Its counterintuitive – Dawkins

_{David L. Hagen

April 7, 2016

Atheism, Eyes Rolling, Origin Of Life, rhetoric}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

Of course, its counter intuitive you can get something from nothing. Of course common sense doesn’t allow you to get something for nothing! That’s why its interesting. Its got to be interesting to give rise to the universe at all. Something pretty mysterious had to give rise to the origin of the universe. You can dispute what is meant by nothing, but whatever it is, it is very very simple . . . (laughter) Why is that funny?

Bishop Thug Lyfe

Well I think it is a bit funny to try to define nothing!

Laughter – the best medicine for Dawkins!

Link: https://www.facebook.com/1057346700949990/videos/1223907387627253/

Comments

Origenes, There is no frame of reference to perceive that Earth is free floating, which is why it is counter intuitive.Me_Think_{April 11, 2016
April
04
Apr
11
11
2016
07:37 AM
7
07
37
AM
PDT}

Indiana Effigy: Origenes, you insist that we perceive the earth to be free floating and not fixed. What is it that we see on a daily basis that allows us to perceive this? Origenes: I insist that once we have the perception of the Earth as free-floating — once we have adequate perception Again, what is that "adequate perception"?Zachriel_{April 11, 2016
April
04
Apr
11
11
2016
05:56 AM
5
05
56
AM
PDT}

Axel: You must not confuse the properties of the organism with one of the cells constituting it. Darwin: "A cell is a complex structure". If you want to argue the cell is much more complex than Darwin knew, then sure. However, arguing against his explicit statement on the subject is not convincing.Zachriel_{April 11, 2016
April
04
Apr
11
11
2016
05:46 AM
5
05
46
AM
PDT}

Goodusername: Those aren’t quotes from Darwin, nor are they statements that Darwin quoted.
Those are statements which Darwin endorsed, which has been my claim all along. When Darwin and his contemporaries refer to the cell as ‘complex’, they do not have anything in mind that correlates with the astounding specified complexity that has been discovered since the mid-20th century. Famously Ernst Haeckel called the cell a "simple little lump of albuminous combination of carbon". It seems to me that, in Darwin’s days, complexity was thought to reside above the level of the cell. For instance Darwin believed that inherited traits did not stem from cells, but from “gemmules” which were shed by the organs of the body, collected in the bloodstream and then carried to the reproductive organs.
Wiki: Gemmules were imagined particles of inheritance proposed by Charles Darwin as part of his Pangenesis theory. This appeared in his book The Variation of Animals and Plants under Domestication, published in 1868, nine years after the publication of his famous book On the Origin of Species. Gemmules, also called plastitudes or pangenes, were assumed to be shed by the organs of the body and carried in the bloodstream to the reproductive organs where they accumulated in the germ cells or gametes. They thus provided a possible mechanism for the inheritance of acquired characteristics, as proposed by Jean-Baptiste Lamarck, which Darwin believed to be a cause of the observed variation in living organisms.
Origenes_{April 11, 2016
April
04
Apr
11
11
2016
01:48 AM
1
01
48
AM
PDT}

Neither of you, Zachriel and goodusername, are even addressing the subject. 'Here’s an example of Darwin talking about cells: “We cannot fathom the marvellous complexity of an organic being; but on the hypothesis here advanced this complexity is much increased. Each living creature must be looked at as a microcosm – a little universe, formed of a host of self-propagating organisms, inconceivably minute and as numerous as the stars in heaven.”' Of the cell, he merely states that they are self-propagating, inconceivably minute and as numerous as the stars of heaven. All the rest is about 'the little universe of cells' of the ORGANIC BEING and the LATTER'S complexity. You must not confuse the properties of the organism with one of the cells constituting it. A massive blunder.Axel_{April 11, 2016
April
04
Apr
11
11
2016
01:20 AM
1
01
20
AM
PDT}

Origenes,
For instance Darwin’s ignorance led him to endorse the view that the cell is a “lump of jelly-like substance” with “no trace of organization”.
Those aren’t quotes from Darwin, nor are they statements that Darwin quoted. I wouldn’t assume that because Darwin quotes from part of an article that he agrees with everything in the article. I would rather quote Darwin, or quote stuff that Darwin has quoted, to get insight into what Darwin believes. Here’s an example of Darwin talking about cells: “We cannot fathom the marvellous complexity of an organic being; but on the hypothesis here advanced this complexity is much increased. Each living creature must be looked at as a microcosm – a little universe, formed of a host of self-propagating organisms, inconceivably minute and as numerous as the stars in heaven.” A marvelous complexity that we cannot fathom. Each living creature is like a little universe. Hmm, kinda hard to twist that into cells being an organized lump. I guess it is best you avoid anything from Darwin if you want to advance your argument.goodusername_{April 10, 2016
April
04
Apr
10
10
2016
02:55 PM
2
02
55
PM
PDT}

Indiana Effigy,
IE: Origenes, you insist that we perceive the earth to be free floating and not fixed.
No, I insist that once we have the perception of the Earth as free-floating — once we have adequate perception —, intuition and common sense can then informs us that the Earth is moving. IOWs adequate perception is a prerequisite for intuition and common sense to function. Without adequate perception one can expect ignorance to take over; e.g. see Darwin's endorsement of total nonsense; post#33.Origenes_{April 10, 2016
April
04
Apr
10
10
2016
11:07 AM
11
11
07
AM
PDT}

Origenes: My claim is: Darwin’s ignorance led him to endorse the view that the cell is a “lump of jelly-like substance” with “no trace of organization”. Which is clearly false as Darwin explicitly stated that a cell is a complex structure.Zachriel_{April 10, 2016
April
04
Apr
10
10
2016
09:56 AM
9
09
56
AM
PDT}

Origenes, you insist that we perceive the earth to be free floating and not fixed. What is it that we see on a daily basis that allows us to perceive this? And don't try to use the movement of the sun, moon and stars because man perceived this as evidence of a fixed earth for countless centuries longer than our recent knowledge of it moving in space.Indiana Effigy_{April 10, 2016
April
04
Apr
10
10
2016
09:32 AM
9
09
32
AM
PDT}

Zachriel: No, but it is modern.
Modernity is modern … What is your point?
Zachriel:
Origenes: It is indeed common-sense to expect a moving Earth, given the perception of a free-floating earth.
Gee whiz, Origenes. There is no perception of a free-floating Earth.
Of course there is. And when there is this adequate perception then intuition and common sense informs us that it is likely that the Earth is in movement. Without adequate perception, ignorance takes over; see Darwin’s endorsement of nonsensical statements about the cell, post #33.
Zachriel: Your claim was patently false. Darwin said, “A cell is a complex structure”.
My claim is: Darwin’s ignorance led him to endorse the view that the cell is a “lump of jelly-like substance” with “no trace of organization”. Have you read the article already?Origenes_{April 10, 2016
April
04
Apr
10
10
2016
09:21 AM
9
09
21
AM
PDT}

Origenes: Nope, science is not restricted to modern times, You can quibble over the nature of science, but science as a distinct discipline is modern. Origenes: but even so, modernity is not distinct from human experience. No, but it is modern. Origenes: It is indeed common-sense to expect a moving Earth, given the perception of a free-floating earth. Gee whiz, Origenes. There is no perception of a free-floating Earth. Psalm 104:5: "Thou didst fix the earth on its foundation so that it never can be shaken." Origenes: I most definitely would. Sure you would — if only you knew then (thousands of years ago) what you know now. Origenes: Darwin’s ignorance did the talking — not his intuition. Your claim was patently false. Darwin said, "A cell is a complex structure".Zachriel_{April 10, 2016
April
04
Apr
10
10
2016
07:24 AM
7
07
24
AM
PDT}

Zachriel: Science is modern.
Nope, science is not restricted to modern times, but even so, modernity is not distinct from human experience.
Zachriel: If human’s common-sense expectation was that the Earth rotated and revolved, (…)
It is indeed common-sense to expect a moving Earth, given the perception of a free-floating earth.
Zachriel:
Origenes: it’s actually counterintuitive and contra common-sense to hold that the Earth is fixed — by a turtle? — given the perception of the Earth free-floating in space.
That’s because you are steeped in modern culture.
Nope, that’s not the reason at all.
Zachriel: It’s something you would not intuit.
Oh yes, I most definitely would.
Zachriel: Darwin couldn’t have known what we know today about the cell. So?
So, Darwin’s ignorance did the talking — not his intuition.Origenes_{April 10, 2016
April
04
Apr
10
10
2016
07:19 AM
7
07
19
AM
PDT}

Origenes: Science is not distinct from human experience. Science is modern. Most of human history predates science, and predates knowledge of the Earth's movement. If human's common-sense expectation was that the Earth rotated and revolved, then it wouldn't have had to be discovered. Origenes: it’s actually counterintuitive and contra common-sense to hold that the Earth is fixed That's because you are steeped in modern culture. It's something you would not intuit. Origenes: "But does this mean he really appreciated or anticipated the complexity of the cell?" Darwin couldn't have known what we know today about the cell. So? He explicitly stated the cell was complex, directly contradicting your claim above. Origenes: So protoplasm ... Are you changing your claim? Darwin thought ~~the cell~~ protoplasm was not complex?Zachriel_{April 10, 2016
April
04
Apr
10
10
2016
06:38 AM
6
06
38
AM
PDT}

Zachriel: The human experience is of an Earth that is stable and fixed. It’s only through science that they know the Earth moves.
Fixed by a turtle, I suppose. And no, science is not distinct from human experience.
Zachriel: The common-sense expectation for humans is that the Earth is fixed beneath their feet.
No, it’s actually counterintuitive and contra common-sense to hold that the Earth is fixed — by a turtle? — given the perception of the Earth free-floating in space.
Zachriel:
Origenes: For instance Darwin’s ignorance led him to endorse the view that the cell is a “lump of jelly-like substance” with “no trace of organization”.
From your own citation, Darwin: A cell is a complex structure
You should have read the entire article by Casey Luskin. Here the relevant part, for your convenience:
Well, let's take a closer look at that quote from Darwin. He said that the cell is "complex," in part, because it has a "membrane, nucleus, and nucleolus." It's no surprise that Darwin knew about these cellular components, because they were visible to microscopes of that time. But does this mean he really appreciated or anticipated the complexity of the cell? The answer is a resounding no. Consider the article that Darwin approvingly cites in that quote, the one by G.H. Lewes in Fortnightly Review. Lewes serves as Darwin's authority for the claim that the cell is "complex," so let's start by looking at what Lewes said about the protoplasm in that very article:
The simplest form of organic life is not -- as commonly stated -- a cell, but a microscopic lump of jelly-like substance, or protoplasm, which has been named sarcode by Dujardin, cytode by Haeckel, and germinal matter by Lionel Beale. This protoplasm, although entirely destitute of texture, and consequently destitute of organs, is nevertheless considered to be an Organism, because it manifests the cardinal phenomena of Life: Nutrition, Reproduction, and Contractility. As examples of this simplest organism we may cite Monads, Vibriones, Protamoebae, and Polythalamia. Few things are more surprising than the vital activity of these organisms, which puzzle naturalists as to whether they should be called plants or animals. All microscopists are familiar with the spectacle of a formless lump of albuminous matter (a Rhizopod), putting forth a process of its body as a temporary arm or leg, or else slowly wrapping itself round a microscopic plant, or morsel of animal substance, thus making its whole body a mouth and a stomach; but these phenomena are as nothing to those described by Cienkowski, who narrates how one Monad fastens on to a plant and sucks the chlorophyl, first from one cell and then from another; while another Monad, unable to make a hole in the cell-wall, thrusts long processes of its body into the opening already made, and drags out the remains of the chlorophyl left there by its predecessor; while a third Monad leads a predatory life, falling upon other Monads who have filled themselves with food. Here, as he says, we stand on the threshold of that dark region where Animal Will begins; and yet there is here no trace of organisation.
So protoplasm -- which we now call "cytoplasm" and know to be full of cellular organelles, molecular machines, RNA molecules, enzymes, and numerous other crucial biomolecules -- is considered by Darwin's favored authority on the subject to be the "simplest form of organic life," which is a "microscopic lump of jelly-like substance" that is "destitute of texture" and "destitute of organs" with "no trace of organization." This same authority believed a eukaryotic organism like a Rhizopod is little more than a "formless lump of albuminous matter." Not exactly a ringing endorsement or appreciation of the complexity of the cell.
Origenes_{April 10, 2016
April
04
Apr
10
10
2016
06:26 AM
6
06
26
AM
PDT}

Origenes: let’s not equivocate between ignorance and intuition Then don't. The human experience is of an Earth that is stable and fixed. It's only through science that they know the Earth moves. The common-sense expectation for humans is that the Earth is fixed beneath their feet. Origenes: For instance Darwin’s ignorance led him to endorse the view that the cell is a “lump of jelly-like substance” with “no trace of organization”. From your own citation, Darwin: A cell is a complex structureZachriel_{April 10, 2016
April
04
Apr
10
10
2016
05:53 AM
5
05
53
AM
PDT}

Zachriel, let’s not equivocate between ignorance and intuition. For instance Darwin’s ignorance led him to endorse the view that the cell is a "lump of jelly-like substance" with "no trace of organization”. This nonsense is due to ignorance — based on inadequate perception — not intuition. Obviously we now know Darwin was dead wrong, based on an adequate perception of the cell. Similarly, without the perception of ‘the Earth floating in space’ intuition has no chance whatsoever to make sense. --- @30 :)Origenes_{April 9, 2016
April
04
Apr
9
09
2016
01:21 PM
1
01
21
PM
PDT}

Turtles all the way down, Origenes Adamantius. You should know that.Axel_{April 9, 2016
April
04
Apr
9
09
2016
12:24 PM
12
12
24
PM
PDT}

Zachriel: Even assuming the Earth is free-floating (...), it’s counterintuitive that people on the Earth’s surface are tracing complex orbits in space due to the combined effect of the Earth’s rotation and revolution.
Why? The opposite is true: given that the Earth is free-floating it is counterintuitive to think of the Earth as fixed. Fixed by what? A turtle?Origenes_{April 9, 2016
April
04
Apr
9
09
2016
12:20 PM
12
12
20
PM
PDT}

Origenes: as a prerequisite to have intuition about something there must be an adequate perception of that object. Yes, and perception of the Earth was as a fixed object, not one where the motion of someone on the surface is a complex curve moving at high velocity. Origenes: “Given the fact that the earth is free floating in space why would anyone expect that the earth is fixed? Even assuming the Earth is free-floating — which is something that is not intuitive —, it’s counterintuitive that people on the Earth's surface are tracing complex orbits in space due to the combined effect of the Earth’s rotation and revolution. Why else do you think it's referred to as the Copernican Revolution?Zachriel_{April 9, 2016
April
04
Apr
9
09
2016
11:25 AM
11
11
25
AM
PDT}

Zachriel, as a prerequisite to have intuition about something there must be an adequate perception of that object. IOWs without the perception of 'the Earth floating in space' intuition has no chance whatsoever to make sense. That's why I wrote: "Given the fact that the earth is free floating in space why would anyone expect that the earth is fixed? By what? A turtle?"Origenes_{April 9, 2016
April
04
Apr
9
09
2016
09:40 AM
9
09
40
AM
PDT}

Origenes: "I’m not at all convinced that this is the case. Given the fact that the earth is free floating in space why would anyone expect that the earth is fixed? By what? A turtle?" In fact, that is what many North American natives believed.Indiana Effigy_{April 9, 2016
April
04
Apr
9
09
2016
09:34 AM
9
09
34
AM
PDT}

Sorry Me_Think, theory precedes mechanics/embodiment. In any case, Heisenberg was evidently a theist. I'd like to say, 'Nice try', Me_Think, but I don't want to soft-soap you. It wasn't that germane, in any case, was it ?Axel_{April 9, 2016
April
04
Apr
9
09
2016
09:17 AM
9
09
17
AM
PDT}

Origenes: Given the fact that the earth is free floating in space why would anyone expect that the earth is fixed? You have been brought up in a culture steeped in science, and marinated from an early age in images of the Earth "floating in space". It's not intuitive, but the result of living in modern society.Zachriel_{April 9, 2016
April
04
Apr
9
09
2016
08:58 AM
8
08
58
AM
PDT}

Werner Heisenberg vs. the New Atheists https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fzu8as5sanYbornagain77_{April 9, 2016
April
04
Apr
9
09
2016
08:35 AM
8
08
35
AM
PDT}

Zachriel: the common-sense expectation for humans is that the Earth is fixed beneath their feet.
I'm not at all convinced that this is the case. Given the fact that the earth is free floating in space why would anyone expect that the earth is fixed? By what? A turtle?Origenes_{April 9, 2016
April
04
Apr
9
09
2016
08:26 AM
8
08
26
AM
PDT}

Origenes: Zachriel doesn’t seem to understand the term ‘counterintuitive’. We're using the standard definition, contrary to common-sense expectation. Origenes: Why would that be counterintuitive? Because intuition informs us that the earth must be unmovable? Because the common-sense expectation for humans is that the Earth is fixed beneath their feet.Zachriel_{April 9, 2016
April
04
Apr
9
09
2016
06:27 AM
6
06
27
AM
PDT}

Sorry Axel, it was Werner Karl Heisenberg who contributed most to QM, not Planck, which is why Heisenberg was awarded the Nobel Prize in Physics for 1932 for the creation of quantum mechanics Planck originated quantum theory, which won him the Nobel Prize for Physics in 1918Me_Think_{April 9, 2016
April
04
Apr
9
09
2016
05:38 AM
5
05
38
AM
PDT}

Nice Einstein quote Axel. Of semi-related note Double Slit, Quantum-Electrodynamics, and Christian Theism – video https://www.facebook.com/philip.cunningham.73/videos/vb.100000088262100/1127450170601248/?type=2&theater Hitler Reacts to the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle – video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MlJYUIXAAQ8bornagain77_{April 9, 2016
April
04
Apr
9
09
2016
04:22 AM
4
04
22
AM
PDT}

Sorry, Nirwad, I've just spotted your post, as the protocritic of 'counterintuitiveness' as an alibi for oxymoronic tosh.Axel_{April 9, 2016
April
04
Apr
9
09
2016
03:53 AM
3
03
53
AM
PDT}

It has been said that towards the end of his life he had become simply a deist, but such attrition by a spirit of cynicism towards the end of a very distinguished scientific career (in the case of Darwin, utterly misconceived), which had seen its heyday decades before, is not unusual, especially when the period was interrupted by a world war and the political regime of a deranged dictator, who proudly proclaimed barbarism to be admirable, having a purifying effect, and from whom the lives of themselves and their families were in danger. Planck's son, I believe was executed, accused of being part of one of the plots to kill Hitler. Einstein's career and beliefs followed a similar path. It all puts me in mind of the remark made by a British politician, the late Enoch Powell, to the effect that all political careers end in failure. Understandably, perhaps, having been lionized so greatly by the world in the heyday of their great successes, it seems that the geniuses of science tend to feel greatly let down - though the reality is, of course that their achievements in their younger days were epoch-making, and more than most men would dare to expect, never mind expect to continue to their dying breath. But then they were human, and the acclaim was obviously bound to become somewhat addictive. Anyway, both Planck and Einstein had been very scathing about the atheist, scientific Establishment of their day, and eulogized about Judaeo-Christian teachings - Einstein, notably, as the supreme purveyor of morality. My apologies for failing to correct in a timely way my seemingly erroneous assertions concerning Planck's putative theism towards the end of his life. Incidentally, Below, Planck seems to suggest a faith-knowledge continuum, as evoked in some of the Psalms : 'On the other hand, Planck wrote, "...'to believe' means 'to recognize as a truth,'Axel_{April 9, 2016
April
04
Apr
9
09
2016
03:30 AM
3
03
30
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply