestions based on the comparatively limited understanding of the subject that I have. I am in essence hypothesizing about what the answer to your question might be.
With that disclaimer in mind…
I would posit that the ability to reason is probably not the most evolutionarily easy to develop. For example, I would bet that the template of a reptile or a fish or a dinosaur or bird is likely not very conducive to developing a brain of sufficient size to reason. Mammals are by far the most intelligent, er, grouping (it’s kind of arbitrary, because mammals, reptiles, fish, birds etc. are not on the same level of the hierarchy in the taxonomy, but it works for us I guess) of animals. So I would argue that it’s likely that it took a certain physiological framework to come along for intelligence to develop to such a level that our ability to reason could develop.
Also, on a side note, although there is no evidence that there ever has been another species with the ability to reason like us, can you imagine if there was? We kill members of our own species, often in shocking and horrific massacres, because they have different color skin than us, or sometimes, unfortunately, because we just don’t like them. Just imagine what would happen if there was a totally different species with reasoning capability on this planet.
By: JJ Berg on 2008 May 12
at 02:54 UTC
Your hypothesis might be the best science can offer.
You’re right, if there was another species on earth with the capacity to reason, there probably would be a lot of chaos (ironically). But the pendulum can swing both ways. Otherwise we’d all have killed each other within our own species already.
I hope your finals GO well.
By: rostock on 2008 May 13
at 00:32 UTC
That’s the thing. There is no “best that science can offer.” Our knowledge is ever changing and always improving. The accuracy of quantum theory, for example, has been described to have such accuracy that it’s predictions are analogous to predicting the width of North America with and error margin the width of a human hair (I believe I got that right). Yet it is not “the best science can offer.” There is still much we have yet to discover, and people like David Deutsch and, Brian Cox, and Brian Greene (all of whos TED talks I have posted here) are working on it. My point is that our scientific endevours produce an ever expanding body of knowledge, and just because we don’t fully understand something, doesn’t mean we won’t in the future.
I would contend that we unfortunately are doing a pretty good job of killing one another in our own species right now. I doubt there has been a single day in the last 100 years on which at least a handful of human beings were not killed by some other human beings. We, as a species, however, are quite good at this whole survival thing, and I bet even if global nuclear war, or some absolute disaster, ever broke out, that we would probably endure it.
Thanks again for the wishes on finals. Got one in the morning so I should probably get some sleep.
By: JJ Berg on 2008 May 13
at 06:06 UTC
