|
|
|
Jim, Your post brings up several possibilities for discussion. I haven't yet read the decision. And the first point I am about to make is a bit tangential to your post, but here goes. What I have a problem with is the decision making process itself in this sort of case. I suppose the present legal system has to be accepted (for lack of a better alternative) for the simpler issues such as traffic laws, etc. But it sure seems odd to me when judges start making decisions in the arena of science/religion, life's realities, and what gets taught in school classrooms. Has Judge Jones studied biology longer and better than Behe? Does he have some priviledged insights into both the theory of evolution and religious truths? I really doubt it so I am not all that interested in what he "decides." And who is this reasonable person that is set up as the standard? Is it reasonable, I ask as an example, for an average person to sit in a capitol case as a jurist and vote whether a person is guilty or not? We all know there are several instances of innocent people on death row. I say it is NOT reasonable for jurists to condemn defendents to death, nor is it reasonable for judges to make decisions about the unknown. Some things are too important and/or mysterious for judges or reasonable people to be making decisions. Teach the kids in school about all the theories that exist so far. Period. That is the end of the legal decision. Of course that doesn't end the debate, but that 's what learning is all about - discovering and debating about all the facts and ideas. As for your thoughts about subjecting Rawat to a court of law; I, too, would love to see it happen. I think he has committed an obvious crime - taking money from people under false pretences. I think he could be sucessfully prosecuted, and monies returned. And the cross-examing event itself would be rewarding for those of us who were involved, regardless of the final "decision." As for the merits of Intelligence Design vs the Theory of Evolution, let's not even go there (again).
|
|
|
|
Will, You really should read the decision before you criticize it. Judge's make decisions all the time between competing experts, scientific or otherwise. If not them, who? At the end of the day, we're all just people and the most we can bring to any issue is knowledge and rationality. In cases like this, the witnesses provide the knowledge and the judge provides the scales to weigh their arguments. Forcing him or her to provide written reasons subject to appellate review is a great way to bring rational scrutiny to any issue. What Jones did here is a perfect example of the system working just fine. He not only routed out false and specious arguments but honed in on the deceivers' veiled agenda. Read it! 
Gotta run to court!
Modified by Jim at Wed, Dec 21, 2005, 11:42:10
|
|
|
|
Well, there really is an interesting question going on about who gets to make what decisions. As soon as you have more than one person involved, you get that problem! I really had no comment about Judge Jones' decision itself because I didn't know what the decision was or even what the actual issue was. My only comment in my post above was that certain issues should not be legally decided. There are many such issues. For example, pop music in Iran. The Death Penalty. Whether evolution is correct or not. Who can say what in any classroom. What have we got now??? A ban on talking about ID in a biology course??? Because that would be unAmerican??? Now I have read through the NYT article and see that the judge has declared that Intelligent Design is a religious, untestable idea and not scientific, and that it violates the United States Constitution to teach about it in a science class. What utter bullshit! I've never heard of such nonsence. Oh, wait a minute. Yes, I have. Hundreds of times. Troughout history, judges have been making arrogant assholes out of themselves, and I am confident the trend is far from over. My personal opinion is that a science course that teaches evolution should include the teaching of the controversies surrounding that theory. It should also include the caveat about the limits of scientific investigation as we humans currently define it. I am also very aware, from my earlier studies on Intelligent Design, that many scientists in this country are of the opinion that biological design models can be subjected to verifiable testing, although this has not yet been accomplished. This endeavor has absolutely nothing to do with Christianity or the Bible. Furthermore, the attempt to explain the origins of the elements, of molecular order, of living matter, etc. must reach into areas where the current scientific mechanisms and understandings are clearly inadequate, whether or not they are labelled as adhering to any stated standards of science, as if the universe itself is actually limited to mankind's scientific method. I have read the other comments in this thread and I don't have the time to further the discussion here. It would take literally days and days and even then there would be little resolution. For me, it's just an amusement to shoot my mouth off from time to time on these topics, and of course I do not have any alternative solutions to the U.S. legal system or any ideas about how to get all the religious controversies out of school boards, etc.
Modified by Will at Wed, Dec 21, 2005, 13:23:20
|
|
|
|
And you seem a tad misinformed or uninformed on this issue. Evolution is a scientific theory, but a "theory" is as good as you get in science. It's something that can be tested through the scientific method. Even "gravity" is a theory. That's science. And at least when I took High School biology (in a Catholic High School), the parts of theory about how how creatures changed over the eons that the theory of evolution as then known didn't explain completely (or rather that wasn't tested completely) (the holes in the theory as it were), were disclosed. As a "theory" it is constantly being subject to testing. But the "theory" has been heavily tested and the evidence is overwhelming that it's basically accurate with reality, based on the scientific method. So, you can teach it as science if you want to, it's not "religion." ID says that some being designed the universe because, well, it's just so obvious because it's like, so complicated. That cannot be "tested" and therefore it is something other than science. It can be taught in schools, just not as "science," because it isn't. The courts have now concluded that it not only isn't science (based on scientific expert testimony which the judge got to see), it's religion. The judge in this case was dismissive of the creationist school board, which said something like the world might have been designed by a robot, or maybe a time-traveing alien or something. But he just said that was dishonest, and not what they intend, and they intend that the designer is "god." We have a first amendment to the Constitution that forbids establishment of a religion, which the courts have interpreted as meaning "promoting" a religion. So, a government school can't teach religion as "science" because that would be promoting a religious point of view, particularly ONE religious point of view, over others, and that's promoting a religion with government resources, which is not allowed by the constitution. The reasons the courts decide these constitutional things is because the forefathers decided you shouldn't leave it up to a vote, certain rights being so important. Tyranny of the majority, and all that. If interracial marriage was put up to a vote, for example, it would have been soundly defeated for probably a couple of decades after the courts said banning it was illegal on constitutional grounds.
Modified by Joe at Wed, Dec 21, 2005, 15:17:19
|
|
|
|
Your view of Intelligent Design is different than mine. It was suggested just a few years ago and it proposes possibilities of ways to examine the design of the universe. So far, no conclusions have been put forth by the theory, only the possibilities of discovery in the future. The theory starts with the observation that there is in fact intelligence in the universe and we perceive organization and design, a design that follows a pattern that has a purpose. What I mean by purpose, for example is that eyes are the way they are in order to see. I don't a purpose or divine plan such as religions might suggest. The theory of ID specifically does NOT propose anything about a supernatural being or a GOD or anything about Christianity. However, the Christians have adopted it to their own purposes. I believe you are arguing against the Christian perspective, and I agree completely with you on that. The differences between religion and science is just as you say, and I agree with you and the courts. But I do not accept that a theory of design necessarily has to be religious. A person who is trying to understand the actuality of the universe would not care how actuality is perceived and understood. My own problem with the theory of evolution is its reliance on genetic mutation naturally selelcted. I simply cannot accept such a mechanism for the organization that exists. Gotta go.
|
|
|
|
My own problem with the theory of evolution is its reliance on genetic mutation naturally selelcted. I simply cannot accept such a mechanism for the organization that exists. 'The organisation that exists', exists. Natural Selection offers an astonishingly impressive explanation for organic existence on planet earth. Do you have a better understanding - something we've missed? - Just asking, no pressure...
|
|
|
|
(I did not have the opportunity to respond yesterday). Way, way, way too simplistic, Nigel. (And all you others). Natural Selection is a tautology. And genetic mutations are 99% harmful. All you people who say you understand and accept the theory of evolution are simply accepting the current absolutely measley standard of human Knowledge without acknowledging the two gigantic problems I stated above. My own opinion is that there is something going on that is as yet undefined by human investigation. All matter is condensed light (energy). It condenses first into the elements and continues "arranging" until matter becomes aware of itself, and again apparently arranging until this awareness becomes intelligent (a state that remains to be fully realized). I know this sounds like the sort of world view that leads a person to practicing Knowledge (and it is), but the fact that Rawat's Knowledge is fraudulent doesn't mean that we should shut down our efforts to contemplate the universe. I fully accept evolution of species, once there are species, by DNA changes that are beneficial. Bird's beaks certainly illustrate the differences that exist. Duh. But light should just stay light. There is no reason for light to condense into matter since it would be so much easier just to stay light. And once hydrogen and carbon exist, (by unfathonable effort), is it inevitable for the other elements to develop as they have? My answer is no, it is not inevitable. And the organization that is required for what we call "living matter" is so hugh that for anybody to spit out the words "natural selection" as an explanation for organic existence (as you just did, Nigel) is, in my view, so simplistic and unthinking as to be entirely unworthy. I'm a little disappointed that there are no other forum members backing me up here. I agree that Intelligent Design should not be taught in sciences classes in the manner that Christian school board members have called for. I agree absolutely. But that leaves the design question open for every single living human being. "Design" is a problematic word because it implies a designer, so there may be some better word such as "organization" or even "purposeful organization." Again, by purpose, I mean that eyes are organized in order to see, and wings are organized in order to fly. How a flying creature evolves from a non-flying creature is simply not explained. At least not to me. Maybe some people find the current "scientific" explanation complete and wholly acceptable. I don't.
|
|
|
|
Hi Will Well I certainly do not think that the evolution hypothesis (increasingly becoming a theory) is a complete and whole scientific explanation for all that exists in our universe. On the contrary I think that the evolutionary paradigm (for want of a better word) is just that, a paradigm. For now it remains the best explanation, supported by a large body of evidence, of how living matter has 'evolved' from primordial matter to where we are now. However there remains large gaps in explanation for what we observe and see around us. At a larger level, that is beyond the living universe, string theory and M theory gives us valid pointers to possible explanations as to how light has transformed into other matter. I do have some problems with intelligent design explanations as it, to me, infers some kind of external (intelligent) force that is designing on an active basis the universe we live in. The reason I have a problem with such an explanation is that there is no supporting evidence for such an external force. For me to accept that ID is true in some way would be a matter of faith, nothing more nothing less. However as I said there are large gaps in our knowledge and explanations and I fully anticipate that, in time, better hypothesis and theories will be proposed which evidence will support. Behe's hypothesis, as I understand it and bear in mind I have not done much reading of his work, seems to be based on irreducible complexity. I suggest that this irreducible complexity is simply a matter of no adequate explanation having been found, or proposed so far. In a similar way to evolutionary proposals having 'gaps' i think that Behe's irreducible complexity is simply a matter of gapping, gaps needing an explanation supported by evidence rather than postulating something such as an external intelligent force which has no evidence. So in essence I do not wholy discount anything, including the possibilty of an intelligent external lifeforce, however I feel uncomfortable in wholly accepting such a proposal due to lack of evidence. I'm sorry you feel the responses you have received have been too simplistic. T
|
|
|
|
Thanks, (and thanks for your other posts as well). External? what a funny word to use in this context. But I know from experience that it is hard to avoid using funny words. I think you are using that word in the same way that some people use "supernatural." I think the distinction is simply a mistake. Mind is not supernatural. Whatever forces exist do exist, it is not necessary to label them natural or not, or external or not, especially if you use the term "life force." The distinction seems to exist from our viewpoint, yes, (and we are somewhat forced to use that dualistic language), but from the larger viewpoint of the exacting force, nature is everything. Yuck, another word difficulty. Another word that comes to mind is "will." Light does not will to travel in the sense that a person wills to travel. But obviously light travels. More importantly it condenses. And atoms hold together, in so many various ways. As I asked before, why does it do so? Is it by mistake? Genetic mutations are in fact mistakes, and it is incredibly rare that they confer some survival advantage. So I ask - what really is the large body of evidence people talk about? I think there is just as much evidence, all around us, to support the theory that a universe without life would never and could never come up with life. One last point. Intelligent Design is not an explanation. It's still just a question. It simply postulates that we can detect design anytime there is a state of irreducible complexity. This is entirely true in the world as we know it on our own level, and may be true in the universe at every level. For biology at the cellular level there is a probelm of detection for us. So this is the current question, one of human detection with our minds and our senses. The "design" or "organization" or "form" or "piece of matter" is already there. It is an effort to test the currently prevailing explanation that there is no other force than lucky mistakes. A thing that exhibits irreducible complexity cannot be a lucky mistake. So far, there have been no conclusions offered by the scientists working on the question, only a "thought study" by Behe on a particular flagilum (sp?). Although ID is a brand new term, and although it has caused an uproar, the question is age-old and will not go away. I don't think that anybody should consider the question answered.
Modified by Will at Fri, Dec 23, 2005, 13:52:02
|
|
|
|
Genetic mutations are in fact mistakes, and it is incredibly rare that they confer some survival advantage. So I ask - what really is the large body of evidence people talk about? Take a look at this and other related articles on Talk.origins
Related link: Talk Origins on randomn mutation
|
|
|
|
Yes, I've seen that. That is the precise topic for me. I dropped the subject a few years back, because I seemed to have reached the end of what has been written. I came to the conclusion that no one has any conclusion the I can understand. I'll give it a short re-try, but after the holidays. Won't be around for awhile.
|
|
|
|
Hi again Will Recognising that we are all on a long slide into family stuff over the next few days ( ) I wonder if you feel that ontology (in its various guises) has anything to offer us in understanding the question of evolution vs. ID etc or more broadly truth? I came to Rawat, or rather I was due to what was promised, with the firm intention of repeating various what i thought were deep insights and stuff I had in earlier years. For many years after becomming a premie and practising principally the techniques I believed and felt strongly that I was gaining those self same 'insights' that I had originally sought. Anyway, I digress slightly, the point I wanted to ask you is if the insights one supposedly gains through meditation (or whatever means one uses) actually offers a true insight into the 'nature' of the universe. The theory (ok ok hypothesis) being that if such a thing as primordial intelligence does actually exists, then one (as part of everything) may be able to tap into such an intelligence, and thereby gain 'answers'. Ok, all the above is very wild and wacky and I really, to be fair, do not believe in such a thing, but in many ways one could argue that that is a central point of what Rawat is on about. That is by connecting to the 'heart' one connects into some universal lifeforce which itself is truth with a capital T. As we use to sing, 'row row your boat, gently down the stream'. T
|
|
|
|
You wrote: 'Genetic mutations are in fact mistakes, and it is incredibly rare that they confer some survival advantage.' Genetic mistakes (or copying errors) are present in every new generation. And precisely because they are ever present, the opportunities for conferring survival advantages are, too, ever present - even if they increase your chances of having one more grandchild - or great-grandchild etc., than your neighbours. Copying 'mistakes' are only mistakes if you apply a human value system by which 100% accurate copies of the nucleotide bases during combination are considered 'correct'. Mutations are essential for evolution, provided they are the exception, rather than norm, within a single genotype - this provides the within-species variation that allows selection to happen. Variation + descent are the essential ingredients for evolution to happen. Variation + descent + competion (brought about by changing environmental conditions) make selection not just likely, but inevitable. It's not rocket science - yet it took twenty-thousand years of human culture before Darwin made the mental connections. Now - sigh - just 150 years later there is this powerful swing back to superstition, 'ancient wisdom' and tedious fundamental religionism. Not to mention idle speculation... Have you read 'The Blind Watchmaker'?
|
|
|
|
The mutation for white skin was supposedly identified in the last year. White skin would have no survival advantage, would even be disadvantageous to some extent if it happened in a sunny climate which it probably did, yet it led to a whole new population evidently. Dawkins might play the sexual attractiveness card here, and that would be guessing, but my point is that all talk about selection seems rather silly to me, since traits that get selected are then deemed advantageous. Personally, I am a very good example of that theory because I have wings and I can spray like a skunk whenever I want to, but that's just me. Most people have all kinds of problematic traits that somehow got selected. (course that's an argument against design as well).
|
|
|
|
Looks like you nailed it!
|
|
|
|
White skin would have no survival advantage ... Dawkins might play the sexual attractiveness card
Sorry Will, this is ugly. I'm pretty sure you don't understand what you just said, and didn't intend its clear implication. You come across as a nice guy. But tell me, why do *you* think God (whoever) would design so many people with a sexually unattractive colouration?
Let's talk about the natural survival advantages of a heavily pigmented skin. An evolutionary scientist like Dawkins would understand that fully modern humans evolved in Africa. A few of them then emigrated out of Africa to populate the rest of the world. That happened something like 70 or 80 thousand years ago.
Now, loads of melanin (the human skin pigment) in the skin protects against sunburn, and melanin is black (there's actually a whole bunch of melanins of slightly differnet hues, which explains why human skin comes in so many hues and tones). The point is that there is no reason to believe that our African ancestors were any paler than modern day Africans. So, as you correctly implied, it is the *loss* of pigmentation from a significant part of the current human population that needs to be explained.
Evolutionary biologists explain that it takes some energy and metabolic effort to produce melanin. Also, heavily pigmented skin is less able to use the action of sunlight to synthesise vitamin D, a substance essential to our human health. Without sufficient vitamin D, one is liable to develop the dibilitating condition known as rickets.
The suggestion is that in the recent Ice Age (around 30000 years ago) pockets of fully modern humans were isolated in eastern Europe and in central Asia. There would have been so little sunlight in those days, and so little skin exposed, that a skin with little melanin would have been a positive advantage. And one would have saved the energy costs of synthesising the unhelpful melanin as well. It's a fact that there is some natural variation is skin colour among humans, just as there is a natural variation in height, or hair colour. In Ice Age Europe and Central Asia, paler people would have been at a slight but significant advantage.
These facts about the relative advantages of darker or lighter skins are generally well known (tho perhaps not to advocates of Intelligent Design). I would respectfully suggest that, if you find this way of thinking of any interest at all, you may benefit from ploughing through a book like "Out of Eden" by Stephen Oppenhiemer.
Science and the scientific method is important. There are the *only* way we have of escaping from the bubbles of our own imaginings -- the only way we have of finding out what the world is really like -- and what we really are. That is why it is important to be clear what constitutes a *scientific* theory, and what is just wishful thinking or nightmarish delusion.
And that is why it is important that the methods of reason and evidence have prevailed in the Dover case.
Jonti
--never a premie
Modified by jonti at Wed, Dec 28, 2005, 03:37:48
|
|
|
|
Jonti, OOOOOOOO, that makes me mad. Are you American? How can you possibly think I made an unintended racist comment? My comment was NOT implying ANYTHING about white people's inherent superiorty to blacks in sexual attractiveness or anything else. My comment was entirely on point about the scientific theory of natural selection, which states that mutated new traits can be selected if they are either (1) advantageous to the individual's survival, or (2) sexually attractive to other individuals in the population. It is now claimed that the gene that mutated producing white skin has been identified. It was mutated in an individual within a black population, obviously. Since white skin cannot be consider an improvement to an indiviual's survival chances, that leaves the evolutionists with the other alternative - sexual attractiveness. (This is their argument for peacocks, by the way). I think it is quite obvious to any person that black people are just as sexual attractive as white people, depending of course on one's personal tastes. I am so sick of Americans being over-sensitive about race issues, to the point where nobody can open their mouth without unintentionally offending somebody. I suppose it is no different in Britain and Europe although the problem there might now be more sensitive regarding Moslems (who are quite sexually attractive also, I'm sure - if they ever uncover themselves). (oops, did I say that?) If you did not understand the point I was making about Dawkins possible argument, then I am not responsible for the impression you might have about my racist viewpoint. This makes me furious because I have had to deal with this issue at work: One day a black lady came into my office and said "hello." I said "hello" back to her. She became livid with anger and said: "What did you say to me?" and then stormed out of my office. I went to the director and demanded that he get an explanation out of this person. I learned that the black lady had thought I had said "Sambo," instead of "hello." Well, just how much does "Sambo" really sound like "hello" and just how much of a rotten bastard am I anyway that I would call some lady a racial slur for absolutely no reason?! I would not call anybody a racial slur even if I had a reason. As far as the rest of your post goes, it is outdated. As I said, it was reported in the news a few days ago that the actual gene for white skin was indentified this year, and it is surmised that this particular gene mutated in an individual person within a dark-skinned population before early humans lived in northern climates. I was commenting on the implications of this new discovery.
Modified by Will at Wed, Dec 28, 2005, 10:12:07
|
|
|
|
I suppose it is no different in Britain and Europe although the problem there might now be more sensitive regarding Moslems (who are quite sexually attractive also, I'm sure - if they ever uncover themselves). (oops, did I say that?) Your loaded innuendo betrays your inner thinking. I have lived in heavily populated Muslim areas for over 30 years. In fact I once lived only 50 yards from a Mosque for over 5 years. In that time out of many thousands upon thousands of Muslims, only two women wore the black dress and veil. They were always treated with respect, much as Christian nuns would be treated, and I don't think anyone thought that the issue was simply a case of them uncovering themselves to see how attractive they were. Yes Muslim women are attractive as judged by the 99.9% that never wear a veil. I'm surprised it's not the same in the USA. Perhaps you simply live miles from any other human beings which might explain your ignorance. One day a black lady came into my office and said "hello." I said "hello" back to her. She became livid with anger and said: "What did you say to me?" and then stormed out of my office. I went to the director and demanded that he get an explanation out of this person. I learned that the black lady had thought I had said "Sambo," instead of "hello." Well, just how much does "Sambo" really sound like "hello" and just how much of a rotten bastard am I anyway that I would call some lady a racial slur for absolutely no reason?! I would not call anybody a racial slur even if I had a reason. Yet you bandy racial innuendo as if it was meaningless. I am sorry that you were subjected to such an incident that you describe and appreciate this must have been unpleasant especially when considering how incredulous it is to confuse the words "hello" and "sambo". I knew an English woman once that lived in another country of white westeners and was subjected to racial abuse from a group of them in a launderette she was visiting. After they left a Vietnamese lady that was sat opposite said to her, "At least you're white. You can walk down the street and keep your mouth shut and no one knows." How sad. But I don't expect you appreciate that with your dislike and irritation with political correctness in regard of racist comments. I also don't see any understanding from you of what must have happened previously thoughout the black lady's life to have made her react the way she did, even if she was mistaken. However, I am sorry you were subjected to such an incident on that occasion that you describe. My experience is that those that defend the right to be open and thus allowed to express racist comments while claiming they are innocent and the target should not be so sensitive are themselves racist who simply seek acceptence by the majority for their attitude, thus making it socially acceptable to be racist. After all, the victims should not be so sensitive they claim. Yes, you are clearly ignorant and either educating yourself or indulging in more mixed race social contact would help you.
Modified by MarkT at Thu, Dec 29, 2005, 05:59:49
|
|
|
|
Mark, whereas Will's comments could be interpreted as racist, they could also be seen as harmless and totally non-racist. From Will's posting history on these forums I am inclined to the latter view, but then I usually lean towards seeing the good in people. I find it's usually best to give others the benefit of the doubt until by their continuing behaviour no room for doubt is left.
So why not give each other a hug and make up please!
John with his admin hat on
|
|
|
|
I am sure you are correct about Will and if that is so then I hope he will appreciate my point too and understand that.
|
|
|
|
Boy, do I NOT appreciate your point. Please do not lecture me again. For your information, I am a gay man and I know personally what unfair social discrimination can feel like. And, furthermore, I am not offended when somebody talks about homosexuality in a joking manner when their friendly intent is obvious. I don't know how I could have been more obviously joking and friendly in my comments about sexual attractiveness, other than not to have said anything at all. And that is what I'm tired of.
|
|
|
|
Well, I did say I "hoped" you would understand my point but I didn't hold my breath. I didn't think I was lecturing you but simply stating my experience and perspective. I thank you for responding and do appreciate your point in regard of your own experience of discrimination which I deplore. I never commented in regard of sexual attractiveness and actually agree with the point you raised regarding its effect. That is clearly demonstrated in the western world by the undoubted sexual attraction between many white blond women and black males. I also agree that these issues are very sensitive and difficult to discuss without elaborating in depth so that missunderstanding does not arise. My final point remains though that even with the most sincere of motives, it is unrealistic for the "white" community to decide what is best to help de-sensitise "blacks". While such intent may be sincere it still opens up an opportunity for others to direct racist abuse while later claiming it was meant in humour. Such a situation would simply result in racial abuse becomming socially acceptable to a degree and also make it difficult to determine who was actually being racist. I regret that you can not understand that perspective. For the record, some people say things that are well meant but wrong and others say things in the heat of the moment that they later regret. I don't think either are racist. However, some know exactly what they are doing and simply hide behind a mask of alleged good intent to manipulate situations. It is indeed regrettable that you can not appreciate that. You can be assured I most certainly will never "lecture" you again. However, perhaps you should re-examine your own posts and consider how they appear. I offer no apology in regard to my response to your posts which do raise contencious issue. Freedom of speech is as much my right as it is yours. Today, I see things clearer and that must be a good thing. So Happy New Year to you all, and don't tell me you were dreaming of a white christmas. You see Will, that is humour.
Modified by MarkT at Thu, Dec 29, 2005, 11:36:46
|
|
|
|
The idea from Will's linked Washington Post article that he has seized on was (and I quote) (other scientists) have posited that (pale skin's) novelty and showiness simply made it more attractive to those seeking mates
So it's a guess, aimed at filling the gap which the "Vitamin D" hypothesis would leave, if that well-established hypothesis were found to be incorrect. One wonders why they bothered.
Still, we do find cases in Nature where organs of sexual display and ritual are so showy and excessive they cause problems to the animal concerned. But the showy animals manage to disproportionately pass on their genes anyway, because their comparative reproductive success outweighs the problems caused by the otherwise excessive showiness.
The tail of the male peacock is an obvious case. As are the enormous antlers on stags. A couple of obvious examples from modern humans would be the excessive size (as compared to other primates) of the male genitalia, which make it very difficult to run, particularly through undergrowth, except when suitably clothed. And of course, the excessive size of the female mammary glands (as compared to other primates) which likewise can make it very difficult to run except when suitably clothed.
Like the Peacock's Tail, the hypertrophy of these organs is likely to cause problems to their owners, but problems which are manageable enough that the organism's increased reproductive success outweighs the disadvantages.
There would need to be a lot of work done to establish that a pale skin works in the same sort of way. For starters, most hypertrophy for sexual display is strongly sexually dimorphic. Well, it would be, wouldn't it? It's driven by reproductive success, after all, so it needs to differentiate between the sexes. But skin colouration in humans shows no signs at all of any sexual dimorphism.
That is not to deny anecdotal evidence that in England anyway (home of that most exogamous of peoples) there is some tendency for females to prefer tall, dark and handsome strangers; and for males to prefer the smaller, paler and prettier girls next door.
But I suspect that is heavily cultural. If I'm wrong about that, perhaps the human race will eventually evolve sexual dimorphism in skin colour, and in few tens of thousands of years, males will be noticeably more swarthy than females, all over the world.
It may be mischievous of me, but I cannot help but wonder what Behe would think of that development
Modified by jonti at Fri, Dec 30, 2005, 04:10:13
|
|
|
|
The geographical variation of skin colour in relation to latitude is consistent and has a scientific explanation, so I am of the opinion that has been the primary influence. I suspect that you are correct regarding the relatively high incidence of attraction between blond white women and black males is a culteral one, but the fact remains a genetic variation springing up in a particular society would have two effects, either increased sexual attraction or the opposite one of rejection. It is probable that both reactions have occured at different times in the development of mankind. Before genetics became as advanced as it is today, the major differences between the different "races" of mankind that were debated were the apparant differences in bone structure such as between Africans, Europeans, Orientals and Aborigenes. So there have always been apparant and superficial differences and I see the genetic argument over skin colour as being interesting but irrelevant when considering the larger picture which for me is that we are all of one race, homo sapiens. It has also been genetically shown that we have all descended from a single female. Look at the variation in other species that have evolved but a bird is always a bird to us. Why do we view ourselves differently? A human being is still a human being no matter what genetic difference occurs. I don't believe any particular variation of human being has shown itself to be a superior development overall. We havent even been around long enough for that to be even worth consideration, is my opinion, and by the time in the far distant future when it is significant this argument will be so superficial anyway that it's unlikely to be even bothered with. One world, one people. That's more important than the genetics to me so Happy New Year to everyone. One point you raise though: A couple of obvious examples from modern humans would be the excessive size (as compared to other primates) of the male genitalia, which make it very difficult to run, particularly through undergrowth, except when suitably clothed. You mean it trails on the ground when you run naked? Well, I am shocked and in no way wish to demean myself, but that is impressive and discounts my thoery that the gene that controls penis size also mutated resulting in all the little pricks leaving Africa for Europe  .
Modified by MarkT at Fri, Dec 30, 2005, 10:54:53
|
|
|
|
The mutation for white skin was supposedly identified in the last year. White skin would have no survival advantage, would even be disadvantageous to some extent if it happened in a sunny climate which it probably did, yet it led to a whole new population evidently. Our closest animal co-ancestors, chimpanzees - which are genetically closer to us than gorillas or orang-utans - sharing 98% of our genes, have pink/white skin. I am not sure of your sources for the 'mutation for white skin'. I can't believe a scientist would even use that phrase, so let that pass for now. But population distribution of early man through Asia and Europe coinciding with the gradual evolution of darker skin once we lost our body hair to counter the carcinogenic effects of sunlight makes perfect sense to me, while explaining the available range of human skin-tints. I can’t remember who reported this – Steve Jones, I think - but you can walk from northern Finland to the southern tip of Africa, and from one day to the next, not spot the difference in colouring among indigenous peoples. Dawkins might play the sexual attractiveness card here… Is that quote or supposition? ..and that would be guessing.. You said it. but my point is that all talk about selection seems rather silly to me, since traits that get selected are then deemed advantageous. Why silly? There is an impressive fossil record that catalogues the less advantageous adaptations, and a geological record which, in so many cases, explains why. Some 99% of creatures that ever existed are now extinct. What kind of ham-fisted Intelligent Designer would come up with set-up so clumsy and aimless that you get 250 million years of dinosaurs, all now dead as dodos and mammoths? Why preserve the scorpion - over the same period - or the bacterium that wriggles into the eyes of African children to cause river blindness? Personally, I am a very good example of that theory because I have wings and I can spray like a skunk whenever I want to, but that's just me. Most people have all kinds of problematic traits that somehow got selected. (course that's an argument against design as well). And when argument fails….? J
|
|
|
|
That's better. The account I gave earlier was derived from Stephen Oppenheimer's book "Out of Eden" -- and if he has been accurately quoted as saying it is a major finding, then fine. One can safely accept it is indeed a major finding for experts in anthropological genetics.
And do note this phrase about the "strong survival advantage (of pale skin) for people who migrated out of Africa by boosting their levels of bone-strengthening vitamin D". Pale skins have a strong survival advantage where sunlight is weak; contrariwise, dark skins have a strong survival advantage where sunlight is intense, by protecting against sunburn and skin cancer. I hope you now accept this central point. You explicitly denied it once when you orinially mentioned the report (without a link). And even though I mentioned the survival advantage of a pale skin where sunlight is weak in my reply where I explicated the argument in some detail, you again explicitly denied that advantage, and without any explanation.
It is a central point, for without that comparative advantage the paler skin would not have been disproportionately passed down to succeeding generations (in the absence of the conjectured perverse advantage in attracting mates).
Consequently, the finding, if confirmed, really does not impact so very greatly on Oppenheimer's earlier best guess as to how pale skin came about. In that earlier account, which you can read in great detail in his book "Out of Eden", he could only assume that natural variation in skin colour was favoured by Ice Age conditions. The process received a boost from a helpful mutation, that's all. Has such a mutation occured under the equatorial sun (and perhaps it had, many times) it would not have found conditions so propitious.
So, that's a clear win for evolutionary theory, and yet another nail in the coffin of intelligent design.
Modified by Jonti at Thu, Dec 29, 2005, 06:43:43
|
|
|
|
No, I did NOT deny any ideas about dark and light skin in various climates. Those ideas are elementary and easily acceptable. What I did say was that the earlier description is outdated, because a new discovery had added significant new data. My comments were entirely confined to the initiating genetic mutation and I stated my opinion that it would not confer an advantage for the individual who first manifested the light skin (on the presumption that man had not yet moved far enough north for it to make any real survival difference). I also stated that the sexual attractiveness argument in this case would be mere guessing. I'm entitled to my opinion and I am entirely of the same opinion now. But, anyway, it was just an example for my actual point which is that traits do get selected that are neither an advantage to survival nor particular sexually attractive. The point I was trying to make was either entirely misunderstood or simply ignored. And then, I attempted humor in my posts and I have now been accused of being an ugly racist, by more than one poster. This is intolerable. But an even larger point is the orginial one, beginning this thread, about Intelligent Design. I wanted to argue against the people who equate ID with creationism. It is my opinion that there is a significant distinction, one that Behe has made great effort to make. But I will not defend that position here any further.
Modified by Will at Thu, Dec 29, 2005, 09:42:50
|
|
|
|
But an even larger point is the orginial one, beginning this thread, about Intelligent Design. I wanted to argue against the people who equate ID with creationism. It is my opinion that there is a significant distinction, one that Behe has made great effort to make. But I will not defend that position here any further. The so-called 'difference' is just window-dressing as far as I can see. The creationist's views are informed by the Bible. So are Michael Behe's (he's a practicing Catholic), but he's smart enough to leave that part of his world-view out of his analysis, relying instead on the concept of 'irreducible complexity' in Nature allegedly making Darwinian evolution impossible - whilst apparently blind to the vast, added layers of irreducible complexity required by the existence of an intelligent designer. And what is an intelligent designer, anyway, other than a creator? Or does he/she just draw up the blue-prints and send them along to the creation labs for others to implement? Daniel Dennett did an excellent job of demolishing the scientific/philosophical premises of Behe's work some five years ago. A quick web search will easily find it, if anyone's interested in the finer details.
|
|
|
|
White skin would have no survival advantage
from Will's post entitled The silliness of advantageous mutation above
Since white skin cannot be consider an improvement to an indiviual's survival chances from Will's post entitled Racist comment above
I did NOT deny any ideas about dark and light skin in various climates.
from Will's post entitled No thanks to which this is a reply.
But you did deny that a pale skin could confer a survival advantage. You denied the idea that a pale skin confers a survival advantage (where sunlight is weak -- or anywhere else for that matter).
Now you've denied denying it. I find it hard to believe you are being sincere with me, and discussing things in good faith.
Modified by jonti at Fri, Dec 30, 2005, 03:15:53
|
|
|
|
The point I was trying to make was either entirely misunderstood or simply ignored. And then, I attempted humor in my posts and I have now been accused of being an ugly racist, by more than one poster. This is intolerable. I don't think anyone has meant to accuse you of being racist. I certainly don't think you or anyone else at all on these forums are but your posts appeared insensitive and it having been pointed out what a decent person you have been over the years, it seemed only fair to point that out to you and to place it in a wider context. I hope you would do the same with me if you thought that my posts appeared homophobic. Remember, the difference between racial prejudice and homophobia is that racial abuse is directed at children so young that they themselves do not understand what is happening. Both are deplorable but we are all adults and can rationise the matter here, despite the difficulties of communication using this medium and format. To even attempt discusion on these topics requires courage and I respect your attempt to debate the matters.
Modified by MarkT at Fri, Dec 30, 2005, 05:01:09
|
|
|
|
Have you ever noticed it's easier to walk up a very steep hill backwards? That's because one does not have to lift one's heavy thighs so high in order to swing the foot in the direction of motion. Were our knees to bend the other way (as with most, all?) birds, then the effort to take a step would be greatly reduced. Some silly scientists think this is because we are descended, way back, from quadrupeds. I just think God goofed. Christ knows he makes some rotten decisions.
And have you ever wondered why humans are the only animal that risks death with every mouthful of food? Unlike with other species, each bolus of chewed food has to pass over the entrance of the airway to the lungs. That's because of the stretching of our comparatively long throat, and the low position of our larynx. Some silly scientists think this is because the larynx descended to facilitate the production of speech, and the advantages of speech outweighed the risk of choking to death. I just think God is having a laugh. It's just lila that a person who is told something funny while eating is likely to die laughing.
And have you ever wondered why an intelligent designer would allow childbirth to be so difficult and painful in humans, compared to other animals? Some silly scientists think this is because the pevis had to be strenghened and narrowed as an anatomical adaptation when our ancestors became bipedal. I just think people are born wicked, and it's God's way of punishing us, well the women anyway, for bringing more humans into being.
Modified by Jonti at Thu, Dec 29, 2005, 06:38:29
|
|
|
|
Will, Evolution's been proven in spades and that's the reason it's universally accepted by the very people whose opinions matter most, the scientists who actually do the work, invest their lives studying the field and fight and watch each other like hawks -- friendly hawks at times, I'm sure, but hawks nonetheless -- for errors and ommissions. You're lancing windmills when you take that on and if all you've got is just some whimsy about when, in your imagination, light should stay light instead of turning into matter, sorry, Will, you've got nothing but your imagination to fight with. What I like so much about this judge's findings, and what brings it so close to home for me as an ex-premie, is that he didn't stop at simple findings of fact on the issues at trial but commented on the obvious deceitfulness and bad character of the ID proponents. One must wonder, Will, in their case and ours, if the facts were in their favour, if the issues were even close, why the ID proponents, like Rawat and his apologists, can't be honest. Have you read the judgement yet? It doesn't sound like it.
|
|
|
|
Yes, I've read the article and we agree on that point, the judge made the right decision - against the school board. I also like it whenever the judge socks it to the jerks before him. You and I also agree that evolution definitely happens. We only diverge in opinion when DNA mutations are cited as the source for new evolutionary pathways. (But you and I have already beat that horse). Behe and others are trying to find some scientific evidence against the mutation theory and I'm glad they are doing so. They haven't succeeded so far, but I can always hope.
|
|
|
|
I agree with Will and others that the Theory of Intelligent Design, which in the particular context of Dover really represents a rehash of Creationism via the Biblical model, should not be represented in classrooms as scientific. It should be reserved for classes on comparative religion. However, the idea of intelligent design with small letters is and probably will always remain debatable. As Will asks, how does light become matter, and by which means do hydrocarbons come to have life and commence the process of mutation? What is actually true is some form of ‘creative’ process which has brought us all to exactly the point we are at now. It seems to me that the logical reductive analysis of the event will always lead to dead-ends or blocks, while we await for the super-rational answer, which might not actually exist. There is, of course, another approach, which says that something willed it, with all its complexities and failures, just because it wanted it so. While a total rationalist might go bananas about this, the notion of design through will yet imagination is not irreconcilable or arcane to everyone. Any artist can reconcile the notions of form and intention and randomness without effort. Any true work of art is the result of planning combined with a good dash of intuition and letting things occur by abandonment. It is entirely possible that there is a creator who has made it all take place entirely according to his/her own pleasure. Despite all the complexities, one thing seems to remain true: We as humans feel inside ourselves the power of love, within which all of our problems seem to dissolve. There seems to be a power of love which underlies the creation, knowing which we can resolve harmoniously into a comfortable and natural relationship with the whole thing. Maybe there is a god or original power who can be extremely fickle on the outside, yet by knowing whom we feel taken back to a feeling of homeness and sanity.
|
|
|
|
There seems to be a power of love which underlies the creation, knowing which we can resolve harmoniously into a comfortable and natural relationship with the whole thing. I used to think that. Now I see it's just wishful thinking. You want to love the universe? Go right ahead. I might even join you at times. It's certainly quite an impressive set up, that's for sure. But there's no evidence at all that there's a power of love underlying it. You're just being romantic.
|
|
|
|
Do you agree with Jones that the ID people are dishonest and, if so, what does that say about their approach to truth and knowledge? (You'll have to read the judgement to answer this.)
|
|
|
|
Nature is one hell of a battle ground and so too is human life. What with all of the battles in one's life, the obstacles to overcome and sometimes really nasty people fu--ing things up, if one still has any energy left then yes, love is a very nice luxury.Look at nature and look at evolution and it's a constant battle, though. Those deer's antlers are there to inflict injury on other prospective sires. If that stag wants to procreate he's going to have to fight for it. I guess having evolved this far, we perhaps can step back a little from nature's struggle that we've been thrown into and know love, perhaps even compassion if we're lucky but for me anyway, I don't see it as the driving force of nature. The world is cruel, nature is cruel and so are many people. Self preservation for oneself and one's offspring seems to be the ruling force, to me.
|
|
|
|
I'm a little disappointed that there are no other forum members backing me up here
I'll back you up Will, & apologies for not doing so sooner, but you know how it is, time is of the essence...........I've always believed JS Haldane's observation that the universe is not only queerer than we can imagine ,but queerer than we can suppose, to be true. My view on this controversy is that is has little to do with any real understanding of how the we got here from there, & everything to do with who gets to indoctrinate children in the State of Pennsylvania.
Evolution is just a theory,& one with a great many blank spaces in it ; if such an eminent non believer as Stephen Hawking can say that the Universe seems to have been pre-programmed for the development of intelligent life then where does that leave the argument?
I don't like either 'Darwinism' or 'Scientism', its hobgoblin twin. His theory has been exploited by too many of those who would like to build their perfect world at the expense of the weakest, for me to think it a foundation from which to base an explanation I could live with.
Merry Christmas.
|
|
|
|
Pat, Whether or not he thought the universe was "queer", Haldane was a pioneer of modern evolutionary theory. What's "queer" is your using him of all people to slag evolution. As for Hawking, well, read the lecture linked. He's not disputing evolution either. Anyway, I do agree with one part of your post: Merry Christmas! Jim
Related link: Hawking on origins of life
|
|
|
|
Genetic mutation is rife and no genes are passed on as an exact (mixed up) replica of the parents. I don't have the figures but big genetic mutations happen regularly and with natural selection, only the mutations that increase the birth rate of offspring will spread and predominate in the species, by dint of the fact that those mutations are increasing the procreation rate of the creatures who have those mutations. Can you grasp that?The whole theory of evolution stands on that premise. Look at it and see how it works over time. It is simple and yes, natural - natural selection.
|
|
|
|
only the mutations that increase the birth rate of offspring will spread and predominate in the species, I think that's partly true, but in reality, I think it's mutations that increase the likelihood that offspring will also actually reproduce, are the ones most likely to spread. This is why some mutations that actually tend to decrease the birth rate, but which help those who are born to survive and reproduce, also spread.
|
|
|
|
and quite correct. I guess I was trying to put it in simple terms but yes, "it's mutations that increase the likelihood that offspring will also actually reproduce, are the ones most likely to spread".
|
|
|
|
I don't understand the scientific theory that much especially when considering genetics but is evolution not simply a random numbers game obeying the laws of large numbers. Those humming birds with longer beaks could access a greater number of flowers for food and so ensured their survival. They were thus able to reproduce in greater numbers until the shorter beaked hummingbirds eventually went extinct and the longer beaked hummingbirds became the norm. In other words a case of the simple laws of large numbers applied to a random phenomena which is a reasonable explanation to me even if it cannot be proven. Intelligent design however, requires me to simply accept that there is some guiding principle. In other words it requires blind faith on my part and can never be proven. That doesn't sound like a reasonable argument to me and therefore not scientific.
Modified by MarkT at Fri, Dec 23, 2005, 06:35:57
|
|
|
|
Your humming birds example puts it all in a nutshell, which is what I was trying to do earlier. I don't agree that Darwin's evolutionary theory can't be proven though and experiments with fruit flies which have short generations have given favourable results.Also, just look at the constant battle to outwit ever more antibiotic resistant strains of bacteria as the bacteria evolves to resist the current forms of antibiotics. There is Darwin's evolutionary theory illustrated before out very eyes - through the microscope.
|
|
|
|
I'm in a bit deep already to be honest but our own development since birth demonstrates that neural processing also works on a random basis but then determines which method was successful and adapts accordingly. For example, as young children attempting to pick up an object for the first time, our brains would activate circuits according to each attempt. The strengths of the circuits for unsuccessful attempts would become weakened each time while the successful attempts had their corresponding circuits strengthened until eventually we could pick the object up every time using the most powerful neural circuit that had been developed. So even our own adaptation to the world around us has been a hit and miss affair. Genetics appear to provide a plowed field in some ways; how we adapt to the environment also plays a part but in regard of evolution it just appears to be a random selection that is available and in response to a particular environmental change some will be more successful, simply by chance. That's as scientific as I can get on the matter. -
Modified by MarkT at Fri, Dec 23, 2005, 08:52:46
|
|
|
|
We have a first amendment to the Constitution that forbids establishment of a religion, which the courts have interpreted as meaning "promoting" a religion. So, a government school can't teach religion as "science" because that would be promoting a religious point of view, particularly ONE religious point of view, over others, and that's promoting a religion with government resources, which is not allowed by the constitution. The reasons the courts decide these constitutional things is because the forefathers decided you shouldn't leave it up to a vote, certain rights being so important.
I've been scrabbling around the various posts here just to find something of yours pertaining to God, religion and the USA & its constitution so that I can post this and not appear completely OT, hehehe. No seriously, I've just listened to a really interesting 30 minute radio prog from the BBC "Analysis" progs called " Is God on their side". It's just interesting that's all....no big deal.....I'm not looking to argue this or that with you but just thought if you have a spare half hour you'd find it interesting. I thought of you because we've occasionally brushed on the issue ever so briefly and superficially and I've always had the impression that you tend to downplay the role of God and religion in American politics & society whereas I tend to view America as more akin to Iran, say, in this regard,than anywhere in Europe.Obviously I'm probably being a little over the top there but I think you know what I mean. Anyway, if you ever have a spare 30 mins it's a good " listen" and, interestingly, touches on a few things that are often overlooked such as the Lefts role in "religious" politics as well as the Rights. Also on things like the " inalienable rights" in the constitution as being rights directly given from God to America via Jefferson etc.Also, the growing conciousness among many in the States that there really can't be a " decent" governable nation without belief in God and particularly without Christianity. A view that thinks humanists, atheists etc just can't cut it....God and Christianity are needed.Ok, I'm just being simplistic with snippets from the programme but I'd be interested to hear your views on anything you get from it ....if you have time to listen to it, that is. Cheers Dermot PS If you click the link and hear something about Churchill, it's ok, it's just a little preview of a future prog. The Analysis prog follows shortly.
Related link: Is God on their side?
Modified by Dermot at Thu, Dec 29, 2005, 15:47:28
|
|
|
|
My personal opinion is that a science course that teaches evolution should include the teaching of the controversies surrounding that theory. Will, The whole notion of a controversy is contrived. Many people have difficulty understanding or accepting evolution but, for those who actually study this area of science, there is no dispute. In contrast, for example, I believe that there is a dispute within the scientific community as to the root causes of global warming. In particular, is it largely or mainly man-made or rather is it simply a cyclical phenomenon that would have hit us regardless of our impact on the environment? That's a legitimate controversy as even the experts can't decide. Yet. So it would be rather misleading to teach anything about global warming without setting out both sides of the debate. But there is no such debate in evolution. There is no "other side" that deserves mention.
Modified by Jim at Wed, Dec 21, 2005, 21:53:47
|
|
|
|
Science deals with theories that can be demonstrated or falsified, by devising experiments and predicting the results based on the theory. There is no way to falsify the idea that there is some form of intelligence driving the evolution of life unless that intelligence steps forward. If there is no way to falsify it, then it belongs, quite rightly, in the arena of faith, not science. It may well be true but belongs in a religious studies class, not a science class.
To keep this vaguely on topic, I have many times asked if anyone has any proof that the cosmic experiences possible in meditation are of something 'trancendental' or 'divine'. When someone feels a sense of all-knowingness, is there one item of knowledge they have acquired that could not have come from anything else than the moment of knowing everything? If not, then, as Nigel, once eloquently wrote it is only as if they knew everything. So, when a premie believes that Knowledge is something divine, it is a matter of faith.
|
|
|
|
if anyone has any proof that the cosmic experiences possible in meditation are of something 'trancendental' or 'divine' Scientific proof of any subjective experience, which is what consciousness ( mundane or cosmic ) seems to be impossible to get. You simply cannot measure the immeasurable. So, is there a realm of experience that is beyond scientific understanding but not dependent upon faith or belief as associated with religio/spiritual understanding ? Seems to me there is. Is meditation ( not the techniques of Knowledge which in my opinion is not meditation at all ) the process of entering into this realm or is all of this merely an illusion of our subjective consciousness looking inwards? And how can we be sure of anything ?
|
|
|
|
Scientific proof of any subjective experience, which is what consciousness ( mundane or cosmic ) seems to be impossible to get. Why? Brain waves can be measured, so can chemical interactions, so I don't buy that it's "impossible." The ID people make somewhat the same argument, that it "seems impossible" that the world exists without their having been a designer. Lots of things "seemed impossible" at earlier points in time. As knowledge expands what "seems impossible" might not seem that way. So, is there a realm of experience that is beyond scientific understanding but not dependent upon faith or belief as associated with religio/spiritual understanding ? Seems to me there is. Well, again it might seem that way, but I don't buy that "experience" (a word I REALLY dislike), is beyond scientific understanding. I don't know why that would seem obvious to you.
|
|
|
|
Hi Joe, I think what we are refering to here is what is know as the mind/body problem. It goes back to before Plato. In his paper "Facing Up to the Problem of Consciousness" (originally published in The Journal of Consciousness Sudies, 1995 ) David Chalmers defined the mind/body problem as the "hard problem" of consciousness. That is, the question of how physical processes in the brain give rise to subjective experience. This is as distinguished from the "easy problems" of consciousness, which involve understanding such things as the neural mechanisms behind perception, how we pay attention, and the differences between waking and sleeping etc.. The essence of Chalmers' claim is that making progress on the "easy problems," as worthy an endeavour as that might be, does not necessarily bring us any closer to solving the "hard problem". And where a scientific understanding of consciousness is concerned, the hard problem is the problem. I can only say that my own `experience` is certainly not understandable in the scientific paradigm, though scientists might argue it is. I`m not convinced that everything can be explained by cognitive reductionism. Consciousness is the mysterious anomaly.
Modified by Milarepa at Thu, Dec 22, 2005, 05:45:25
|
|
|
|
Chalmer's paper is well worth a read. I've linked to it below. The problem can be succinctly expressed why
do some physical processes give rise to experience?
It seems clear to my mind that, philosophically speaking, consciousness is a requirement for any being that is able to choose (to however limited an extent) its own future. Otherwise we might as well be clockwork mechanisms.
How this actually works out in terms of physical processes, and what that tells us about the nature of the world in which we find ourselves will, I'm sure, be slowly revealed over the course of the 21st Century. And I suspect that will involve a reappraisal of our notion of time; of how time relates to awareness; and of what Albert Einstein meant by his comment that our experience of ourselves as separate from the rest of the universe is a kind of optical delusion of consciousness.
Here's the remark in context ...
"A human being is a part of the whole called by us the universe, a part limited in time and space. He experiences himself, his thoughts and his feeling, as a kind of optical delusion of consciousness. This delusion is a kind of prison for us, restricting us to our personal desires and affection of a few persons nearest to us. Our task must be to free ourselves from this prison by widening our circle of understanding and compassion to embrace all living creatures and the whole of nature in its beauty."
Related link: http://consc.net/papers/facing.html
Modified by jonti at Wed, Dec 28, 2005, 04:26:56
|
|
|
|
This, to me, at this time, sounds like one of the truest statements on this subject I have ever heard
|
|
|
|
Nor convince me that my good works on earth will result in any of us being more than worm food, once you, I and Maharaji have gone to our respective graves, leaving M’s kids to keep the salvation scam running a bit longer You ask: And how can we be sure of anything ? Trust your better judgement...
Modified by Nigel at Wed, Dec 21, 2005, 20:42:22
|
|
|
|
We is worm food alright, of that we can be sure... but is that all that we is ? My better judgement suggests perhaps not.
Modified by Milarepa at Thu, Dec 22, 2005, 08:06:10
|
|
|
|
Philosophically speaking, you can be sure of your own experience more than anyone elses because you are having it. How or what you interpret that experience to be is always a matter for debate and conjecture by other people and you, as the experiencer, can either agree or disagree with other people's analysis. You're free to do so and in a way, nobody can encrouch upon your own experience. Simple logic dictates that other people cannot dispute what you experience since they can't experience it themselves. They are not you and while we may share common experiences such as a rainy day or a TV programme and all of the human emotions, only yourself experiences what you experience - unless people can do a Spock mind meld on you.For example, if you have experienced visitations from another world in your bedroom, it is a reality to you. If other people say that you didn't have those experiences or simply imagined them, there is no evidence as such and you are free to decide yourself what happened. The only way someone could refute your experience of other-worldy beings in your bedroom would be if they discovered a projector or hollogram in your room, manifesting other-worldly beings. Continuing this example, there would be no scientific evidence that such beings ever were or were not in your bedroom so yes, you would be in a realm outside of science. There are many such realms of experience and since there is no evidence either way of what is or is not happening, one can make philosophical judgements on the likelyhood of such experiences being true.
Modified by Dave at Wed, Dec 21, 2005, 21:34:38
|
|
|
|
Well put Dave, Experience is one thing, but the experiencer or rather experiencing is another isn`t it ? I had a strange dream last night and I put it down to the spicy food I ate. The content of the dream was interesting but ultimately transient and meaningless, but I was still there, experiencing it. And here I am, still... remembering it. Always comes down to this apparent moment doesn`t it. The elusive here and now.... I think?
|
|
|
|
Nobody can take away your experience and young Elton now has a new husband. Proof enough.
Modified by Dave at Thu, Dec 22, 2005, 20:11:48
|
|
|
|
is there a realm of experience that is beyond scientific understanding
Yep, all of it. We simply don't understand what consciousness is, or how it can arise from material processes.
Is meditation ... the process of entering into this realm
Nope. That's called waking up. Good morning
Modified by jonti at Wed, Dec 28, 2005, 03:48:26
|
|
|
|
Behe's thesis, that certain biochemical pathways are of irreducible complexity (i.e. there is no possible route by which they could have evolved in stages) seems to me to be eminently falsifiable. I'm expecting it to be falsified any minute now. Neville B
|
|
|
|
Behe comes across as both a fool and a liar in this decision and "irreducibile complexity" is exposed as nonsense. I can't imagine a stronger indictment.
Modified by Jim at Thu, Dec 22, 2005, 09:13:34
|
|
|
|
You really get the sense of how dishonest Behe is when you see him speaking, more than in reading his stuff.
|
|
|
|
Judge Jones examines the "irreducible complexity" argument in page 72 thru 80 of his "Dover" judgement. It is well worth a read. Here's the bit that is relevant to your post ...
As irreducible complexity is only a negative argument against evolution, it is refutable and accordingly testable, unlike ID, by showing that there are intermediate structures with selectable functions that could have evolved into the allegedly irreducibly complex systems.
The Court went on to consider evidence on the claimed "irreducible complexity" of (1) the bacterial flagellum; (2) the blood-clotting cascade; and (3) the immune system.
It concluded (see page 79) We therefore find that Professor Behe’s claim for irreducible complexity has been refuted in peer-reviewed research papers and has been rejected by the
scientific community at large. (17:45-46 (Padian); 3:99 (Miller)). Additionally, even if irreducible complexity had not been rejected, it still does not support ID as it is merely a test for evolution, not design.
So yes, irreducible complexity *is* a scientific notion -- just one which has been ruled out by the facts already!
May I hazard a guess that your science studies are going tolerably well ?
Modified by jonti at Tue, Jan 03, 2006, 12:57:34
|
|
|
|
The conception of a 'reasonable' person seems to me to be one of the most important developments of jurisprudence - it allows that any person (of unimpaired capacity, and who is acting reasonably) whether they are expert or not, has the capacity to achieve a 'reasoned' judgement. When examining 'religion' the notion of reasonableness seems especially important. Within a given religion, so far as it is the free choice of an individual adherent there is no need for any recourse to reasonableness when considering practices or beliefs. But when 'religion' impinges on the secular, when adherents seek to control what non adherents can do or say, or when adherents make use of secular institutions for partisan interests - the reasonableness of such actions must be the basis by which the secular world makes its judgements. >Teach the kids in school about all the theories that exist so far.< The problem for the I.D proponents is that I.D simply is not a Theory - it is not even an Hypothesis. This is what the whole case rested on. Scientific practice has clearly established what a Theory constitutes and I.D fails at every level. Nik
|
|
|
|
The main argument against ID in this case was that it isn't a science whereas the theory of evolution is based on scientific facts that can be verified. The opposition against ID in this case was that it was being taught in science lessons and since ID isn't scientific, it shouldn't be taught in such lessons.ID may be taught in Religious Education and probably is. Personally, I'm against Religious Education in schools and object to my own children being taught the world's religions as if they're something more than myths or fairy stories. I've had quite a few heated talks with RE teachers on this matter. There is one thing that is fundamentally wrong with education throughout the world and that is teachers are teaching things that aren't facts and yet presenting them as facts in such a way that the children or young people then believe stuff that isn't true. This is what happened in the early seventies when Maharaji and his army of Mahatmas came to the West. A whole mythological philosophy was fed to the people who came to Divine Light Mission to receive Knowledge of God or meditation techniques and the subsequent brainwashing of those young people created havoc in many people's lives. Yes, there should be a law against it and this one case of banning ID being taught as a science in Dover is a step in the right direction.
|
|
|
|
I agree with you regarding religion. I went to Catholic School and now look back and laugh at how my chemistry teacher (a nun), tried to compare covalent bonding to the "mystical body of Christ." Fortunately, that wasn't a question on the SAT exam. But in US public schools, American History is taught in a completely biased fashion, at least from the US textbooks, and let's face it, most teachers just teach the textbook. There is a great book out by a professor from the University of Vermont, called "Lies My Teacher Taught Me" that goes through a lot of that, point by point. Of course, you can always also read Howard Zinn's "Peoples History of the United States" which I think has been recently updated.
|
|
|
|
Joe, You're not going to start in with Zinn and Chomsky now, are you? Please!
|
|
|
|
I find the idea of I.D. as credible as the story of Xenu where, it is claimed, that 75 million years ago the apparent prince of darkness needed to flee his home abode and seek sanctuary on Teekeeack (more commonly known as Earth). Xenu, while he was in the process of being deposed, hijacked several billion people and took them to Teekeeack whereupon he blew them all up with hyrogen bombs implanted in volcanoes. The souls of these people were then imprinted with dark thoughts and they forever haunt living people to this day. It is only people who are able to gain a clear state, through a rigorous 'scientific' process, that are able to ward off the negative effects of such imprinted souls, otherwise known as thetens. This is the positive nature of such non-falsifiable beliefs, people who have a 'faith' in them simply 'know' of the 'truth' of such 'facts' and can, if they wish, take comfort from them until the end of their days. This applies to the I.D. faith, it sounds nice and comforting.
T
|
|
|
|
Hi T, This is the positive nature of such non-falsifiable beliefs, people who have a 'faith' in them simply 'know' of the 'truth' of such 'facts' and can, if they wish, take comfort from them until the end of their days. This applies to the I.D. faith, it sounds nice and comforting. Glad that you pointed that out. I suggest Science and Religion are strange bedfellows who`s very existence may be utterly dependent upon the other. Just for the record.... I`m sitting on the fence!
|
|
|
|
Hi Milarepa I use to dangle on the fence for ages but then fell off with a bump a few years ago. Who knows if I ever climb the fence again. However it feels really comfortable this side of the fence. Green grass and soft turf! Which side of the fence am I on? Lets just say I 'know' that the ID faith is bogus! T
Modified by T at Thu, Dec 22, 2005, 06:49:48
|
|
|
|
... hearing that US judge, Jim. I just read through Judge Jones' strong, thorough decision in the Dover, Pennsylvania school board case about "Intelligent Design". The judge just walloped that movement and its proponents. Frequently invoking the standard of a reasonable person, child or adult, he found that the ID people were not just wrong but lying as they tried to hide the origins of their beliefs, claiming they weren't simply creationist by another name (Jones found they were) and as they tried to mount a patently bankrupt attack on science itself. Judge Jones gave these guys the bums rush they deserved for being so tricky and dishonest. He didn't mince words but, in a very clearly reasoned opinion, exposed ID to a serious, serious degree. ‘Intelligent Design’ is actually too silly to talk about. It’s just another term for creationism, which one of my evolutionist heroes, Stephen Jay Gould, (RIP) spent much time in law courts back in the eighties trying to purge from US school curricula, with some success. But obviously not enough… But then, if intelligent design is too silly to talk about, where does that leave Maharaji? Is Maharaj ji too silly to talk about? Now there’s a question I’m going to have to attend to once I’ve got the dog shit off the lawn and tools back in the shed and opened a bottle of something kinder than he will ever be… Is Maharaji safe from the consequences of his lies, requirements, demands, expectations levied at every festival, community satsang; every 'precious opportunity' service moment? I yet hope there are better brains than miine - legal brains - working on this one...
|
|
|
|
I know all you guys just can't stop talking about evolution and religion --  -- but my original point was really about this Rawat guy. And I come back to it: wouldn't it be just god damn fantastic to have a judge do to him and his organization what this judge did to the ID guys? Just dreaming a bit; that's all.
|
|
|
|
wouldn't it be just god damn fantastic to have a judge do to him and his organization what this judge did to the ID guys? I agree Jim, but ask myself... why has it not happened already? Of course, I`m no lawyer, but considering the strong feeling among ex`s and the damning evidence, I`m amazed it has not happened yet. What do you think is preventing this from happening now?
|
|
|
|
Says Judge Jones:
“After a searching review of the record and applicable case law, we find that while ID arguments may be true, a proposition on which the Court takes no position, ID is not science.”
Can’t argue with that. Not Science. Fine. I take no position on it either. “Expert testimony revealed that just because scientists cannot explain today how biological systems evolved does not mean that they cannot, and will not, be able to explain them tomorrow.”
Expert scientific testimony would say that though, wouldn’t it m'Lud? Judge J’s faith in science is touching. I personally am not holding my breath. “We find that such evidence demonstrates that the ID argument is dependent upon setting a scientifically unreasonable burden of proof for the theory of evolution.”
(altogether now)..Aaahhh, poor unreasonably overburdened theory of evolution. ID is scientific? Is not the judge impressively hoisting himself by his own scientific petard? Impressive-… but only to scientists. “ID is reliant upon forces acting outside of the natural world, forces that we cannot see, replicate, control or test, which have produced changes in this world.(thats a lot of forces) While we take no position on whether such forces exist,(again) they are simply not testable by scientific means and therefore cannot qualify as part of the scientific process or as a scientific theory”
Scientific scientific scientific. With there being so much about the world and humans that science too “cannot see, replicate, control or test,” all those "forces"as he puts it, couldn’t this be as much a comment about the limitations of science as of ID? Not testable by science? Big deal. So? Science needs some new tests then.
“Moreover, ID’s backers have sought to avoid the scientific scrutiny which we have now determined that it cannot withstand by advocating that the controversy, but not ID itself, should be taught in science class.” (his italics not mine)
Good one! Go get ‘em Judge! I like this point and his italics. I think he did a good job of winkling the religious maniacs out of the science lessons. Now let him have a go at getting the science maniacs out of the religion lessons!
Ho Ho Ho. Love to all,
Bryn
|
|
|
|
Scientific scientific scientific. With there being so much about the world and humans that science too “cannot see, replicate, control or test,” all those "forces"as he puts it, couldn’t this be as much a comment about the limitations of science as of ID? Not testable by science? Big deal. So? Science needs some new tests then.
What do you have against science, Bryn? (Besides attitude, I mean.) What "new tests" does science need?
Good one! Go get ‘em Judge! I like this point and his italics. I think he did a good job of winkling the religious maniacs out of the science lessons. Now let him have a go at getting the science maniacs out of the religion lessons!
Who are the "science maniacs" and how are they interferring with the "religion lessons"?
Ho ho ho and love to you too,
Jim
Modified by Jim at Thu, Dec 22, 2005, 16:55:31
|
|
|
|
The church of scientism is patently (and tediously) one-sided. Surely everyone knows that. Spoke to Dan Cainer in the christmas rush a few days ago. He spoke warmly of you. He remembers you as a musician more than a legal person. Sally too. All the best, Bryn
|
|
|
|
The church of scientism is patently (and tediously) one-sided. Surely everyone knows that. I can't imagine anything less fair than saddling science, of all things, with the same baggage religion carries which seems to be the thrust of these kinds of statements. It kind of reminds me of something I read on some holocaust revisionist site where the author criticized the "extremists on both sides, the Holocaust believers and their critics". Sorry, it doesn't work that way. Spoke to Dan Cainer in the christmas rush a few days ago. He spoke warmly of you. He remembers you as a musician more than a legal person. Sally too. Nice! I take it Dan's still doing music full-time. What about Sally? She was an artist, wasn't she? Did she ever pursue that further? And then they had some kids too, didn't they? Where are they at on Rawat, by the way? We had some good times living together on Kings Road in West Hollywood, those two, my girlfriend Deb and I. Then there was Dan's brother Jon, out in the valley, a fledgling astrologer without a cent to his name. Hm, whatever happened to him? All the best, Yes, you too. Jim
|
|
|
|
Hi Jim, This is a ferociously complex issue as we know and we could get lost forever in this medium parrying wits and defenitions etc. But just to follow up (slightly askew) on your extreme holocaust picture, I could say that science has had a hand in more death than even the murderous "Holocaust" episode. Fact or not? I think it would be extreme not to believe such a thing:so to be so pro-science as to want to reject the possibility would be, in my view, taking a wilful, unfair stance. On the other hand, science has done a lot more than kill people; It heals, it works. True or not? So to be so anti-science as to desire to refute such a claim would also be being unreasonable . etc etc. But still two stances on the same slippery subject. It depends on who is looking. Ultimately intelligent evaluation has to end up prioritising the individual;the individual is thrown into relief by discussion, so why not make that a starting point. Science strives to objectify the individual observer out, just as religion wants to absorb the individual observer in. I suppose we could perhaps narrow the grasp of the word science for a more conclusive debate.. Or we could move straight to the scientific approach and do what Judge Jones does and manufacture a hypothetical (mythical) person to squint through. We could then speculate on what our creation's perspective would be on the status of "science" in the world... but why? The Judge had fair reason to, in order to reach a conclusion; a verdict on behalf of one orthodoxy (state) on whether another orthodoxy (biblical creationism) could be reasonably conflated with a third (science). But me, I am simply not under such pressure to be so orthodox, nor so compelled to come up with a servicable decision. For me as an individual thinker, I can live with the question. Living with the question is a good example of a cognitional technique which science can not perform. The technique in no way precludes an answer either. Incidentlally the Judge also seemed to equate bad science with good theology! Unfair unfair! True in many cases as a lot of theology is bad, but not in all cases and that's the point.The exceptions are always there, and can not ultimately be measured by the force of legislation. Humans are not amenable to science, but science is to humans though imo. Enough enough! Dan, bless him. I heard him on the radio recently with a song in which he chronicled his whole life from joining the cult,to the present. Called "Doing the best I Can" I think. It contains the immortal chorus:"I can't tell my arse from my elbow but I'm doing the best I can". Listen to that and it will fill you in in its own quirky way on the Dan bio. Its a long song too! Skilful witty but not much money there. Brother Jon employs him as a manager and second in command in the horoscope business. He did Edinburgh and a musical in West End about his divorce! Once again very witty but too good for mainstream! My gaughter was in it and said it was very good. Sally is still firmly meditating, but makes all the usual statements about how we are all on our own really. Had a good chat with her, but I really don't think that exes and premies are on the same ground when they say the past is all over now and were all just free beings. It sounds odd to me. Jon Cainer is probably reading this so all the best to him. He goes from strength to strength-devotee to the end eh Jon? Ah but its not devotion, its intelligent participation. A friend of mine is finishing a book on science et al. Nick Thomas, He's got a website on "Projective Geometry". Worth a look.The coming book will be more popularist than previous one. All the best Bryn
|
|
|
|
Bryn,
I think you are using a different definition of science to Jim. You appear to be talking about the science that makes atom bombs, and robots that start thinking for themselves; whereas Jim is talking about the science that is very careful about making unsupported assumptions when trying to explain observed phenomenon, and goes to great lengths to get peers to test any new claims. I fully support the latter view of science, although atom bombs and androids aren't necessarily bad either!
Please give Sally, Daniel and Jon my regards if you get the chance. I exchanged a few pleasant emails with Jon recently, and it would be nice to get in touch with Daniel and Sally again. Feel free to give them my email address.
John.
|
|
|
|
..and I couldn't characterise science, using any slant of the word, as without assumptions. If however it would admit that its assumptions were self-supporting, that would be fine. So are mine. But to feign that its assumptions are un-supported is bogus. Having a late night here! Wild times (for me). I'm social-ed out truth to tell.. Just more interaction and chatting than usual . I will see Jon and co for party tomorrow so we'll see if owt gets said. Its all so mellow now. I am suspicious as I say but-cool, whatever. I am damn glad I got my exiting strategy cleared up and squared away in detail before Rawat went so invisible. I mean how can you sit their and look at the light and not think "what the hell is this?" But no, Prem has spoken, don't think, just enjoy-and be secretly grateful for the opportunity and the grace that bestowed it on you. Aw come onnnn!" Love and kisses Bryn
|
|
|
|
Bryn, I guess you're right. Science sucks, kinda. Well at least to the extent that religion does. If religion's gonna have to suck a bit then so must science. Fairness and balance and all ... But I looked your friend's site over and I must ask, where in the world can I learn more about this Rudolf Steiner guy? All those big words everywhere, these guys must be onto something important.
Okay, seriously speaking, we should just drop this now because we are obviously never, ever going to see eye to eye on this. The next thing you know we'll have Ken Wilbur in the room and then I really will throw up. Let's talk about something safe -- the Cainers! So Sally and Daniel split, huh? Sorry to hear it. Was that a long time ago? I say the same thing as John, give her and Daniel (not Jonathan) a warm hello for me next time you speak and urge them to email me for a few nostalgic laughs and warm reminisces. I've got a few pics from those days they'd enjoy. jimheller@shaw.ca">jimheller@shaw.ca (I say not Jonathan because I've already tried talking with him. It didn't work. And, at the risk of being terribly politically incorrect and insensitive and all, I must say the idea of Daniel working for his brother is sad. Daniel was ever the brighter, more talented leading light of the two. So now he has to traffic in his brother's bullshit astrology? Yeck!)
|
|
|
|
You taking the mick? I will pass the good vibes on Jim. I think I might be seeing them tonight. What did you talk to JC about? No doubt you tried to extract a confession from him on the spot! (Nobody expects the spanish inquisition, you know) A note for inquisitors:I have recently been having intercourse (!) with Ron Geaves who I also know of old from the same crowd. He was kind enough to send me all his stuff on PPSR and offer to supervise me on a possible phd. But after I critiqued his stuff I have either been put to the back of the queue or am being frozen out. Haven't heard since November whereas exchanges previously were overnight. ( Pass it on, EV monitors, would you? politely of course). I think this agreeing to differ thing has a lot of mileage in it. We are after all very much in the hands of our authors on these things, I mean who of us is personally at the cutting edge of the science subject anyway? We select from the output of the qualified. Premies who stayed with Rawat's outpourings seem to have been placidly and efficiently lobotomized, and no trace for them of scars.M has dissolved himself to them for all public purposes. Scary indeed, but it seems you have to just leave em to it. I mean its not like they are offering anything new that requires some consideration. I think Ron G who declares that his prime interest is the methodology rather than the theology of the study of religion is trying to do a similar vanishing act in academia.He's done the graft, hes got his soapbox, and now he's entitled to spout. Who's to question? He selects who he talks to. (and when). Oh gawd I'm off on one again... Anyway happy new year. Love Bryn
|
|
|
|
As we slide past the milestones of life, our idealism drops away, our curiosity, perhaps even our principles fade to grey, it all goes a little faster and means a little less. Rawat keeps his followers, they keep him. None of it means anything but nothing means anything much anyway ... Chilling. I hear you, Bryn. It is like a scarless labotomy and a disappearing act. God, one can only wonder how this will play out when we really start getting old! ??! Anyway, the thing with Jonathan was that he stonewalled me when I tried to discuss ELK with him when he first put it up. Very smugly dismissive and I just didn't like it. Daniel and Sally were my friends far more anyway seeing as we lived together. Have fun tonight if you're going out. I'm not sure what I'm doing .... Laurie's still sick with this long-lasting cold a lot of people are getting around here and, even if she's better by tonight, I can't see how she should risk it. As for me, I've got to be in decent form when my murder trial resumes and my client takes the stand first thing Tuesday. Might be a quiet one -- the first in a while. Perhaps a good time to commit to a little Wikipedia editting or something. You know, whenever you have a few hours it's always good to help with one or two articles. (Kidding)
|
|
|
|
"-when my murder trial resumes and my client takes the stand first thing Tuesday" Whoa! Keep a clear head Jim,and what ever you do avoid Holy Name! Also:"Smugly dismissive" I can dig in relation to prior conversations with JC. Oh well. 2006 here we come. All the best indeed Bryn
|
|
|
|
...I asked my chemistry teacher ( Irish and Catholic ) what made electrons spin around the nucleus of an atom.She replied " because God made them that way" ( with an amused twinkle in her eye)........I knew that merely meant that she didn't know the answer ( or she was dying for a drink and it would have taken too long to explain). I still don't know the answer. Is there one? oh..and ...would she have been fired in the States for mixing Science and religion ? She was a very dangerous teacher and totally non-p.c. Lessons were a riot as she concocted explosive mixtures the I.R.A. would have been proud of, and set them off in showers of multi-coloured sparks. I never forgot what phosphorous looked like , or the smell of sulphur di-oxide. Wouldn't be allowed now. 
Modified by Lexy at Thu, Dec 22, 2005, 19:49:28
|
|
|
|
Hi Lexy, Yes, those were the days indeed.... tis a different world now. what made electrons spin around the nucleus of an atom I don`t think there is an answer. Of course, I`m no scientist, but from what I can gather the very notion of electrons spinning around an atom has long since been discarded. What is really going on at that level is just not that simple to imagine. But I suppose we need something to teach the kids for reassurance that someone somewhere knows what is going on. Sorry Jim... we keep going off point dont we!!!
Modified by Milarepa at Fri, Dec 23, 2005, 04:14:28
|
|
|
|
And I come back to it: wouldn't it be just god damn fantastic to have a judge do to him and his organization what this judge did to the ID guys? It was before my cult involvement, but didn't a judge have some pretty sharp words about the Rawat clan's 'disgraceful' behaviour at the time they were carving up the kingdom? It could make a crucial addition to EPO main-page content if someone could track it down.
|
|
|
|
I vaguely remember being told (or did I read it in an article?) that the judge asked both Bal Bhagwan Ji and the Maha a question - something along the lines of "What is the greatest sin?"I think Bal Bhagwan said lying was, Rawat said it was "not realising this Knowledge"! The judge said no, the greatest sin was misleading others in the name of God. If the Times of India holds archives for 30 years ago, that might be where to look (perhaps that huge repository of archived newspapers in Colindale might be worth checking).
|
|
|
|
British Library Newspaper Archive (Colindale, N London)Full record display Place
Bombay; India Main title
The Times of India Numbers
[n.s.] vol. 24. no. 118, etc. Dates
18 May 1861-31 Dec. 1889; 20 March 1911-30 April 1940; 27 Jan. 1941-31 Dec. 1942; 1 Jan.-3 April, 17 Nov.-31 Dec. 1943; 1 Jan. 1944-9 Sept. 1950; 1 Jan 1951-28 June 1957; 12 Dec. 1961-31 March 1962; 1-31 May 1962; 2 Feb.-30 Dec. 1963; 2 Jan.-26 Sept. 1964; 2 Feb.-30 April 1965; 6 Aug.-31 Dec. 1967; 1 Jan.-30 May, 3 Oct.-30 Dec. 1968; 1 Jan. 1969-28 Oct. 1970; 2 Jan. 1971-30 April 1974; 2 July 1974-31 Dec. 1982
Notes
Includes 'The Times of India Centenary Supplement', published on 7 June 1938.
Published at New Delhi from Jan. 1971 onward.
Issues from Jan. 1983 onward are held by Oriental and Indian Collections.
Microfilm: May 1861-Dec. 1889; March 1911-April 1915; Jan.-Feb. 1951; July 1964 ... Dec. 1982
Shelfmark
[1861-89;March 1911-April 1915;Jan.-Feb.1951;July 1964-Dec.1982:]MC.1118
[May 1915-June 1964:]C.1118
.
.
.
.
Now the question remains whether copies are kept at Colindale, or whether you need to take a trip to Mumbai to see them!
Related link: British Library Newspaper Archive catalogue extract
Modified by cq at Thu, Jan 05, 2006, 13:52:56
|
|
|
