Reality is the Wall You Smack into When You’re Wrong

_{Barry Arrington

September 15, 2017

Intelligent Design}

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

Reality is the wall you smack into when you are wrong, as KLM inadvertently demonstrates in this tweet. The three combinations are not equal. It does matter which I try to click with. Only one of the three combinations allows the seat belt to function to protect the passenger. If there were a crash, the result of the first two combinations would be “splat.” Here is some nice irony: I am 100% certain that if I boarded a KLM flight and attempted to use either of the first two combinations, they would insist that I revert to the third.

A seat belt buckle is designed to be complementary with the latchplate. One ignores that obviously complementary design at one’s peril.

Comments

GUN
I’m actually glad to see you describe it as a strawman and that you recognize that there’s a link between fitness and the brain’s ability to discern reality.
You are confused. See my latest post. Darwinism says there is a link between fitness and truth. Except when there is not.
But it would be strange to take that to mean that what we see is therefore unrelated to the truth.
Donald Hoffman disagrees with you: “Evolution has shaped us with perceptions that allow us to survive. They guide adaptive behaviours. But part of that involves hiding from us the stuff we don’t need to know. Again, Darwin predicts that believing the truth is adaptive. Darwinism also predicts that believing a falsehood is adaptive. One thing is perfectly clear: Darwinism does not predict that believing the truth is necessarily adaptive (as Sev believes). Barry Arrington_{September 17, 2017
September
09
Sep
17
17
2017
12:44 PM
12
12
44
PM
PDT}

Pindi, Let me repeat myself: “Procreation is the only natural law BASIS for marriage.” (emphasis added) Romantic attraction is a secondary reason. I didn’t say that it was bad or illegitimate. I said it isn’t the BASIS. To claim that it is, is to redefine what marriage is. And yes, redefining marriage that way is both pointless and absurd. I don’t see there would be any compelling interest for the state to be involved in relationships that are just romantic. What are you implying? You can’t be involved in relationship without the state licensing it? What are the consequences if they don’t get licenced? If there are no consequences, what’s the point? That just adds another level of absurdity to an already absurd situation.john_a_designer_{September 17, 2017
September
09
Sep
17
17
2017
10:07 AM
10
10
07
AM
PDT}

Barry,
Straw man. I never said there is not.
I’m actually glad to see you describe it as a strawman and that you recognize that there’s a link between fitness and the brain’s ability to discern reality. I’ve spoken with those that believe that Darwinism claims that fitness and truth are completely decoupled. But if that’s the case I don’t think the example of Oog is a good one, as Oog is obviously doomed as soon as his luck runs out. If I traveled back in time and saw Oog playing hide and seek with tigers, I would assume that Oog is suffering from advanced syphilis or some kind of massive head injury, and also that this affliction must be very recent as he’s obviously not long for this world. He’s obviously someone in need of a caregiver. A better example would be the classic example of the caveman hearing rustling in nearby bushes. The odds may be 1/1000 or 1/100 of it being a panther, but at the time where the caveman hears the rustling it might be better for him to think the odds are closer to 50/50, even though that’s likely a distorted view of reality. In this case there might be such a thing as a healthy dose of paranoia. I read the book that the Pinker quote comes from, but it’s been many years and don’t remember much about it at this point. But IIRC, and as I think you agree, Pinker does argue that our brains did generally evolve for the ability to discern reality and generally has that ability (it would hardly make sense to become a scientist if one believed that our brains didn’t have such an ability) but as our brains didn’t evolve directly for truth, there are quirks and exceptions – in other words he was making an argument for why we aren’t better at it. I remember he said something similar about vision: Our eyes didn’t evolve to collect all the photons out there. Our eyes evolved to only collect certain information, in certain circumstances, that’s useful for survival. We only see certain wavelengths, for instance, and there are all kinds of optical illusions, like mirages. But it would be strange to take that to mean that what we see is therefore unrelated to the truth. If I see a rock, I’m not going to walk into it – I’ll probably trip or hurt my foot. But I also realize that, being that vision evolved for “fitness not truth”, that my vision is limited, but limited in ways that are somewhat predictable.goodusername_{September 17, 2017
September
09
Sep
17
17
2017
09:34 AM
9
09
34
AM
PDT}

For some reason in these comments I see a strong correlation between religious belief in Evolution and religious belief in Unbuckled Rainbow Seat Belts. I think stupidity may be the most recent common ancestor. Andrewasauber_{September 17, 2017
September
09
Sep
17
17
2017
07:19 AM
7
07
19
AM
PDT}

Seversky @29
Sev: By the time of the “caveman” the human brain was already an incredibly complex organ, probably little different from our own in terms of the capacity for consciousness and basic intelligence.
Let's be very clear about one thing: you are not allowed to start with where we are now and assume that evolution somehow produced it. The claim that evolution can produce such is under debate.
Sev:
Origenes: Contrary to your assumption, Oog, under Darwinism, has no free rational choice between several responses to a tiger. Instead Oog is a biological automaton and natural selection has reduced Oog’s palette of responses to one single blind response with survival value.
I doubt that Oog was any more of a biological automaton than we are. As I wrote above, he probably was capable of the same basic intelligence as we are.
If so, then the question is: can evolution produce Oog as a being capable of the same basic intelligence as we are. Again, what you cannot do is simply assume it and suppose that evolution somehow gobbled Oog’s ‘basic intelligence’ together.
Sev: How that came about is still unknown.
Here is what you, according to Darwinism, have to work with: random beliefs and natural selection. Now the question is: can you get from there to ‘basic intelligence’? In post #21 I have argued that this is not possible. Where are your counter-arguments?Origenes_{September 17, 2017
September
09
Sep
17
17
2017
06:16 AM
6
06
16
AM
PDT}

GUN:
Sure, Darwinism likely means our brains were shaped for fitness, not for truth
At least you understand the standard Darwinian line. You are way ahead of Sev. Move to the front of the class. By the way, you might want to tell Sev that "Darwinism" is a thing.
but it’s not as if there’s no link between survival and having a brain that is capable of learning about its environment
Straw man. I never said there is not. Pinker again: “our brains were shaped for fitness, not for truth. Sometimes truth is adaptive, but sometimes it is not.” Eric Baum: “Sometimes you are more likely to survive and propagate if you believe a falsehood than if you believe the truth.” Notice the use of the term "sometimes" in both quotes. Truth is adaptive "sometimes." Believing a false narrative is adaptive "sometimes." Thus, under the standard Darwinian narrative, truth is adaptive except when it is not. That is the beauty of Darwinism, it explains everything -- and its opposite -- with equal alacrity.Barry Arrington_{September 17, 2017
September
09
Sep
17
17
2017
05:43 AM
5
05
43
AM
PDT}

JAD, I don't have any contempt for traditional values. TBH, contempt is an emotion I rarely indulge. But I just wonder how procreation can be the only non absurd basis for marriage. Leaving aside same sex couples, by that statement you condemn the millions of people who do not wish to, or are unable to, have children, to an absurd relationship.Pindi_{September 17, 2017
September
09
Sep
17
17
2017
01:44 AM
1
01
44
AM
PDT}

Example: Oog the caveman thinks Saber Toothed tigers are fun to play with. But he also thinks the best way to play with tigers is to run and hide. Both ideas are contrary to reality. But in combination they result in his survival. Oog is fit under Darwinism’s definition of fit.
So of all the possible actions Oog could have done, by an astronomical stroke of luck he chose an action that results in him not getting eaten. Sometimes people hit the lottery, but they are unlikely to keep hitting the lottery. What’s a good over/under on how long he lives after the tiger encounter? 20 minutes? Sure, Darwinism likely means our brains were shaped for fitness, not for truth, but it's not as if there's no link between survival and having a brain that is capable of learning about its environment. There’s a reason those with advanced dementia, the severely mentally handicapped, etc require caregivers.goodusername_{September 16, 2017
September
09
Sep
16
16
2017
10:13 PM
10
10
13
PM
PDT}

Sev,
Thank you for citing Varki and Brower’s work. . . .Which makes it interesting that you would even refer to it given that sort of untestable speculation is usually dismissed as just another Darwinian just-so story here on UD.
I'm not saying I agree with Varki and Brower. Nevertheless, it is the standard Darwinist line. We are not debating about whether the standard Darwinist line is true; do try to keep up. I am educating you about what the standard Darwinist line is, because your initial comment at 13 demonstrated that you are ignorant of it. Even after your education, however, you still don't seem ready to give up on your idiosyncratic view that Darwinian theory states that truth is always adaptive. If Varki and Brower don't convince you that you are in error about Darwinian theory, maybe other prominent Darwinists will. How about Steven Pinker? He writes: "our brains were shaped for fitness, not for truth. Sometimes truth is adaptive, but sometimes it is not.” How about Eric Baum? He writes: "Sometimes you are more likely to survive and propagate if you believe a falsehood than if you believe the truth." The thing that is most amusing about your floundering is that Barry the ID proponent has a firmer grasp on Darwinian theory than Sev, the proponent of evolutionary theory. Wow, in your worldview, isn't that supposed to be impossible?Barry Arrington_{September 16, 2017
September
09
Sep
16
16
2017
09:17 PM
9
09
17
PM
PDT}

Origenes @ 21
Sev, given Darwinism, Oog’s mind is a incoherent mix of misguided beliefs with survival value. There is no reason whatsoever to assume that a free rational mind results from all this, but that is exactly what is assumed in your question
By the time of the "caveman" the human brain was already an incredibly complex organ, probably little different from our own in terms of the capacity for consciousness and basic intelligence. We still have no idea of how and why it got to that point but if there was no designer involved then the only apparent alternative is natural processes. And even if you propose some alien intelligence as being responsible for intelligent life on Earth, my next question will always be "Okay, but where did this Intelligent Designer come from or is it designing turtles all the way down?"
Contrary to your assumption, Oog, under Darwinism, has no free rational choice between several responses to a tiger. Instead Oog is a biological automaton and natural selection has reduced Oog’s palette of responses to one single blind response with survival value.
I doubt that Oog was any more of a biological automaton than we are. As I wrote above, he probably was capable of the same basic intelligence as we are. How that came about is still unknown. We can't deny that what we experience consciously feels like free will and independent, rational thought. What we also cannot deny is that we are creatures of our history. To some extent, what we are is both inherited from our parents and shaped by environmental influences long before we were aware that we were subject to them. So, what in fact do we mean by 'free will'? Is it something we either have or don't have or is it a question of how much or how little?Seversky_{September 16, 2017
September
09
Sep
16
16
2017
07:13 PM
7
07
13
PM
PDT}

Barry Arrington @ 20
Of course you can change the assumptions of the example such that correspondence of mental impressions with reality increases fitness. But that does your argument no good. Your argument is that correspondence necessarily always increases fitness and therefore natural selection always selects for correspondence
In the long term, yes. But as I think we have agreed, a false belief can also enhance the chances for survival, at least in the short term. The problem with a false belief is that there is a greater chance that it will come into conflict with reality at some point so eventually selection should favor true beliefs.
But don’t take my word for it. Darwinsists Ajit Varki and Danny Brower absolutely insist that natural selection sometimes favors false thinking. They say that the modern human mind evolved when early humans overcame their awareness of mortality by acquiring “a massive capacity for denial.” Varki and Brower argue that all non-humans are aware of their own mortality and thus are inhibited from embarking on enterprises—such as scientific discoveries and technological innovations—that transcend the life of a single individual. By evolving a capacity for denying mortality, subhuman creatures became humans and modern culture emerged. But “reality denial” quickly extended to other aspects of reality and produced religion. This is outlined in Wells’ book.
Thank you for citing Varki and Brower's work. I hadn't heard of it before. It sounds like an intriguing conjecture although, as I understand it, even they admit it is most probably untestable. Which makes it interesting that you would even refer to it given that sort of untestable speculation is usually dismissed as just another Darwinian just-so story here on UD.Seversky_{September 16, 2017
September
09
Sep
16
16
2017
06:47 PM
6
06
47
PM
PDT}

The most significant thing is, surely, that KLM has become so tone-deaf to its passenger base that their creative team never considered that people take seatbelt safety seriously and literally. Showing us all something that won't work in real life as a demonstration of their commitment to diversity or whatever it is they are committed to (this ad isn't at all promising) should put them in the running for the worst PR blunder of the year, international class.News_{September 16, 2017
September
09
Sep
16
16
2017
12:36 PM
12
12
36
PM
PDT}

--But I like the ad: it’s friendly and kind.-- And doesn't make a bit of sense.tribune7_{September 16, 2017
September
09
Sep
16
16
2017
10:25 AM
10
10
25
AM
PDT}

As the following quote illustrates how modern 20th century man abandoned the idea of truth and replaced it with power.
Before his untimely death in November 1963, C. S. Lewis intended to write the story of a fictional character named Ezekiel Bulver, a boy who learned by listening carefully to his parents quarrel that “refutation is no necessary part of argument.” Bulver’s unique insight was that he could avoid the rigorous demands of intellectual life by simply asserting that his opponent was wrong and then following that assertion with an ad hominem attack as supporting evidence. That, Lewis tells us, was “how Bulver became one of the makers of the Twentieth Century.” Refutation requires engagement with ideas, and a striving to understand the truth. From it arise norms of civility, good faith among interlocutors, and a willingness to consider the merits of different arguments. It is easier to denounce without disputation, to assume someone is wrong without bothering to discover whether they are wrong or demonstrating how they are wrong.
Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/451391/scott-yenor-political-state-boise-state-university-sex-gender-culture-wars Of course that trend has carried over into the 21st century. Tragically it has continued to gain momentumjohn_a_designer_{September 16, 2017
September
09
Sep
16
16
2017
08:45 AM
8
08
45
AM
PDT}

JAD & TWSYF, actually, the Op shows that conjuring tricks with words, even by courts and parliaments or publics manipulated to vote for absurdity under false colour of law cannot change reality. They can only collide with it. Lemming marches off cliffs are fatal, regardless of whatever clever tricks are used to induce such a march of folly. And yes, our apostate and willfully en-darkened civilisation is patently in a suicidal hysteria driven by clinging to absurdities. KFkairosfocus_{September 16, 2017
September
09
Sep
16
16
2017
08:16 AM
8
08
16
AM
PDT}

JAD @ 22: Well said, as usual. Your following statement deserves repeating: "Of course, a little beneath the surface of this so-called tolerance was a contempt for people who still believed in traditional values." Leftists seethe with contempt and hate for anybody who disagrees with them, especially when it comes to the homosexual agenda. They are the true haters.Truth Will Set You Free_{September 16, 2017
September
09
Sep
16
16
2017
08:02 AM
8
08
02
AM
PDT}

Pindi @ 15,
JAD, are marriages between a man and woman who can’t conceive also absurd?
Procreation in the only natural law basis for marriage. To base it on anything else is not only absurd but also a perversion of what marriage has traditionally and historically intended to be. That’s what the secular progressive left has succeeded in doing-- perverting marriage by redefining it and then politically weaponing it to undermine traditional marriage and persecute people of faith who support it. I grew up in the 1960’s (graduated from high school in 1969.) The view of the secular progressive left at the time was that traditional institutions like marriage and the family were obsolete and totally superfluous and that everyone should tolerate “free love.” Of course, a little beneath the surface of this so-called tolerance was a contempt for people who still believed in traditional values. So why has the agenda changed? Why is the left now in favor of marriage? It isn’t. It still is motivated by the same contempt. The purpose of SSM is to undermine traditional values and beliefs by subverting them. Anyone who knows a little bit of history knows that’s the truth. But then, truth is another thing that secular progressives have a problem with.john_a_designer_{September 16, 2017
September
09
Sep
16
16
2017
07:47 AM
7
07
47
AM
PDT}

Seversky: In Oog’s case, running away from tigers as a game certainly helps keep him alive as long as that’s all he does. But suppose one day he gets tired of running away and decides to go and have a friendly wrestle with the tiger instead.
Sev, given Darwinism, Oog's mind is a incoherent mix of misguided beliefs with survival value. There is no reason whatsoever to assume that a free rational mind results from all this, but that is exactly what is assumed in your question. Contrary to your assumption, Oog, under Darwinism, has no free rational choice between several responses to a tiger. Instead Oog is a biological automaton and natural selection has reduced Oog's palette of responses to one single blind response with survival value.Origenes_{September 16, 2017
September
09
Sep
16
16
2017
01:03 AM
1
01
03
AM
PDT}

Sev, Of course you can change the assumptions of the example such that correspondence of mental impressions with reality increases fitness. But that does your argument no good. Your argument is that correspondence necessarily always increases fitness and therefore natural selection always selects for correspondence. But that is not what Darwinism states (BTW, pretending that you don’t know what that word means is unseemly and disingenuous. I can’t imagine why you don’t understand that puts you in a bad light). As my example shows, correspondence is only incidentally related to survival. But don’t take my word for it. Darwinsists Ajit Varki and Danny Brower absolutely insist that natural selection sometimes favors false thinking. They say that the modern human mind evolved when early humans overcame their awareness of mortality by acquiring “a massive capacity for denial.” Varki and Brower argue that all non-humans are aware of their own mortality and thus are inhibited from embarking on enterprises—such as scientific discoveries and technological innovations—that transcend the life of a single individual. By evolving a capacity for denying mortality, subhuman creatures became humans and modern culture emerged. But “reality denial” quickly extended to other aspects of reality and produced religion. This is outlined in Wells’ book. Sev, if you are going to exposit Darwinism, you really should keep up with the theory as exposited by its prominent exponents and not try to pawn off your own idiosyncratic version in these pages.Barry Arrington_{September 15, 2017
September
09
Sep
15
15
2017
07:35 PM
7
07
35
PM
PDT}

Barry Arrington @ 16
The reference in the title of the OP is in the context of the way things really are, not Darwinism. So, no, I do not agree. Under Darwinism you can be completely wrong and still survive and the fact of your survival means your are the fittest in spite of the fact that you were wrong.
If by "Darwinism" you mean natural selection then that is the way things really are, although it's not all of the way things are and it doesn't tell us how things originally became the way they are. And we can certainly imagine scenarios in which false beliefs are not immediately dangerous to the holder. But eventually? Consider those indigenous peoples whose religion led them to believe they would be immune to the bullets fired from the guns of the white man. How well did that work out for them?
Example: Oog the caveman thinks Saber Toothed tigers are fun to play with. But he also thinks the best way to play with tigers is to run and hide. Both ideas are contrary to reality. But in combination they result in his survival. Oog is fit under Darwinism’s definition of fit.
Fitness is a relative term. You don't need to be fit in any absolute sense, just a bit fitter than the competition. In Oog's case, running away from tigers as a game certainly helps keep him alive as long as that's all he does. But suppose one day he gets tired of running away and decides to go and have a friendly wrestle with the tiger instead. There's a pretty good chance that's the last misguided decision he would ever make. Oog's cousin Moog, on the other hand, runs away from tigers because he's seen them hunt and kill other animals and figured out that tigers actually see him as a meal rather than a playmate. He will also survive like Oog but he has a better chance of surviving for longer because he would never make Oog's Mistake. That means he would have a better chance of having progeny that inherit at least the basis of his truth-tracking behavior. And if that works for Moog, it will work for others like him. Thus, over time, truth-tracking behavior will gradually be favored by natural selection.Seversky_{September 15, 2017
September
09
Sep
15
15
2017
06:47 PM
6
06
47
PM
PDT}

Oog? Barry, I just couldn't think what the name of that new chief engineer of seatbelt safety is, which KLM patronizes, but yes, it's Oog. Personally, I am flying Air Canada or the bus. ;)News_{September 15, 2017
September
09
Sep
15
15
2017
04:53 PM
4
04
53
PM
PDT}

Sev @ 13:
Can we assume from this that you agree with me that the argument that our minds were shaped for survival but not for truth is a false dichotomy?
The reference in the title of the OP is in the context of the way things really are, not Darwinism. So, no, I do not agree. Under Darwinism you can be completely wrong and still survive and the mere fact of your survival means you are are the fittest in spite of the fact that you were wrong. Example: Oog the caveman thinks Saber Toothed tigers are fun to play with. But he also thinks the best way to play with tigers is to run and hide. Both ideas are contrary to reality. But in combination they result in his survival. Oog is fit under Darwinism's definition of fit.Barry Arrington_{September 15, 2017
September
09
Sep
15
15
2017
04:38 PM
4
04
38
PM
PDT}

JAD, are marriages between a man and woman who can't conceive also absurd?Pindi_{September 15, 2017
September
09
Sep
15
15
2017
04:07 PM
4
04
07
PM
PDT}

lol I wonder if clicking up with someone else on their flights is encouraged.Mung_{September 15, 2017
September
09
Sep
15
15
2017
03:51 PM
3
03
51
PM
PDT}

Reality is the wall you smack into when you are wrong, as KLM inadvertently demonstrates in this tweet.
Can we assume from this that you agree with me that the argument that our minds were shaped for survival but not for truth is a false dichotomy? In other words, if we form false beliefs about reality then, sooner or later, we will run smack into it so natural selection will favor the formation of true beliefs?Seversky_{September 15, 2017
September
09
Sep
15
15
2017
03:46 PM
3
03
46
PM
PDT}

None of your suggestions would be permitted by KLM for the simple reason that they would not be safe for the passenger.
To be fair, he did mention extensions, which are used quite frequently for people of excessive girth.Mark Hammersla_{September 15, 2017
September
09
Sep
15
15
2017
03:02 PM
3
03
02
PM
PDT}

LT:
the current design could be made to work in multiple combinations with some additions and creativity.
That is, of course, false. None of your suggestions would be permitted by KLM for the simple reason that they would not be safe for the passenger. It is amusing to watch reality drive the likes of LT nuts.Barry Arrington_{September 15, 2017
September
09
Sep
15
15
2017
02:36 PM
2
02
36
PM
PDT}

I'm beginning to think that we are not really talking about seat belts. :)Mark Hammersla_{September 15, 2017
September
09
Sep
15
15
2017
02:19 PM
2
02
19
PM
PDT}

"Push back" is your characterization. My characterization is that I expanded on your point that "Only one of the three combinations allows the seat belt to function to protect the passenger," by noting that the current design could be made to work in multiple combinations with some additions and creativity. Some designs work as-is, some function just fine with slight modification. For instance, have you ever seen those little extensions that allow a shirt collar to be attached yet widened? I love complementary design and wouldn't dream of ignoring it. It's fascinating how non-complementary designs work just fine also.LarTanner_{September 15, 2017
September
09
Sep
15
15
2017
01:54 PM
1
01
54
PM
PDT}

To the extent that the KLM PR team is post-modern, they might not think that anyone cares whether the devices actually work. Fact is a form of oppression; narrative is liberating. LarTanner writes at 1: "The straps themselves could be intertwined and knotted. Heck, maybe the belt from the neighboring seat could be brought over. Could be fun." Unless, of course, one actually needs a seatbelt rather than a badly dislocated shoulder or a broken neck. Post-modernism is a war on reality. See also: Question for multiverse theorists: To what can science appeal, if not evidence?News_{September 15, 2017
September
09
Sep
15
15
2017
01:50 PM
1
01
50
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply