BS: The God Delusion 2010

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Paul Burke
Date: 21 Sep 10 - 02:33 PM

The story demonstrates how plastic the mind can be

And how often it's wrong. Perhaps it's wrong about thinking it's conscious, too?

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Smokey.
Date: 21 Sep 10 - 02:33 PM

As an ardent aphilatelist I have to agree with you Amos. We seem to share quite a few interests, oddly enough.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Smokey.
Date: 21 Sep 10 - 02:37 PM

Perhaps it's wrong about thinking it's conscious, too?

I've only ever been wrong once in my life, when I thought I was wrong about something and it turned out that I was right.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Mrrzy
Date: 21 Sep 10 - 03:10 PM

I can hardly wait till there is no need to *be* an atheist as it would then be the default value, like being an aphelatelist. Or an apaphelatelist, who doesn't care what stamps you collect...

I mean, everybody nowadays is an atheist about all the *other* religions' gods, like Zeus and Anubis and so on...

And once you get into the human brain chemistry you have a lot of recursive circuits so that the perceptions themselves become stimuli, and then things gan really take off, because of chaos theory and sensitivity to initial conditions, so no need to go beyond SR to get to wild and craaaaaaaaaaazy thoughts...

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Amos
Date: 21 Sep 10 - 03:13 PM

Well, the mind that is wrong about thinking it is conscious could not be, or it wouldn't be, obviously... :D


Cogito cogitens, ergo, conscio?



A

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Amos
Date: 21 Sep 10 - 03:31 PM

Mrrzy:

The argument that recursive complexity produces the qualitative leap necessary to account for the difference between stimuli and understanding is a "black box" and an article of faith. It still does not address the deeply important difference between What and Who.


A

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: olddude
Date: 21 Sep 10 - 03:46 PM

LOL, Amos and you would be wise to avoid such also ... :-)
poison tipped arrows ... that would a problem requiring divine intervention if you got whacked with one ... LOL

I use to collect stamps as a kid ... loved em now I have a non collection of stamps ... gave them all to the neighbors kids

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Smokey.
Date: 21 Sep 10 - 03:58 PM

I've still got mine.. just in case..

Don't come crying to me when we get taken over by militant philatelists. They're out there.. waiting..

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Ed T
Date: 21 Sep 10 - 04:25 PM

How do we really know that we are not already dead and in heaven, mas promised by some,and that, "this is as good as it gets"?

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Smokey.
Date: 21 Sep 10 - 04:33 PM

If this was heaven, I don't think I'd have two accordions.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Mrrzy
Date: 21 Sep 10 - 05:19 PM

The argument that recursive complexity produces the qualitative leap necessary to account for the difference between stimuli and understanding is a "black box" and an article of faith. What do you mean? I meant the curling of the brain that brought the hindbrain into proximity of the forebrain so that we can perceive our emotional responses which evolved for motivation, e.g. motion. No black box, no faith, that I can see.

But does one see a black box? Heh heh...

It still does not address the deeply important difference between What and Who. - irrelevent to whether it's anything other than brain making either whom or what. Irrelevant? My spellcheck is out. All I'm saying is There is nothing of your mind that didn't come from your brain and its history of interactions with that brain's body's environment. Nothing of you before your brain. Nothing of you after your brain. This is the only life you, as an entity, get to be perceiving in.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Smokey.
Date: 21 Sep 10 - 05:40 PM

As demonstrated by Smökey's hammer experiment.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Ed T
Date: 21 Sep 10 - 06:21 PM

"If this was heaven, I don't think I'd have two accordions"

Would one of those accordions be signed by Dolly Parton? If so, it may be a collector. I understand Dolly had one as a young girl, and sold it later when she "matured", as it became more difficult for her to use.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Bill D
Date: 21 Sep 10 - 06:53 PM

Former stamp collector here, (specialized in Hungary) I gave up stamps for Philosophy, so now I am stirred by comments like this: "One cannot make general statements about scientists. For everyone that says no there is another that says yes."

I simply don't think that's accurate in that form. Of course there are scientists who are secular and others who are religious, but I'd be willing to bet that, as a general statement there are WAY more who are secular. If I am right, it proves nothing except a statistic, but it does indicate that in general, those who seriously do science tend to be less inclined to accept the claims of religion.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Amos
Date: 21 Sep 10 - 07:12 PM

Odd, then, that you can be aware of both those parts. Which one of them is you?    Or is there no point of receipt for arriving information?


A

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Smokey.
Date: 21 Sep 10 - 07:20 PM

I gave up stamps for Philosophy

Philosophy will get you nowhere. (Trad. arr. Smokey)

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Bill D
Date: 21 Sep 10 - 07:31 PM

Was that question directed to me, Amos? I didn't quite get the direction of it, if it was. Can I be aware of both secular & religious attitudes & reasoning? Sure...my brain sorts it out. ;>)
------------------------------------------------------------

well, Smokey. I made 'almost' as much from Philosophy as my education cost...but that was in 1969.

Stamp collecting got me an education in Geography and economics....

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Smokey.
Date: 21 Sep 10 - 07:32 PM

I understand Dolly had one as a young girl, and sold it later when she "matured", as it became more difficult for her to use.

Shrinking strap syndrome. Mine have done that too. The space in the leather atoms slowly evaporates due to the energy input involved in the action of unpumping.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Amos
Date: 21 Sep 10 - 07:49 PM

No, Bill, it was an aside directed more to Mrrz. This notion of a self analyzing a complex process which produces the illusion of a Self is quite tricky, like the Chinaman who a handsome pigtail wore...



A

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: GUEST,josep
Date: 21 Sep 10 - 07:56 PM

Why do we have consciousness at all? One might say, "Well, if I didn't feel hunger, I wouldn't eat." True. But why couldn't the brain simply take note of the low-fuel situation and tell the automaton body to eat? Think of the problems that would be solved. The brain wouldn't allow junk food into the system, since it would only want the healthiest and most beneficial foods. We would have no anorexia or overeating. The brain could just monitor the intake and when the internal gauge hits the "F", it tells the body to stop eating and the body simply obeys. If the muscles are too soft or the body too hampered by excess weight, the brain would just make the automaton body exercise and stay peak-performance strong.

The need and desire for sex causes unbelievable problems in this world. Certainly the brain could do a much better job than to allow the body to go around raping people or having sex with children. When the best time of year for mating arrived, the brain would seek a suitable mate (say, wide hips for child-bearing or big muscles for vitality and endurance) and say, "Procreate with that organism to keep the species surviving and strong, fit and resourceful" and the other organism would respond based on how its brain perceived the organism making the mating sound or dance. If the other organism decided no, he or she would simply walk away and the first organism would simply cease the mating ritual and seek another potential partner. No rejection, no hurt feelings, no stalking, no unwanted pregnancies, no abortions. Simple, easy, efficient.

Why should an electro-chemical reaction in my brain register as a sensation in my consciousness from which I choose from a palette of possible reactions? Why doesn't the electro-chemical stimulus by itself spur the body to take the best course of action automatically?

This is what happens in the cockroach. It doesn't need to think about anything. Some have as many as six brains and don't think with any of them. The brain in the back end can perceive a threat without the brain up front suspecting anything and the back legs are running before the front legs even move. Of course this happens very quickly so we can't really notice this but that is what happens. It works very well for the roach--they've been around far longer than we and will be around long after we're gone so consciousness is not necessary for survival. Often inimical to it actually.

If the brain creates consciousness--for what possible purpose that couldn't have been accomplished in far more efficient and more organized ways? After all, we're just another animal.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Smokey.
Date: 21 Sep 10 - 08:12 PM

"An evolutionary mistake which may lead to our extinction." I forget which notable scientist said that.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Smokey.
Date: 21 Sep 10 - 08:47 PM

Why doesn't the electro-chemical stimulus by itself spur the body to take the best course of action automatically?

It might do - the choice could be an illusion.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Amos
Date: 21 Sep 10 - 09:07 PM

Yeah, right--choice is an illusion, perception is a reaction, understanding is an illusion, honor justice, beauty, right action, and the pursuit of happiness are mere sound bytes in a sea of clanging cymbals and collisions of dullwit matter.

What a herd of beefalo!! I swan.


A

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Amos
Date: 21 Sep 10 - 09:12 PM

On a more musical note, it don't mean a thing if it ain't got rhythm, according to Science:

"(PhysOrg.com) -- When it comes to conducting complex tasks, it turns out that the brain needs rhythm, according to researchers at the University of California, Berkeley.

Specifically, cortical rhythms, or oscillations, can effectively rally groups of neurons in widely dispersed regions of the brain to engage in coordinated activity, much like a conductor will summon up various sections of an orchestra in a symphony.

Even the simple act of catching a ball necessitates an impressive coordination of multiple groups of neurons to perceive the object, judge its speed and trajectory, decide when it's time to catch it and then direct the muscles in the body to grasp it before it whizzes by or drops to the ground.

Until now, neuroscientists had not fully understood how these neuron groups in widely dispersed regions of the brain first get linked together so they can work in concert for such complex tasks.

The UC Berkeley findings are to be published the week of Sept. 20 in the online early edition of the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences...."

Full story here.

A

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Smokey.
Date: 21 Sep 10 - 09:22 PM

What a herd of beefalo!! I swan.

I only said 'could be', and I should have added 'for all we know'. I certainly wouldn't recommend acting as though it is..

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Smokey.
Date: 21 Sep 10 - 09:32 PM

We've already established the human mind's capacity to deceive itself - how are we supposed to know when that is happening and when it's not?

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Amos
Date: 21 Sep 10 - 10:26 PM

A very good question indeed. And I apologize for my little outburst. Wasn't aimed at anyone in particl'r.

A model or analysis which aligns with other data is more likely to be "true" than one which continuously runs into contradictions or misalignments of various sorts compared to other data.

A piece of information is as useful as it seems to impart value to other information. Newton's laws are --by this test--much more important and valuable than Sarah Palin's shopping list.

Monotheism as espoused by, say, the Baptist Church could seem to be terribly valuable because it offers one explanation for everything. Trouble is, there is too much other information that doesn't line up, such as the fossil record, or the strange condensation of time and hashed-up sequence of events in Genesis, for a couple of examples.

There are a lot of other indexes you can use, as well; they can serve to improve the certainty with which you hold a given datum or set of data, but in the final analysis, data is never absolute. So you do the best you can with gradual approximations.

A

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Mrrzy
Date: 21 Sep 10 - 10:46 PM

Did I answser your aside?:

Also - a quote from Tim: Fuck philosophy.

Or not...

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Smokey.
Date: 21 Sep 10 - 11:03 PM

Yer not wrong, Amos, but I was talking more about making 'internal' choices - the possibility of conscious decision making being illusory. I'm sure I've read something about that recently but unfortunately I can't remember where.. something about the unconscious mind having made its decision before the conscious mind has apparently gone through the motions of assessing the data, and we only think we are thinking about it consciously. I'm sure it involved an experiment, but until such time as I can provide a reference we should perhaps regard it as quantum information, in a state of both bollocks and unbollocks simultaneously.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Smokey.
Date: 21 Sep 10 - 11:19 PM

a sea of clanging cymbals and collisions of dullwit matter.

Have you worked with many drummers, Amos?

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Bill D
Date: 21 Sep 10 - 11:27 PM

"...'internal' choices - the possibility of conscious decision making being illusory..."

This discussion is heading close to certain concerns in Phenomenology, in which an observer attempts to 'run around behind himself' and examine his own internal reactions to his own thought processes....as in asking oneself "Am I aware of my own motivation...and is it possible to tell if I am honest with myself in my own conclusions"
This process falls broadly under the header of performing an "Eidetic_reduction", although there is some disagreement as to whether such can actually BE done. (Sort of like the concern that just observing microscopic organisms affects and changes them.)

When we debate all these issues and air our differences and come to different conclusions, I often find the most interesting question is not "Who is correct?", but rather, "How is it we can all look at the same data and use the same words and come to different conclusions?"

Debates over Religion and God and the Nature of Mind are only some of the more abstruse concepts we embroil ourselves in as we strive to look AT human concerns from within the confines of being Human.....

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Smokey.
Date: 21 Sep 10 - 11:34 PM

"How is it we can all look at the same data and use the same words and come to different conclusions?"

It seems to point strongly towards there not being a universal consciousness.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Amos
Date: 22 Sep 10 - 10:07 AM

We're not all looking at the same data, Bill. Look at the back ground information and the predispositions it brings about. For example, a child raised wholly within the Electronics age may have a very different impression of humanity than a child raised in the pre-transistor era.

One man's history is another man's wrong answer. By which I mean, there's a lot more going on in a viewpoint than just the present data under discussion.


A

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Mrrzy
Date: 22 Sep 10 - 10:40 AM

Why do we have consciousness at all? One might say, "Well, if I didn't feel hunger, I wouldn't eat." True. But why couldn't the brain simply take note of the low-fuel situation and tell the automaton body to eat? Think of the problems that would be solved. The brain wouldn't allow junk food into the system, since it would only want the healthiest and most beneficial foods. We would have no anorexia or overeating. The brain could just monitor the intake and when the internal gauge hits the "F", it tells the body to stop eating and the body simply obeys. If the muscles are too soft or the body too hampered by excess weight, the brain would just make the automaton body exercise and stay peak-performance strong.

That is what happens in most mammals, but in people, bipedalism put the hindbrain riht under the forebrain instead of way out behind it, and suddenly you have "I" because we perceive our emotions as readily as our environment. Other animals just have them but don't *think about* having them.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Amos
Date: 22 Sep 10 - 11:04 AM

While the legacy of structural elements in body design is undeniably interesting, I think it is a flawed approach to assume structure monitors function. I suspect function, on the contrary, monitors structure.

In the case of mind/body issues, thought tends to steer structure. That doesn't mean we should all become Christian Scientists, but the difference between healing by pills alone and healing by pills with positve suggestion, as well as by placebo effect, means this is a serious question that has not been answered.

I don't think the Mrrzy Loop works.

A

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 22 Sep 10 - 12:20 PM

amos-as i understand it,the fossil record is not as neat and tidy as commonly believed ie fossil specimens in the wrong strata.i would be interested to know how you account for fossilised trees through several geologic ages ie not rotting away.in case you havent guessed,the creationist answer is rapid deposition in the global flood.bill-sure there are more secular scientists like their are less christians period.some of these secular scientists have been honest enough to admit they are evolutionist philosophically rather than scientifically convinced.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Paul Burke
Date: 22 Sep 10 - 01:08 PM

fossil specimens in the wrong strata

Give us an example.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 22 Sep 10 - 03:57 PM

>>>>>>"Every phenomenon that has been reported HAS been observed"
Is this true? I suspect not so. <<

Possibly so, but Amos' conjecture that a person is a spiritual being operating a physical body is not an observable phenomenon. It may be paradigm useful in reconciling peyote based "observations" from the burning man festival. but it is NoT scientifically observable.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Amos
Date: 22 Sep 10 - 04:27 PM

Well, I dunno, Jack. How would such a proposition BE "scientifically" tested, anyway? If it is outside the frame of "scientifically" testable propositions, which sometimes seems to me to be the case, that does not mean it is outside the realm of true propositions, unless you start from the assumption that only scientifically testable propositions can be true.

WHich you may well do, but this leaves you in the far reaches of almost absolute materialism, which I think (myself) is a pretty thin bet.

Now, there are to her ways to test things, of course--the notion of meditation being a repeatable experiment on the basis that a significant per centage of those doing it have similar experiences was discussed upthread, I believe. Why this doesn't count as science, I am not sure; there is nothing inherent in the fundamentals of scientific method that rules out experiential results. But pushing that line over into accepting only material results is kind of a popular (if deadening) idea these days.

Babies and bathwater, amigo. I think it is wise to be skeptical about conclusions and opinions, but to carry skepticism into the realm of jaded cynicism is bad for the heart.

A

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Mrrzy
Date: 22 Sep 10 - 04:50 PM

Quel est ce Mrrzy loop?

Not that I'm not loopy...

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Amos
Date: 22 Sep 10 - 05:11 PM

I thought it would honor you to name it that, Mrrz. I guess we're all loopy in our own special ways, though!! :D

It is the process of generating a set of mental objects to view, and then analyzing them without including one's own generative energy as part of the field of discourse, thus creating a synthetic set of objects and their generated and assigned attributes which are peculiarly sourceless (since one has left one's own generation out of the subject) and then using them to prove that they cause the very perception of them one is using as a basis for discussing them.

Thus one can establish that non-sentient components, if added up in complex enough ways, can somehow bring about perception, intention, and understanding, and prove it satisfactorily as long as one leaves out the fact that a self was present to create and set up the initial conditions of the discussion.

This is a very long way to describe the Mrrzian Loop. Thinking about ways to avoid thought, a short variation on the theme. Sourceless sourcery, if you will.

A

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: GUEST,josep
Date: 22 Sep 10 - 06:24 PM

///That is what happens in most mammals,///

No, this does not happen in mammals. You've obviously never had a pet. Mammals have distinct personalities. The type of automaton body with a a utilitarian brain directly interfacing with no personality in between is typical of insects. Even then, it doesn't always hold true. A bee colony, for example, has a personality, a mind. And, no, they are not all the same. Some colonies are procrastinators, some are highly motivated, some are lazy preferring to steal honey from other hives. No two are alike.

When they cloned a cat not long ago, the two were totally different in build and disposition. All they shared were the same markings. Clone two insects or two spiders and they are indistinguishable. In fact, female walking sticks usually give birth spontaneously without fertilization. The offspring are almost literal clones. Only like 1 male per 1000 females--just enough to introduce some variation in the species to keep it viable. Bees are clones pretty much. Thousands of identical sisters with one mother.

Mammals can't reproduce like this. Incest has no real effect on insects. Incest has devastating effects on animals.

The more complex a living creature is, the more it seems that it MUST have a personality--a true consciousness. This couldn't be an evolutionary mistake. We evolve FOR consciousness.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: GUEST,josep
Date: 22 Sep 10 - 06:44 PM

///"How is it we can all look at the same data and use the same words and come to different conclusions?"

It seems to point strongly towards there not being a universal consciousness.///

No, it points strongly towards it. There isn't a universal consciousness residing somewhere amidst the universal matter. The building block of the universe is not matter, it is consciousness. The universe IS the consciousness. How?

It is analogous to dreaming. The UC dreams reality and everything in it. We are all bit players in the dream. That's why consciousness is a unity. We're all part of the Dreamer just as all the characters you dream about are just part of you. And do those characters live in perfect harmony and act like one mind? No. They usually don't. The horrifying monster that makes you wake up with a start and your heart pounding was just you playing another role.

This is why an omniscient god can't exist. It would know everything that has happened, is happening now and ever will happen. But the UC isn't omniscient. In order to know itself, it must break its own unity and play different roles. It can't know love if it doesn't know hate. It can't know nobility if it doesn't know degradation. It can't know fulfillment if it doesn't know want. it cant know purity if it doesn't know lust. So it dreams characters that play all these roles and interact.

It could learn nothing if every character was identical and agreed on everything. It can only now harmony by also know dischord. It has to wear every hat.

Since everything in reality is part of the Dreamer, everything is inside everything else. The part is in every whole, the whole in every part. And when physicists bash particles together, that's what they find--the whole in every part like a Chinese puzzle box. There is no final bit of matter to arrive at because matter is really consciousness. Doesn't seem that way but it is. Just as we differentiate solid objects and space. Solid objects ARE space.

So row, row, row your boat...

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Mrrzy
Date: 22 Sep 10 - 06:58 PM

You can have a personality without having thoughts of "I" - especially with a normal mammalian brain. Personality is how you behave and feel, which can only be really different in humans (and maybe dolphins and African elephants) but not in, say, horses or zebras. How they feel IS how they behave - if frightened, shy, if hungry, graze. And feel good doing it.

TWithin that framework there is enough play for you to still have personality and be a nice and industrious individual or a mean and lazy one, or myriad other IDIC.

And I cringe whenever anybody says we evolved "for" something - evolution has no direction, in just takes whatever isn't being used right now and turns it into something more useful. Yes, it's a happy accident that we can actually think about all of this. Way cool.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 22 Sep 10 - 07:08 PM

>>
Well, I dunno, Jack. How would such a proposition BE "scientifically" tested, anyway? If it is outside the frame of "scientifically" testable propositions, which sometimes seems to me to be the case, that does not mean it is outside the realm of true propositions, unless you start from the assumption that only scientifically testable propositions can be true. <<

In my mind the issue is that since it cannot be proved, we cannot KNOW that it is true. But if it useful for you to believe it then by all means, you should believe it.

As I said before , Jung's theory of Id, Ego and Superego, in my opinion is equally unscientific, equally unprovable. But they are sometimes useful in understanding certain behaviors and even in treating some mental conditions. Its not necessarily scientific, but it ain't chopped liver either.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 22 Sep 10 - 07:29 PM

"Incest has no real effect on insects. Incest has devastating effects on animals."

Stick to physics, mate.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: GUEST,josep
Date: 22 Sep 10 - 07:31 PM

///You can have a personality without having thoughts of "I" - especially with a normal mammalian brain. Personality is how you behave and feel, which can only be really different in humans (and maybe dolphins and African elephants) but not in, say, horses or zebras. How they feel IS how they behave - if frightened, shy, if hungry, graze. And feel good doing it.///

You've never been around horses much, have you? They have a mischievous sense of humor. Then again, most animals do. And the idea that they have no sense of "I" is pure hogwash. You remind me of the caninologists who insist that dogs can't smile. Anybody who has ever owned one knows that they do. Raise some animals some time. You obviously haven't.

///And I cringe whenever anybody says we evolved "for" something - evolution has no direction////

That's debatable but I have no interest in that particular argument simply because consciousness DOES have direction and that's all that matters.

///in just takes whatever isn't being used right now and turns it into something more useful.///

Your definition of "direction" must be highly irregular.

Main Entry:di£rec£tion
Pronunciation:d*-*rek-sh*n, d*-
Function:noun
Date:15th century

1 : guidance or supervision of action or conduct : MANAGEMENT
2 archaic   : SUPERSCRIPTION
3 a : an explicit instruction : ORDER b : assistance in pointing out the proper route — usually used in plural *asked for directions to the beach*
4 : the line or course on which something is moving or is aimed to move or along which something is pointing or facing
5 archaic   : DIRECTORATE 1
6 a : a channel or direct course of thought or action b : TENDENCY, TREND c : a guiding, governing, or motivating purpose
7 a : the art and technique of directing an orchestra, band, or a show (as for stage or screen) b : a word, phrase, or sign indicating the appropriate tempo, mood, or intensity of a passage or movement in music
–di£rec£tion£less \-l*s\ adjective
–di£rec£tion£less£ness noun

>>Yes, it's a happy accident that we can actually think about all of this. Way cool. ///

Considering we're a product of forces with no direction.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: GUEST,josep
Date: 22 Sep 10 - 07:38 PM

///Stick to physics, mate.///

I do. And you stick to...uh...er....hoo-boy.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Smokey.
Date: 22 Sep 10 - 07:48 PM

Well I don't claim to be anything more than a curious musician, but isn't evolution about survival?

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Bill D
Date: 22 Sep 10 - 07:55 PM

"...but isn't evolution about survival? "

It's about adaptation....survival is a byproduct of adaptation.