The connection between the acceptance of a scientific theory and its aesthetics has been discussed many times in different settings and some have even expressed astonishment that a text that succeeds in its role of describing nature objectively (the scientific theory) also meets the criteria of aesthetics which is usually associated with a subjective set of considerations
The word beauty is used by us to represent a variety of pleasant feelings that we encounter in different situations and the ability to distinguish beauty is seen in our eyes as an important feature in defining ourselves as human beings. It is not surprising, therefore, that this issue has been discussed at length on various occasions.
The way of presentation and the angle of view on the concept of beauty change, naturally, according to the approach of the practitioner on the subject. My personal tendency is to trace the evolutionary origins of human traits and this is the direction from which I want to shed light on the subject of beauty in the following.
I will not deal here with the type of beauty that arouses in us an attraction to members of the opposite sex. This kind of beauty clearly stems from evolutionary origins and almost everyone who has dealt with it has attacked it from this point of view. The types of beauty I will discuss are the beauty in science and the beauty in the plastic arts.
The things I will present were written as part of a letter to the Galileo system and as part of a correspondence with the lecturers at a seminar organized by the University of Jerusalem on the subject of "Mind and Art". I will quote part of the correspondence verbatim, with a few changes that will allow a more fluid reading of the text. I would also like to preface and say that the text in front of you does not pretend to present the "full truth" on the subject but only the conjecture.
Should we be surprised by the aesthetics of science?
The connection between the acceptance of a scientific theory and its aesthetics has been discussed more than once in various settings, and some have even expressed surprise that a text that succeeds in its role of describing nature objectively (the scientific theory) also meets the criteria of aesthetics, which is usually associated with a subjective set of considerations.
This wonder reminds me of the feeling of "enlightenment" I had in my childhood when I noticed that all the actions that nature requires man to perform in order to survive are "miraculously" actions that give him pleasure. It seemed to me then like a kind of gift we received that almost indicates the existence of a loving God. Unfortunately (or happily) it took me a very short time to sober up and realize that this phenomenon is actually required by evolution (because an animal that does not enjoy performing the actions essential to its survival simply will not perform them and therefore will not survive) and does not require divine intervention.
The situation here is similar.
Note the description of the components of that wonderful aesthetic: symmetry, simplicity, unification. These are exactly the features that allow a short and catchy text to describe a wide variety of phenomena. Should we be surprised that we feel a sense of beauty and transcendence when we discover these qualities in theory? Isn't it natural that evolution has "tuned" us to prefer explanations that, on the one hand, correspond to the known facts and, on the other hand, are easy to remember and calculate their consequences? The sense of beauty we feel in front of the theory corresponds suspiciously to the degree of its instrumentality (and I think even those who do not advocate instrumentalism* will admit that the truth of the instrumental standard is ultimately the only standard at our disposal even if we are looking for an explanation that is real and not just useful).
Surely among the readers there will be those who wonder how evolution could have affected our preferences in the field of science that has existed for such a short time. After all, even human consciousness did not appear on earth until recently. My answer to this question is that our preferences in science are derived from a cognitive ability that preceded human consciousness by hundreds of millions of years - the ability to recognize patterns. One or another level of this ability exists in all animals with a nervous system (and forms the basis for studies on the learning and memory capacity of these animals). The formulation of scientific theories is nothing more than the generalization of this ability and bringing it into the conscious and public domain.
Anyone who has experienced the discovery or sudden understanding of a scientific theory or even the solution of a mathematical or scientific puzzle surely remembers the excitement these experiences evoke. Excitement and emotions are usually attributed to deep layers of the brain - ones that existed long before the existence of consciousness. This experience, therefore, reinforces the feeling that the source of our scientific preferences lies in the natural selection of animals that benefit from pattern recognition and therefore gain a higher survival rate.
The above is a quote from a response I previously sent to the Galileo newspaper in response to an article published by the magazine Under the title Elegant Biology.
Aesthetics in art:
A few years after I sent this response, I attended a seminar organized by the University of Jerusalem on the subject of "Mind and Art". Following that seminar, I sent the above text to the organizers, accompanied by the following:
Since evolution instilled in us the pleasures that were essential to our survival and since these pleasures, which were instilled in us even before we could understand the importance of pleasurable action for survival, remained available even in situations where there is no need for survival activity for its own sake (after all, in the end, from not for its own sake comes its own sake), we tend , like other animals, also take advantage of these pleasures "not to fat".
My fondness for puns, combined with the above, led me to whisper during one of the lectures the somewhat vulgar phrase "science and masturbation" - after all, what is art if not exploiting part of our mental qualities for the purpose of pure pleasure while detaching from its original "purpose" (I added the quotation marks to the word "purpose" ” because traits actually have no purpose - there is only a reason for their success in evolution - but this form of expression is more convenient).
And what are those mental qualities on which the enjoyment of art "rides"?
In my opinion - and as it came up almost explicitly in some of the questions raised at the symposium - one of the main ones is our enjoyment of identifying patterns. This opinion connects well with the testimonies of Danny Kraven and one of the speakers in the audience about the contribution that certain explanations make to the enjoyment of the work (explanations that make it easier to identify the pattern or that themselves constitute the context to which the identification of the pattern is nothing more than a link to the work).
This explains the mentioned tension, between the mystery and the understanding, since there is no pleasure in recognizing a pattern that was recognized in the first place - the source of pleasure is actually the act of recognition and in order for this act to occur there must be a period of time when the pattern was unrecognizable.
It also links the wonderful identity between the way the artist expresses himself "suddenly everything falls into place" and the feeling of the scientist who suddenly understands another facet of being and uses the exact same expression (personal knowledge).
I don't believe that pattern recognition is the be-all and end-all of enjoying art. I was only trying to claim that it has an important and central place and more than that - that it is shared by all of us and that it has an evolutionary reason. I am aware from my personal experience of experiences of aesthetic pleasure that do not involve the identification of patterns and I do not know how to place all of them in some explanatory framework.
I deliberately used the phrase "aesthetic pleasure" and not "artistic pleasure" because an artist was not always behind their factors. One of the "views" I loved to watch in my childhood (especially when I lived in Europe due to my father's mission) was none other than highway intersections (mainly a diagonal view from below that allows you to take in both the rounded structure and the height at which this massive structure "floats" in the air. When I tried to trace the sources of that pleasure I finally recognized them in the physical strength that these structures transmit and in the pride I feel in belonging to the same race that is able to erect them.
In my opinion, there is something similar in the works of Danny Craven and I tend to believe that this type of aesthetic pleasure is shared by many and that it can also be explained evolutionary (pride is the pleasure that is "intended", it seems to me, to encourage us to resort to self-publicity in order to increase our chances of finding my son A couple, and this pleasure is not a "spot damage" to the target and we feel it even in situations that do not contribute to our personal advertising).
I felt an almost religious aesthetic experience when, as one of the cadets of BHD 1 assigned to the security of the Sde Boker area on the day of Ben-Gurion's funeral, I opened my eyes in the morning and saw the landscape there. I don't know how to explain this experience, but it seems to me that it is also related in some way to my impression of the power necessary to design such a large flat area surrounded by mountains. I had a similar experience when, in the same officers' course, I climbed with my friends with a stretcher handle on my shoulders on the walls of Ramon Crater and its edges were revealed to me in the light of sunrise.
A slightly different type of pleasure is the one associated with the more classical art which may be nothing more than admiration for the artist's skill (there were times when the degree of realism of the image was a measure of its quality and to me this realism still evokes the same admiration which is nothing more than the urge to resemble the object of admiration; again, for reasons of self-publishing). I feel the same way about surrealist art. I must confess that my clothes in many cases do not evoke any (positive) feeling in me.
I was told that the art historian, Arthur Miller, in his book Einstein and Picasso and in various articles, discussed the issue of beauty in science and art. The last chapter of the book tries to formulate criteria of beauty. Unfortunately I haven't had time to read the book yet. Even on the side of science, there is an attempt to quantify beauty, and one of the pioneers in brain and consciousness research, V. Ramachandran, offers eight visual stimuli that evoke aesthetic pleasure. I haven't been able to get my hands on Ramachandran's article either.
Personally, I find it hard to believe that it is possible to characterize forms or visual stimuli, literally, that evoke aesthetic pleasure in a universal way because, as you must have noticed, this pleasure, at least for me, is related to my private world of associations and my private assessments of "what is easy and what is difficult to do" more than the form itself .
I know, however, that in animals it is sometimes possible to evoke behavioral responses, which in nature are usually evoked as a result of a certain visual stimulus, also by other visual stimuli, and sometimes even more so.
In conclusion, I would like to say that, in my opinion, the theory of evolution provides a suitable framework both for defining the right questions and for speculations regarding the right answers. This framework does not, of course, reach into the intricacies of the nervous system, but it is necessary, in my opinion, both as a stepping stone on the way to that final reduction and because it is possible that at the neural level, similar mechanisms are realized differently in different people (as often happens in experiments with artificial neural networks that are adjusted differently but give, in the end, similar answers).
* Instrumentalism: a philosophy that claims that the nature of an idea is measured by its practical value in life and the ability to use it as a tool to solve problems
for further reading:
Ramachandran, VS, Rogers-Ramachandran, D (2006). The Neurology of Aesthetics. Scientific American Mind, October/November 2006.
HYPERLINK “http://www.amazon.com/Einstein-Picasso-Space-Beauty-Causes/dp/0465018602/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1224710775&sr=1-1” Einstein, Picasso: Space, Time, and the Beauty That Causes Havoc by Arthur I. Miller
155 תגובות
The article is very well written, yet I think that many of the readers will not agree with one of the conclusions, and I quote: "It took me a very short time to sober up and realize that actually this phenomenon is required by evolution (because an animal that does not enjoy performing the actions essential to its survival simply will not perform them and therefore you will not survive) and does not require divine intervention".
Well, I remember an article that claimed that the amount of species on Earth was not enough to survive for a sufficient period of time until these species were sufficient to develop the pleasure mechanism that pushes them to perform the actions necessary for survival.
In other words: if there was no element of reason at the foundation of evolution, we would observe species that, even if they succeeded in evolving, would not survive long enough until they would obtain the pleasure they needed to continue survival.
There is so much wisdom in evolution and so many complex patterns. Why don't we attribute this to some mysterious force in the universe that gives evolution the engine for its activity, instead of assuming that all this wisdom was simply accidental in one of billions of worlds and billions of years and parallel universes???
That. Barzilai:
Indeed, a fascinating post. Thanks.
It turns out that great minds think alike 🙂
What a long discussion. I want to draw your attention to another fascinating post on the subject. He is here
http://www.notes.co.il/ben-hateva/56716.asp
student:
Thanks!
The symposium was organized by the university through the Magid Institute in Tel Aviv (at Beit Dani or somewhere close to it - I no longer remember exactly) on March 31, 2006.
To Michael Rothschild: Fascinating article!! When was the seminar "Brain and Art" held? where? At the Hebrew University?
Givat Ram or Mount Scopus?
In what framework?
Thanks.
enough!
The fact that we were dragged into a discussion about religion even under this article is really excessive - what's more, none of the recent commenters are religious.
point:
This is true, but it can only provide a survival advantage in a war against the sane or in cases (especially rare in an undemocratic regime and almost impossible in a theocratic regime) where the ruler is enlightened.
3) Religious obey orders.
They have no perception of responsibility towards the act, only towards the obedience, and that alone is enough to explain all the reasons.
point:
I agree with the first paragraph.
I think the second one is incorrect.
The first part of this section is incorrect because the belief in life after death leads to underestimating the value of life before death and therefore the "good" feeling it brings is actually destructive from a survival point of view.
The second part is not true because the belief is not precisely in the father who protects them but also in the father who punishes them - a father who reads all the thoughts he has forbidden them to think and commands them in the name of morality to take actions that go against their natural morality and among other things - to kill people who have done them no harm. It must be a terrible feeling that also diminishes a person's will to live.
Michael, the religious have an advantage:
1) Because they used to kill everyone who didn't follow suit
2) Most people feel good about believing that there is life after death and that there is a purpose to their lives and that there is a father figure who watches over them.
Pine:
indeed.
I once responded in Galileo to Prof. Haim Heilpern's article on the book "Is there a God?" of Dawkins.
He wrote that although he is a complete secularist he thinks that religion turned out to be evolutionary because it gave believers certain survival advantages.
In my response I explained - as I often do (see, for example, HERE ) - that religion survives because it collects water that preserves itself - often at the expense of the believers.
I mistook her for a mental virus.
In response to my response Haim Heilpern wrote that it is a fact that most people are religious.
I wanted to respond to his response but I refrained because I was made to understand that there was no chance of entering into a reasonable argument with him.
What I would have written to him is that if appropriate treatments for AIDS had not been invented, most people would have suffered from it from a certain point (I think that in some parts of Africa this is already the case) and then he would have probably claimed that AIDS also has a survival advantage.
Michael,
This is exactly what I tried to convey - evolution always works. But what "works" for that species is not always what is "good" (subjective definition to begin with) in the long run.
Islam may be spreading, and therefore those who try to put evolution on religion (usually those who try to compromise between religion and evolution) can mistakenly conclude that this is what is best for us as a species. But evolution and natural selection have also proven that sometimes even after millions of years of evolution and natural selection the same species will arrive For "dead end" - your knowledge will degenerate or become extinct (whether due to gradual or sudden changes). Look at the dinosaurs - they lived for millions of years, went through various changes in an evolutionary process and yet became extinct due to many reasons (mainly inability to adapt). And yet a new species more, that which only began its evolutionary process survived and thrived (after the extinction of the dinosaurs and the clearing of living space that would allow for development).
This I hope will be the same for religion/faith and science - it is true that religion has been around for much longer, but this does not mean that it is "good" for humanity - its degeneration manifests itself in its inability to accept change and develop. I believe that the human race is at the threshold of a decisive period that will lead to one of two paths - accepting science and reaching new directions and developments, beyond just the preservation of the race. Or... the acceptance of religion (something that manifests itself in the Islamization of the world) and reaching degeneration. And even if we don't become extinct as a race, we will degenerate (imagine a whole world under the rule of the Ayatollahs like in Iran and Afghanistan) and the development - physical and scientific - will stop.
In that case I really hope the human race will have "euthanasia" in the form of an unexpected natural disaster. Most likely, due to degeneration and the halting of the progress of science (with a little luck) we will not be able to deal with the same drastic change/danger and become extinct. And so a place will be made for another race that maybe, again with a little luck, will be more enlightened and reach reason without the need for faith or religion, and will be able to reach achievements without the restraints and delays that those beliefs and believers bring us.
Michael
Not only did I give one example, I gave several examples.
Read carefully and you will find the examples I gave.
fresh:
You still haven't given a single example that religion is preferable in certain situations, but that loses its importance in light of what appears in your last comment as the definition of that priority.
It turns out that you identify "good" and "better" with evolutionary success.
With such a definition - in my opinion you can be sure that good will always win!
I'm only afraid that according to this definition the good is radical Islam.
I am not implying a specific location, I leave it as an open question.
It is certainly possible that religion's time has passed, but on the other hand it may not. This is a philosophical question of worldview, there can be no proof one way or the other. And so all in all I said that there are advantages and disadvantages to religion and likewise to secularism, which approach will win from an evolutionary point of view in the long run? Maybe both.
fresh,
If you agree with me that the process is biochemical and a second presentation claims that it is not in the moon only a biochemical process... then what other source are you implying?
If you are trying to link faith to evolution, then it is true that there are several theories that claim that belief in beings or a supreme being is a process that brought a source of advantage in certain periods to populations (one of the evidences that almost the entire population of the world developed one or another belief). Whether this process caused them to want to conquer territories (for sustenance and food) of other faithless or other faithless tribes (while they excuse themselves that they travel out of a desire to praise God) or another reason - it is quite possible that in a time long past its time, the faith contributed to the spread of Man and especially certain tribes.
But today this feature only hinders/impedes the progress of humanity. Man has matured and matured enough, I hope, so that he can abandon superstitions and promote himself with the help of fulfilling his intellectual potential - science. If indeed evolution worked on faith as we have described, faith would gradually disappear from our world because those with rational thinking, without faith, were supposed to survive in a better way because it is more beneficial to them. But this is not so (although the rate of spread of the belief is decreasing every year). Something that raises the suspicion that not everything contributes is manifested in the process of evolution, therefore it can also be concluded that things that do not contribute, negative, may have been assimilated in us despite the process of evolution. This is how I see faith and religion in general - as something that is assimilated into us and does not necessarily contribute, or in the best case - its time has passed and we need to denounce it from within.
Pine
I never claimed that the benefits of believing in God derive from God himself (nor did I claim that they do not come from God) certainly this is a biochemical process, and does not come from a hidden source, but that does not necessarily mean that the full benefits from the benefits come only and exclusively from a biochemical process alone.
What I claimed was that there are benefits in believing in God (I did not make any claim that refers to the source of these benefits).
In terms of evolution, it really doesn't matter what the reason is that the creature has advantages, the main thing is that it has more advantages.
Of course, religion has many disadvantages, because if it didn't, then we would all be religious.
point:
I also think there is no connection.
After all, the whole debate started with Raan claiming that there was a connection.
To your question at the end - in my opinion it means nothing - especially in light of the fact that the weapons that will be used by the morons are those given to them by the scientists who did not believe that the religious people would try to kill them.
By the way - in my opinion, this is not an imaginary scenario at all.
fresh,
The title of the scientific research article does not do it justice: "a breakthrough in understanding the connection between the body and the mind".
The research on which the news was written, which has holistic connotations, did not speak about a soul - but an investigation of a fact that has been known for a long time. A relaxing activity (such as meditation, a trip, etc.) affects the biochemistry of the body in the expected way - relaxing. It is known that various external stimuli encourage or suppress the secretion of various proteins and enzymes in the body that affect the mood (again, the original article does not talk about the mind). The research simply went deeper in tracking the direct effect between an appropriate stimulus, for example a relaxing activity such as yoga, which encourages the body to create an appropriate protein in the cells - something that occurs in the cell nucleus (including the DNA). It does not directly affect the DNA but creates the right stimulus which in a chain process leads to the stimulation (in chemical processes) of cells responsible for the production of various proteins that affect how we feel.
And again, there is no evidence of any "magical" or spiritual/holistic procedure. It is true that until science investigated the process itself (the "chain process" that leads to the secretion of the depressing/anti-depressing substances) the spiritualists of all kinds enjoyed freedom of action to attribute the effect to "positive energies" etc.
One thing I definitely agree with you. The mental component, in the psychological sense, has a high impact on a person's ability to recover. And the more a person "believes" in external influences such as these, the more chances this self-hypnosis has to have an effect. But again, this is a biochemical process, and does not come from a hidden source.
Probably being a person with a minimum of superstitions (I would like to believe), if I go for some kind of holistic treatment, its effect will be - nothing. Because I don't believe that, it won't help how strong the therapist's "chi" is (may the force be strong in you).
fresh:
It really doesn't belong.
There is no positive effect of faith or religion here, but an effect of a certain practice that has nothing to do with them.
It's like telling me that people who pray in the synagogue are not run over at the same time.
Michael, you are trying to convince Ra'anan, and you seem to be convinced that what we call "good" and what we call "truth" go together.
It is quite reminiscent of the claims of religion, except that there it comes from the opposite direction from you, making people feel good, and then telling them that this is the truth.
I don't think there is a connection, and it's also hard to think of some mechanism that would make sure that there is a connection between knowing the truth, and those greatness of the soul that Ra'an talks about.
Everyone has to choose what is more important to them.
A side question, if they gather all the clergy (billions) on one side, and all the scientists on the other side for a war, who will win? and what does that mean.
please
http://www.nrg.co.il/online/43/ART1/755/527.html
fresh:
Statistical research is research that involves many people - not one.
Can you point to one statistical study that supports your claim?
In most situations and situations in life, mental strength and mental strength is a positive thing that reinforces the fact that there is one statistical study that indicates one case that this is not the case, valid only with regard to the one case to which the study refers, and not valid with regard to the countless other situations that exist in the lives of countless other people.
fresh:
I know that won't work because I already answered your current claim.
I told you that statistically - these "spiritual expansions" caused religious children to suffer from post-trauma more than secular ones.
This is fact tested but don't let the facts spoil your theory.
For example, mental crisis. In my opinion, a religious person has stronger mental impulses than a secular person (I mean only in general, of course there are also certain secular people with stronger mental impulses than certain religious ones), which allow him to overcome the crisis more easily. Of course it can be any crisis from grief to dismissal
Being religious also means that you don't survive alone in the world, you have a whole community that stands behind you and will help you with everything imaginable, money, food, housing, literally almost anything.
And you don't have to pay for a psychologist, the Rebbe has it for free
For a religious person, I also think it is easier to deal with uncertainty, uncertainty creates stress for the secular, while for the believer the level of stress is less because he believes that God will protect him from the uncertainty, and everything will work out, and everything will be for the best...etc.
Of course, there are also many disadvantages to being religious
fresh:
When I was talking about the children in the Gaza Strip, I was talking about a tested and measured effect of belief in God (and it is clear that post-traumatic disorders do not contribute to survival).
It is clear that there are situations in which belief in God contributes to survival, but these are very artificial situations that in all the cases known to me are negative situations created by religion itself (for example - during the days of the Inquisition - belief in Christianity contributed to survival).
Another type of example of religion's support for the survival of the genes (while causing injustice to the individuals who carry them) is the encouragement of certain religions to multiply births.
All these situations are very different from what you mean and I would be interested to hear if you are able to point out a situation where faith increases the individual's chances of survival when it did not itself create the problem that he has to overcome.
I did not claim that belief in God might be better, I argued that there are situations where belief in God might be better. Situations in which a believing person will be more successful in terms of survival/reproduction than the secular person, religion provides many advantages (and disadvantages) to those who believe in it.
The approach in response 39 doesn't really work for me, but if it works for you, then I'm all jealous.
fresh:
It is certain that there are situations in which it is better not to know the truth, but the claim that believing in God might be better in terms of feeling or in terms of survival is unfounded and, in my opinion, incorrect.
First of all - it is clear to everyone that happy lives without belief in God are possible and it is enough to look at a dog to see this.
We use the phrase "dog's life" to describe a bad life - not because the dog's life is bad but because we feel that our lives would be bad if we were forced to live like him with our way of thinking. But I think everyone who has ever seen a dog knows that it is a very happy animal - in almost every terms of.
A closer and more relevant finding can be seen in the fact that not many years ago a study was conducted among the children of the Gaza Strip for the purpose of locating post-traumatic disorders which it was obvious that you would find in them due to the incessant war in which they were subjected.
It turned out that the children from religious families suffered from these phenomena much more (!!!).
This means that the belief that God directs the world and makes sure that it is in order does nothing to reduce the degree of anxiety (perhaps in the secret of their hearts - they also know that they are deceiving themselves?).
I think a life based on the pursuit of truth is a fuller and more fulfilling life than a life based on faith.
Dawkins wrote the book "Unraveling the Rainbow" on this topic and Dennett wrote "Darwin's Dangerous idea" on it. Feynman also referred to him in the autobiographical books written by him.
I personally have a unique approach to the subject - an approach that I tried to summarize in the second half of response 39 (I suggest that you read the whole thing so as not to lose the context).
Maybe at first it is like that.
But, you should understand that it is an illusion, and perhaps the hard kind, to think that verbal facts are the ones that cause one or another emotion.
Because the illusions that every religion provides for the believer is the existence of a god and this idea brings with it comfort. Comfort that there is no finality and end of existence. Comfort that there is a purpose unknown to us: to our lives, to the difficulties we encounter and to the bumps that life produces at almost every step.
It is so much easier to know and believe that there is a world above and there is law and justice and we are not completely alone and life is not a meaningless sequence of accidental existence
Raanan, I did not understand why the illusion that you are not living in an illusion does not make you feel happy.
I liked Michael's response 9.
I strongly relate to comment 36 of an amateur scientist
Evolution in my view is an objective and absolute truth that is not in any doubt. But sometimes knowing the truth is a negative and dangerous thing that can reduce the chances of survival and reproduction of the person who knows this truth. And so there are situations where it is better for a person to believe in an illusion and a false thing and deceive himself, because this will increase his chances of survival/culture. The problem is that once you are exposed to some dangerous truth it is difficult to deceive yourself and believe in another false theory even though you know it is better that way for reasons of survival/culture.
For me, evolution is a truth, but also a *dangerous truth* because it reduces everything and explains everything so well that the magic and mystery disappear, and this creates a picture of reality (at least for me) that is quite gloomy and pointless, and this can, in my opinion, cause a certain despondency and weaken people mentally , and this weakness can make it difficult to deal with crises in life.
I'm sure there are people who can deal with this truth in a way that doesn't weaken them, but for some people it's hard to deal with the truth and it's too dangerous for them. The problem is that once a person is exposed to the truth and recognizes a certain truth as true (such as evolution) it is very difficult to deny it and switch to a false theory simply because it paints a picture of reality that is more mentally strengthening (such as the theory of God the Creator, that there is a purpose, there is reward and punishment, there is heaven and hell). Of course, knowing the truth is a very positive thing for survival and culture (in some cases). There are situations in which you should see the truth and there are situations in which you should see an illusion (situation dependent approach)
Regarding the question of whether to teach the children the (not easy) truth or let them live in an illusory world that is all good, this is a political issue that is decided by the balance of power between the religious and the secular.
Beauty is a difficult concept to achieve. A general concept like science etc. . .
In everything there is beauty either at the micro level or at the macro level, sometimes visible to all and sometimes discovered after searching.
Usually it is partial, and is expressed either in the rhythm or the texture or the composition and more. . .
Sometimes, a harmony is created, in which the beauty is added from all [or most] of the above, so it is impressive.
There is not always a consensus on beauty, but sometimes there is - for example, the conjunction of the celestial elements Venus and Jupiter next to the Moon
As observed this week, as well as a valley of blooming anemones, etc. . .
There is acquired beauty, deepening and learning, capable of opening up besieged worlds of beauty that we did not know existed in the past.
For example, the process of tasting, or drinking wine, there are learning processes that are rooted in familiarity and trying to discover the unknown yet, in general, the types of wine that I will appreciate after I go through a process of tasting and time, will change, refine, refine and I will be able to touch and identify its components, the year of the harvest, The type of tie, so that I will learn to see more complex beauty than at the beginning of the learning process.
Creation is a human ability that can be used to express beauty, naturally we are all aware of beauty even though most of us feel its power only in what is really close to us [often a shame].
Beauty is not only expressed in simplicity, sometimes in complexity. In opera for example, in the universe, in nature, in the weather, in art and also in science.
According to my opinion only [my words are not the only truth, etc. . .]
Beauty [aesthetics] is the most important thing, since it is applied to every field, interest and thing and its importance is still not understood in our generation, but only on the tip of the fork. Beauty is the goal of good, just as we perceive the goal of evil as ugly.
Noble goals, helping others, scientific progress, musical harmony, health, etc. . . are considered fun in our eyes and on the contrary, sick, war, cruelty, violence, etc. are seen in our eyes as evil,
Bad, not good.
In my eyes, the creative person, the planner, the aesthetic aspirant, is at the pinnacle of human intelligence because he manages to connect and contain everything involved in that matter + added values that continue to illuminate our path as a society.
Sometimes beauty is deceiving, flowers are disguised as the beetle's partner, deliberately deceiving her so that they can kill her. This is how the "dark side" of beauty works - the seduction, beautiful to the eye and not inside.
Beauty is not a simple thing, many times there is a deception in it that can even end in death.
Temptation is also a double-edged sword
Oh, I'm late
byeeeee
Hugin:
I enjoyed reading your words but I would like to make one comment.
If I understand correctly - you recognize the real beauty with that which is recognized immediately - intuitively - innocently.
You also speak in praise of innocence.
The point is that, as you mentioned - the speed of thought (which is finite and nothing is ever immediate) is different from person to person and there are those who see immediately what others take a long time to see or even what others will never see.
These people are usually called more intelligent people and not more innocent people.
In general, I also know from my experience that beauty should not be limited to what is revealed immediately.
There is great beauty in science and mathematics and it is not only that it was not discovered immediately, but that it took all of human history to discover just a part of it.
Is the idea I expressed in the article beautiful?
In the eyes of those who recognized the pattern it reveals - the pattern of how we recognize beauty - the idea is beautiful and in the eyes of those who refused or failed to recognize the pattern, the idea does not exist at all.
What is nice is that the article also explains the behavior of those who did not understand it.
In retrospect and from the beginning I have to agree that the title of the article is correct.
I also agree with specific references expressed later regarding the term "beauty" and also as a "brain/"cognitive definition" (that is, with the maturity of "cognition" in the developmental process). The question still remains what are those "primary senses" that share that identification "Patterns" (in: appearance/ logic/ rhythm/ juxtaposition/texture/ and any discovery that evokes "astonishment and wonder") Is this the initial sense of intuition (as in a child, who perceives everything in the blink of an eye)? Or a more complex and lengthy procedure Similar to the "processing of the data: in the brain-nerves" that evoke a feeling of completeness (order-harmony-beauty) and only then the stimulus is raised to the immediate or structured-conscious "recognition".
It is possible that the shared senses have different stimulus threshold levels - and the brain's processing time for the impressions will be different from one to the other (as it is said: "There is nothing to argue about taste and smell").
To my understanding or my "informed fool" (it turns out that there is also such a bizarre thing): the "innocent" part of us is the one that can recognize beauty = as perfection = harmony = pure order = truth / as meta beauty or beauty that does not die, indeed.
And science can also be really beautiful if it conforms and follows the same embracing/guarding principle, a corner of innocence.
And by the way, we often define something that is amazingly beautiful as "lovely"...and personally I would never want to lose the magical tone in life...beautiful=fairy...=happy=happy and happy.
A comment written out of pain about the censor should also be censored in your opinion??
Hope this is just your personal opinion!
Good Day
And let's hope that some cloud will not censor the sun for us.
Sabdarmish Yehuda
To Judah:
And here you wrote another comment that has nothing but elements that justify censorship.
Hello everyone - hopefully I won't be censored
I wasn't there for a few hours and I see that they argued about my honor endlessly, I will mention a few things
I don't intend to retire from the science site, but I will endlessly fight censorship. I also suggest to others who oppose censorship to write this sentence at the top of their response, "Hopefully I won't be censored", or a sentence similar to it.
It's quite annoying when you write a comment and you don't know if it has an address.
And regarding my responses to Michael. They are all backed up by quotes. And if I said that Michael said something, then I immediately quoted the statement.
Nevertheless, Michael tries to convey a message as if I am defaming him. Sometimes I and others laugh at the way he makes sexiness out of his quotes, the main thing is not to admit his mistake. He will be perfumed.
I will not prolong this debate so as not to give reasons for censorship, which is a shame, because I have a lot to say.
I thank all those who preserved our right to an uncensored response - Hugin, little brother and others.
And we wish the little brother success in the trial in a few hours
Now we will access and see the new collection of articles in the science.
good evening
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Michael, the argument with Yehuda is unnecessary. It's just like arguing with a religious person who is willing to sacrifice the truth for his faith.
It turns out that the article I referred Hugin to is also relevant here.
I repeat the reference:
https://www.hayadan.org.il/univese-on-tshirt-006081/
First of all, you see in it that from then until today, Yehuda's understanding of my words has deteriorated (he understood them much, much better then - see responses 5 to 11) and further you see in him (response 12) exactly the place where I explained to Yehuda that his unjustified adherence to Pushing Gravity stems from considerations of beauty instead From considerations of correctness (remember that in the deleted section Yehuda brought this example to try to create a false representation of my inconsistency).
Of course, you can see in response 12 this as further evidence (as if there were no evidence) that I have always claimed what I repeated and claimed, among other things, in response 123 here that beauty is not enough and that an adaptation to reality is required first.
Hugin:
I know you said that in good faith.
That's why I know that your rant here is not suspected in good faith.
Michael
I said in good faith.
little brother:
Again you put things in my mouth.
I repeat for the thousandth time you twist my words.
It's not that beauty has no role - after all, the whole idea in the article (on the topic of beauty in science) is that what we call the beauty of a scientific theory is actually its ability to describe reality in a concise way, and of course when there are two theories that describe reality with the same degree of credibility, we will prefer the concise one (that is, the beautiful one) ) in which but the first criterion above - the one without which the theory must not be adopted - is the test of experimentation and consistency.
In fact, this entire section of the article is intended to take the mystery out of the question that did bother many about the beauty of scientific theories and to show that we simply adapted the word "beauty" to our needs.
If by now you haven't understood what I'm saying, I probably don't have any more effort to put into you.
Little Brother
(after reading your last comment)
As a person with a serious face (A.S.K.I.M……etc.)
Don't confuse my brain with facts approach seems like stubbornness for its own sake.
Recommend you read
The language of symmetry - the equation for which no solution has been found - Mario Livio
You will find how beauty is a completely serious matter
Hugin:
It's important to me too.
The deletions were made in an attempt to maintain this aspect precisely because the debate was far from humane.
I guess you're trying to imply that my face is defective.
what is he saying?
I suppose it is clear to you that I do not particularly consider the judgment of people who prefer liars to my face and bother to imply to me that it is precisely my human side that is flawed.
I also do not appreciate people who choose, for egoistic and opportunistic reasons, to cut down things that were previously said to be sublime.
Those who want to understand what it is about are welcome to read comments 4, 24 and 26 in the following link:
https://www.hayadan.org.il/univese-on-tshirt-006081/
Little brother worships the god of the Mexicans
Blessed are you who shamed your old age with your ignorance
For you, the banality of beauty is stuck in the color of silver and cute curves.
Did you prefer to retire your brain.
Dear Yehuda,
Although we've never met and you don't even know my name, you're a 'pen pal' to Naim (like Michael and a few others). Here by the hour is fine, my father has been holding back for more than 24 hours and that in itself is already an achievement. I have a strong battle tomorrow in court (business) and therefore I must retire to sleep. Do you take turns with me in this doubles tennis?, although the competitors aren't anything, but as 'character goals' they are reasonable (just).
Do you agree that although science is beautiful, testing the nature of a scientific theory through criteria of beauty is roughly equivalent to predicting election results based on watching chicken fights?
Or maybe, as Michael says, there is something in the attitude (look what battery he brought) and the fault is in his poor writing ability?, or maybe the fault is even in our poor reading ability?
The human aspect of the website is important to me.
And in my opinion no theory and no opinion and science are important if the human aspect is damaged in them.
This is no different from the expression "the operation was successful but the patient died".
And Michael, beauty is a matter of interior and exterior.
Hugin:
Yehuda has already returned seven times after being insulted by the erasure of his insults.
He even managed to try to insult some of these comments.
To me, in any case, it doesn't matter who will return and who will respond.
I'm just sorry that this discussion was derailed.
Hahaha I got confused. Thanks to brothers and Michael.
Little brother: After the comparison you made, the idea arises in my mind that it is true that there may be a close connection between science and beauty,
The question is which theory is it about and what is it supposed to serve.
So, with a beautiful smile
Good night
And I hope Yehuda will return, despite the "erased" insult.
Higgs on the blue lines,
Did you take the slot that Hogin vacated? God bless the Mexicans that I don't understand a word or a half of your words.
Maybe drink a glass of water and come back 🙂
The little brother
In the current reality show, it's clear as day that when the little brother brags that he has (ha) a bigger one.
This is a man with bright eyes, curious to learn new things, interested in thinking and opening the mind.
Or in one who is tired of his life who has already seen everything and heard everything and no one will teach him a thing and a half.
And why should we spoil words about you. The style of the great brother Pesha in our districts is very suitable for our people who are sharp-minded and highly talented.
The little brother - regarding your last words to Higgs:
well what to do
It is indeed a topic that interests many people (including all those mentioned in the article and in the correspondence - that is - Vilanor Ramachandran - the great neurophysiologist of today, Arthur Miller, Prof. Idan Segev, Prof. Hanoch Guttfreund, Danny Kraven, Sharon Poliakin and Nissim Calderon) but what to do? In your eyes it is like the link between the movement of the stars and decisions in human life.
You used this phrase as an expression of disdain and Hugin will probably thank you for it, but I'm just saying - "Well, then that's how it is in your eyes. It's a shame you didn't say it until now and instead you tried to tell me what I said."
For the little brother:
I cannot be popular with people who do not tolerate criticism.
You lied there and you lie here too.
The claim that I tried to interpret Yael's thoughts is also incorrect.
The closest thing to this is that I claimed that she saw something that she claimed she did not see (even though it was said in the discussion in which Roy, she and I participated, and each of us responded several times) but, beyond the fact that this is far from putting things in her mouth and beyond the fact that when she said she did not see, I did not argue with you about it - This was only a small part of the discussion.
Most of the discussion was - to remind you - about the fact that she defamed the army without foundation and you tried to base it on lies.
I bring the link here so that anyone interested in the idiotic debate you dragged us into can see:
https://www.hayadan.org.il/letter-to-treasery-minister-1810085/
So that people know who you disguised yourself as there, I will only add that you were a "Technion graduate" and "Danny" there.
I was still just "Michael" because it was even before impersonators like you forced me to take actions to prevent impersonation.
Dear Mr. Higgs,
In my eyes, the link between science and beauty is like the link between the movement of the stars and decisions in human life.
Want to kill me for this? - I lived a good life, you are welcome at any time.
Big Brother
It turns out that you are a bit hurt in your soul bird. I was caught grumbling and angry because I left out a few words in my haste. The degree of your enthusiasm is measured by the weight of the plan you stuck to yourself. A program designed for those with brains below the feather threshold. Maybe a little dopamine will help to improve the situation a little.
So what are you trying to represent a frozen attitude and enthusiasm of old people in a nursing home.
Are you proud of that? Lack of originality and ignorance and lack of interest? You probably didn't bother to look at the sources I pointed to because you don't have a clue what it's all about.
After all, it's not about opinions or opinion, it's about openness and curiosity, and you must have lost that.
You should know that sages have already defined your kind. The nation of the land is the proper name for haters of new thinking, for haters of scholars. It is so disgusting in their eyes that they allowed his blood to be shed, that is, to whiten his face without question.
a quote:
(1) Babylonian Talmud Tractate Pesachim page Mat/B
Rabbi Elazar with the land said it is permissible to snort on Yom Kippur, which falls on Shabbat. His disciples said to him, Rabbi Amor should slaughter him. Rabbi Shmuel bar Nachmani said Rabbi Yochanan said with the land it is permissible to tear it apart like a fish said Rabbi Shmuel bar Yitzchak and from his back: Tanya said Rabbi Akiva when I was with the land I said who will give me a scholar and we bit him like a donkey his students said to him Rabbi Amor like a dog he said to them it bites and breaks bone And it bites and does not break a bone: Tanya, Rabbi Meir says: All the greatness of the daughter of the people of the land is as if she were kneeling and placing before Ari what Ari preys upon and eats, and he has no shame even with the people of the land, he strikes and blows, and he has no shame of face: Tanya, Rabbi Eliezer says, if it were not for the fact that we needed them for negotiations, they would have Rebuke us, Tana Rabbi Haya, who deals with the Torah before the people of the land, as if his fiancee were speaking before him, as it is said, Torah commanded us, Moses is permitted not to be permitted, but from a great betrothed, hatred that the people of the land hate for a wise student more than the hatred that star worshipers hate for Israel and their wives more than they do:
Right Michael,
We also met in her letter in the discussion about Yael's letter, and you weren't really popular there either, remember?. Even there you thought you were the rightful owner of the land and you didn't really do anything for yourself, remember? - but of course you don't remember. So go there and go through the texts.
How interesting that Sam didn't bother you to interpret Yael's thoughts, until even her protests and corrections didn't really help. Do not believe? - Go there, everything is documented!
I would continue to make up my mind about you, but you do such a good job that it's a shame to interrupt 🙂
Ugh,
Today I am comfortable with the maneuvering space that the use of a pen name gives me (probably for you too), the day I decide to come out of the closet I will be happy to put my skills and achievements in front of yours. I have no doubt that I will have nothing to be ashamed of and I will not be surprised if it turns out that you are employed in one of my businesses.
Your opinion about the subject of the article differs from mine and the opinion of others. The way the subject is presented is also not endearing in my opinion. It would be good if you would also take care of the problem of your laziness, so that even if I don't agree with you, at least you can be understood.
As for your style - as your name is.
To the little brother and to all his brothers and sisters Hugin and to all
It's a shame that you turned an important, very interesting and fundamental topic into a collection of critique sentences and bickering grammars.
The essence of the essence of the matter requires a very meticulous approach, especially due to the very abstract nature that tries to touch the fundamental concepts and the basic thinking infrastructure of science.
A mind with a very fine diagnosis is required. Crude thinking like an elephant in a china shop completely misses the point.
In the end, in a broad aspect, this is a cornerstone of the problem of recognition. As you know, this is an open problem that many scientists from all fields, physics, mathematics, neurology, philosophy and much more and also includes pseudo science and esoterics.
Please Google the word "consciousness" with any of the following combinations: problem, science, theory, tucson
And although the problem is still open, no one underestimates it in any of the theories and it is being intensively studied all over the world by the best scientists.
And as for the matter that Michael touched upon, the connection between beauty as a cognitive essence and rigorous science that meets strict definition tests.
For example, the relationship between evolution and beauty according to different definition tests is related to equally useful studies such as spontaneous order (search on Google).
It is clear that the topic that Michael brought up is very interesting and requires that at least a shadow of curiosity and vitality arise in the fresh minds.
That's why the reactions of the brothers and sisters are a bit disappointing. Instead of enthusiasm and liveliness there is a creaking whine that comes from a grumpy geriatric attitude of tired and impatient minds if nothing else.
For the little brother:
Your responses - as I said - were purely personal and did not contribute anything to the relevant discussion.
I don't know why you are implying about the occupation of the target and not knowing what to do with it - neither regarding the army (now I know in which discussion we first met) nor regarding
The fact that some say some nonsense does not make the nonsense the truth.
But you write this without any relation to the truth - where does it belong? To "stalbate" or "return to him"?
You talk about your and Yehuda's sincere hurt, but - if you take your words in the direction you did not intend - your sincere hurt was towards me. You just did everything in your power to make me feel bad and were willing to sacrifice any value for that - including the truth.
My father deleted an entire section of the discussion here that included your slanders and my comments and did not include anything relevant. Not only was it his right - in my opinion it was his duty.
to Hugin,
Some say that military personnel know how to capture a target, but what to do with it afterwards they have no idea. In my opinion, this is true about the IDF and also a little about Michael, true with a squint to "the purpose sanctifies the inventions".
But Michael is right that I 'didn't keep my mouth shut' and Yehuda also said his word. My father of course could have censored us and to his credit he didn't do that. More importantly, this is my father's smallest privilege. His entire factory here has been talking about him for 12 years.
I believe that Yehuda's and mine's hurt is sincere (are you hurt too? You've suddenly gained such self-control that it's hard to tell). In my opinion, it is a value debate, when in our negligible microcosm the values of freedom of speech and tolerance were indeed trampled upon and there was a bias in my father's considerations to Michael's side. In my opinion, if a person chooses to publish his words, he should know that there will be criticism (and some of it is always personal - when was it not like that?, for Yehuda, was all the criticism technical?).
I'm trying to think what I would have done if Minister Roni Bar-On had deleted Yael Petar's letter... fire and brimstone would certainly have been received from me, I would have gone to Jerusalem to protest (it is possible that I would have picked up my father on the way) and I would have even financed a legal battle against him. I would even bet that my father would have put this site as the forwarding base for the fight against the Honorable Minister.
Hugin:
You probably didn't realize it, but in the army I was also involved in science and technology.
By the way: don't you think creativity is necessary to get rich from patents I invented?
Regarding the transfer to the field of law - you should know that I am better at science and technology than at law, so if you consider me competent in the field of law, you can easily touch on science and technology.
A person has to choose.
At school I was both the "artist of the class", both the "scientist of the class" and the "gymnast of the class". I chose the field that I enjoyed the most.
By the way, in the field of law there is no way I would want to practice because in this field you are expected to lie from time to time and I am simply not ready to do so.
Michael
Once again you gave a clear example of an argument related to experience related to warfare (army) and I'm talking about "scientific creativity" in general, which maybe for a change will be good in all respects for issues that serve a peaceful life.
But, why didn't you respond to the matter of conversion to the field of law? It's up to you. All the levels of terminology you use are related to this, so maybe you should think about studying the field. (a very broad field).
By the way - Hugin:
Maybe you didn't notice but those commenters who were "removed" continued to comment.
Hugin:
I certainly have something to say about it:
"It" is simply not true.
This is not about exceptional talent and debate. I gain an "unfair" advantage by choosing to defend the correct positions. This gives me an advantage over those who choose to defend lies.
I have an open-mindedness and I also encourage it in others.
When I took in people for the military body that I was at the head of I always told them that their job was to invent and I even used the expression that they tried to slap me here and said that no one has a monopoly on the mind and any advice from the last private would be welcomed.
The period in which I managed that body was the most creative in its history and I have already told here once that I am occasionally invited to give lectures on creativity.
The point is that there is a limit that I put on myself and others.
Creativity should really create.
I know there are those who find it difficult to accept this limitation.
Michael
Something in the discussion here that is biased in your favor does not sit well with me and especially after the removal of several significant "representatives" among the magibists last night and your entire stage.
Tell me, haven't you thought of going in the direction of law? Your wording is winning and no one will be able to deny that you have an excellent demagogic talent. We all already know that there is no difference in the field of "today's law"
Whether there is justice or not and that the winning factor is the one who knows how to articulate with genius. But it is that the field of "science" also requires conceptual openness and genius creativity in order to break new fresh and perhaps correct paths. Your binding bickering in every matter and thing causes mental/ideal oppression even among the best who are dark on the site of science and it is possible that you even block openness to learning from others.
Of course, you will also have something to say about it.
amateur scientist:
Regarding telling the truth - I think, as I said, that in the vast majority of cases we must do so.
You generally cannot take it upon yourself to lie to someone and claim that it is beneficial to them without giving them the opportunity to decide for themselves.
It doesn't have to break his spirit because he can always decide for himself if he is attractive or not.
You don't have to tell him anything about his personal opinion regarding his appearance, and even if you do tell him - it's just your personal opinion.
It's a bit funny that we are arguing about this because the truth is that I actually think that character plays an important role, but we are talking about the sentence "beauty does not determine" as a parable and not as an independent claim, so I am willing to continue treating it as a truth.
Be that as it may, humans are equipped with many mental defense mechanisms and even if they think that beauty does matter, they can decide that they are indeed beautiful or think that even if they don't like themselves - it's not themselves that they want to marry and their potential partner Rather they will find them beautiful and attractive or they themselves are not interested in a partner who does not know how to appreciate their inner virtues and the like.
And if you hide the evolutionary information you have from him - what will you achieve?
Will it make him attractive?
Will it protect him from meeting reality?
No! He will eventually find out that you lied to him and your credibility in his eyes will be lost. Everything you told him - even what was true - will now be suspect in his eyes.
In relation to the story with the Nazis and the experiments on animals, you are mixing a species with a non-species.
I definitely agree with you that experiments on humans should be prevented by legislation.
The reason for this is not that there are no differences between people, but that there should be no discrimination based on the existing differences.
Personally, I am a vegetarian and I do not think that the fact that a certain animal is less intelligent than me qualifies me to eat it.
On the other hand - I don't think that the question about differences between "races" of humans is illegitimate and the fact is that such differences exist - there are genetic diseases of Jews and within that there are diseases of people from the East and diseases of people from the West. There is nothing to hide this because the concealment will harm the medical care that the people will receive.
There are differences between men and women and there are differences between the different races.
It is not impossible that such differences also exist in the field of intelligence.
Since race is a large group of people and characteristics of race are a statistical matter - there is no reason for a particular individual to think that these statistics apply specifically to him.
Much has been written about the fact that, on average, men are better mathematicians than women, but this did not bother any of the mathematicians who studied with me. They knew that on average, men do better in math but no individual is the average.
There is really no self-image problem here.
If there is a potential problem, then it is not in the field of self-image but rather in the field of prejudices of others regarding the individual.
These prejudices must be overcome (in places where it is right to overcome them) by anti-discrimination legislation and not by hiding information.
In addition to this - as I said - there is the practical problem: how will you determine who is allowed to know and who should be excluded?
I explained that the wording in the article is a result of the fact that it is a pasting of several letters from correspondence. It is also written in the article itself but these do not have to refer to it.
In your previous response - one of those that were eventually deleted, you wrote yourself that the things you wrote before were 90% undecided and 10% "return to him".
I'll come back to what I think about it, but in doing so you actually admitted to yourself that there was nothing "relevant" about them, and even that was enough for you to delete it from the discussion in the article.
In my opinion, there was no hesitation in these answers and it was only to "return it to him".
Later - after you wrote these things and after I agreed to forgive you - you returned to the same style and the same lack of business.
In the whole argument between you and Yehuda Eti there was nothing relevant. Everything was aimed at personal harm to me. I have no doubt about it.
That's why whoever deleted all this correspondence did well.
Michael come and think about a situation where someone is told that he is ugly and not particularly smart, that there is nothing to do, that's how nature created him, and that his friend is simply more successful than him in every possible parameter and this is the decree of fate, you can't change it... you don't think that something like this can break the The spirit of man?
The Nazis really bent the theory to their own needs, but claims very similar to the Nazis' claims can be made, for example that there really are races in humans that are some superior and some inferior (say, blacks are inferior to Europeans or yellows, etc..) In Spain, for example, there is a law that it is forbidden to conduct experiments on super monkeys, I I think that no country except Spain has this law, the scary question that arises from this is: what is the limit, will it be possible to carry out experiments on different races of humans as well? who are supposedly inferior to other races... I gave an extreme example but it is realistic because evolution has no clear boundaries...
You're wrong in my opinion, but it's not bad - it's not math. By the way, your phrasing in the comments is more fluid than in the article.
I'm interested in what your heart says: is this about a value debate (freedom, tolerance) or a stylistic issue?
(You don't have to answer, but what you say can definitely be used against you in the future. 🙂 )
little brother:
The argument was way beyond what you are trying to paint here.
You said that I meant to speak differently than what I wrote.
Let's even assume that there could be a dispute about the interpretation of my words (and there can't), but as soon as I say that this is not my intention and you continue to argue with the intentions that you decided to attribute to me and to argue with me about the intention of things is not only ridiculous - it is dishonest demagoguery.
This is not my first experiment here and I have written in other places as well.
Anyone who reads my words can judge them for themselves and he doesn't need any help from you to decide whether they are well worded or not.
I can also tell you that wherever people know that I will agree to help them draft articles or letters they use my skills with great joy.
To Michael,
And if I think I know what you're thinking, but I'm completely wrong - is that a reason in your opinion to silence me by deleting my comments?
I don't know you and you don't know me, we've never met - your information is not in my possession or interest. Therefore - no reference is possible except to your writings. Correspondence is also not allowed to visit?, so why are you the biggest visitor to the site?
And what are the conclusions of the above contradictions?, do you know how to think alone?, or only when it comes to others?
Regarding the article - considering that this is your first attempt here, you can understand why it is not well formulated - verbally and conceptually. In my opinion, my words should not loosen your hands but make you improve.
You are all zombies.
Everyone is a prisoner in their own understanding.
The avant-gardes and progressives also suck from an unknown but influential source on their way of thinking.
The only way human development can take place is if they have no idea that they are under control, if they live in the illusion that they are the ones promoting evolution, progress.
little brother:
Did I claim to have a monopoly on the truth?
I only claimed that I know better than you what I think.
If someone did not understand something in my words and an additional explanation is required - me and not you or Yehuda - the determining authority regarding their intention.
There is no logic or honesty in you and Yehuda trying to explain to the whole world that I think something different than what I really think and that I am wrong in thinking that I am not thinking at all.
Michael
The effect you mentioned is called: "From the waste to the waste".
Michael,
And what are you doing in your responses?, showing others the light?
Do you have a monopoly on the truth?
In this discussion, your thunderous silence and your last response show me at least your value as a person. Therefore, at the level of your spiritual and moral intellect - I am disappointed!
Higgs and Arya - what do you think?, Yehuda is right or my father is right?
Hugin:
Nothing you say is true.
FYI: I was born in a religious home!
The fact that I am secular is the result of being released from captivity.
The comments that were rejected didn't try to direct me to anything - they tried to tell me what I wrote and tried to convince me that their writers know better than I do what I think. Based on these strange claims, they also tried to preach to me about the fact that I seem to think the same thoughts that I don't think, to tilt the discussion to take care of it and take care of it on me, and again and again.
Michael
By the way, in relation to your response No. 56, you too are in fact a baby who was captured, but in the hands of "a different perception
And "different" similar to the "black box" of science.
In fact, many comments that were rejected - and deleted - were directed to you from the company, in order to direct you to look at your perceptions and your repeated clashing with "opponents" apparently. However, the honorable "father" Avi Bilzovsky deleted
For fear that you will overindulge and, God forbid, release the "restraint yoke" in which you are a prisoner.. and which serves the "science" trend of the website. :).
Many wonderful things take place in the subconscious.
Yehuda
So why worry?
Even... that we were all censored and not just you.
Sometimes I admire my father. It seems as if an immediate instinct for superior consideration, even greater than him, guides him: whether to leave, to take off, to cut, to filter, and even to leave juicy jiftas.
So what's left but to smile, also at ourselves. Eh? Not bad.
Well, we can return to a fascinating book. ;)
There in the free comments section
I repeat again - in the hope that I will not be censored.
Things that are censored are never deleted, they continue to live and exist.
Galileo?, exists
Giordano Bruno?, exists!
Trotsky?, exists!
And also my legitimate words on the subject of this article exist and live and whoever wants to see them, please
http://madaveteva.blogli.co.il/
Good Day
Sabdarmish Yehuda
amateur scientist:
I do not agree with the example you gave.
They say that beauty does not determine but character - true - some say so - but is it true?
If not - then it's just a lie.
The "permanences" of evolution are not related to what is said or not said but what has worked over the generations.
If you tell someone that beauty doesn't matter when it does, you're simply misleading them and denying them the opportunity to make the right decisions.
In general, the claim "I think this way but others will think differently" is a problematic claim because who let us determine what others will think?
And in a practical sense: how do you intend to determine who is allowed to know what? Who is allowed to hear about evolution and who is not? Who is allowed to hear about the big bang and who is not? Who is allowed to study game theory and who is not?
You may have thought only of evolution and the above statement is problematic regarding it in any case, but I mentioned the other questions because the topics discussed in them can also have an impact on the mood and sense of morality of the people who know them.
To Hugin and the rest of the readers of Hidan = I hope I won't be censored
Here we are on a scientific site!
Can a scientific site exist while being censored?, and here we see censorship that deletes everything!
Sorry, not all, some opinions on behalf, remained.
It can't possibly do that.
Let there be no doubt, there is no attack on science,
There is a fight here for the image of his commenters.
Good Day
Sabdarmish Yehuda
good morning father
Really they are right, so put everything back and don't delete anything anymore.
If you like to erase then you can buy white pages with a pencil and an eraser and then erase as much as you want.
: )
Yehuda, there is something in my father's words in relation to the chain of contexts between the comments - at the foot of the "beautiful" article..
So - Abbi, you can leave everything. The fact is that we did not address you (in "Gwalt"), but we responded to the substance of the matter. You cannot ignore the fact that some of our responses are related to a whole journey of all of us between all the articles and relationships/and references, which are forged between the magibists. After all, who Anyone who wants to learn learns from the whole fabric.
for your consideration.
Yehuda, you have some interesting ideas recently...
To my father and to all the commenters, I hope I won't be censored
My dear father indeed
All comments that appear under my name or mention me will be deleted!!!
Everyone!!!
You have reached the most despicable level of the worst censors in history.
How are you different from the communist regimes in Russia that erased Trotsky and others from the history books.
What happened to you, did you freak out? Did something fall on your head?? Wake up!
Come to your senses, father, before it's too late, or make an affidavit with Ida and let it be known that you are not interested in my comments, my articles and my dangerous information for the nation.
Decide if you are interested in a free scientific site or a delusional site on behalf of
The science site or the device site,
I write this comment with deep sorrow.
Sabdarmish Yehuda
For Yehuda and Hugin, some of the responses were legitimate, but as soon as you take down one response at the base of the chain, no one will understand what it is about, and the spirits started to get hotter than ever, so I decided to cut the whole chain.
There were reasonable responses but the problem was not any response itself.
I will give you an example of a practical problem that evolution can create, they say that beauty does not determine but character, evolution says otherwise, external beauty indicates other good qualities such as fertility, intelligence, etc., evolution reduces romance to the ground... it is a dangerous situation where there is not a drop of romance in life... evolution can create a robotic world view of life in a very large part of people, Michael I accept your claims but according to my gut feeling most people will not feel and think like you, I personally do think like you, the understanding of all the processes does lift my spirits, but again it seems to me That won't be the case with most people...
To my father Blizovsky, I brought up the example with the Nazis by the way, this is not my main argument, I am aware that it is being waved about, but I am not one of those people..
To all respondents
Hoping that my response will reach you.
All my censored comments appear on my blog in the free comments section.
You decide for yourself if there really was a place for this censorship
It is with great regret that I have to take such a step
But expressing an opinion freely is the most important thing for a thinking person
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Avi,
In the SA you could have omitted response 61. Everything else was definitely a fruitful discussion. It seems to me that you ignored
from bad relations between Magibists.
To all respondents
I'm writing this comment, even though I'm not sure it will reach you.
What's wrong with this response I wrote to Michael:-
a quote:-
November 30, 2008 at 1:43 a.m. A response has been sent to the site's management and is awaiting approval.
To Michael
In connection with your comments, I will delve again into your article and respond. Now I'm dying to sleep
good week
Yehuda Sabdarmish
End of quote.
What is wrong with this response that it requires a "discussion" with the website management.
What happened to you, father, wake up, and stop this stupid censorship!
Sabdarmish Yehuda
http://madaveteva.blogli.co.il/
I did not work with keywords, but decided to interrupt and eliminate a discussion that started to go wild in inappropriate directions, even if here and there there were moderate expressions. I just deleted the whole discussion.
I'm trying to introduce a discussion culture, because I got feedback that people don't like these wars. Wait patiently, we are working on a forum, but even then I would prefer it to deal with science and not personal wars.
To my father Blizovsky
I now go to the comments and see that all my comments have been censored. Therefore, I am interested to know if your keyword for censoring is the word "sebedarmish"??
If so I will immediately draw the appropriate conclusions.
Waiting for your reply.
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Here's a comment you deleted:
-----------------
Michael, you insistently try to divert the discussion from the main point to the side.
So let's start step by step, and it's better to be from the beginning:
"...why didn't the beauty die" – you know what?, I'm not so sure anymore!, without a doubt you gave him a hard assassination.
-----------------
In my eyes, she is amusing... On the same day and in the same place, I made it clear to Michael (and everyone who didn't understand) that this was humor. Who did I hurt?
The tzotsik brother. you have freedom of speech
And the site manager has the freedom to do as he wishes on his site.
As someone who makes a living from freedom of speech, what is freedom of speech in your eyes?
If the state did not see fit to censor the site's comments, why do you volunteer to do so?
Where do you live?, don't you know that children don't go to sites like the science because the entire internet is open to them?, do you know what's on the internet?, do you really think you can protect our children by deleting comments?
And on a personal level, please from you. Vote for one response, or one statement by Yehuda or mine that is inappropriate. I want to be a better person - give me a concrete example.
No one's honor is worth less than the other, I deleted the entire group of comments, including Michael's comments on others' attacks on him.
Hello comma, free and without inhibitions and as much as it takes!
What is science worth if Hugin's respect is worth less than Michael's respect?
What is the value of studying if you don't internalize the conclusions?
Talk about rationality and liberalism and censor like Ceausescu?
Write about enlightenment and delete everything that is different from my opinion?
I once saw a nice movie called "Mary". And the heroine of the film said there "when the honest people are silent - corruption flourishes". So my father is not corrupt but he is playing a dirty game - I am not silent. And where are you in the picture?
The tzotsik brother.
Are you trying to mess with the webmaster?
More than that?
"To Hogin, Ma'ale 22 from the Hagadi section sounds like some kind of address for a guest house in some Mitzpe in the Galilee. I understand that there are discounts for the middle of the week, and a free third night for every star that gathers?"
brother,
I am now looking at the responses that were rejected for publication, mainly from you and Yehuda's side, and there is really a tone of personal attack here, with taking care of a person's body. Do you want to debate the article? you are welcome. You will learn from a point how to respond to the matter.
Or even better - send us your own article with an opinion contrary to Michael's, and we will be happy to publish it if it is well written.
Hugin:
It is not accurate that the choice is up to the person.
It is true that the phrase "captured baby" was invented by the religious, but it describes their own babies more than any other baby.
A baby who nurses blind faith with his mother's milk - his chances of stopping being a zombie are extremely low.
This is expressed more than once even in the comments here.
What is important and what is not important is determined by the thinker.
To me, what is important is the truth, and if there is someone for whom what is important is the lie, then that person is my enemy.
I have no doubt that all people's lives would be easier and more pleasant if everyone attached the same value to truth as I do to it.
Michael,
In any case, the choice is in the hands of each person how and how to treat and observe everything.
By the way, I'm currently reading "The Treasure of the Templars".. What can I tell you? Everything is revealed and with it the hidden rabbi from the revealed, and for me that's the fun: with questions that never end and a man in his understanding will live.
It's all "nonsense": more important - less important.. everything comes and goes - comes back and evaporates. We are all virtual/real actors. At a certain point we realize that there is no point in continuing the same endless struggles. But, I already mentioned that this is a kind of fun, right? without teasing).
And you know how?, the response you wrote to Hugin is the right humor?, what was wrong with the antelope of 'what's new'?.
What's wrong with you?, are you looking for excuses to be a fascist?
to the little brother
The cut was in an attempt to take down a whole group of reactions that started to riot in wrong directions. You forget that this is a site visited by students in schools, who are interested in science. You also need to know how to criticize.
Because it bothers me and I'm sorry, and I got the impression that you're a good guy and that you'll probably understand me. A little release from the heavy heart, you know...
🙁
brother,
I agree with what you wrote in the last comment, but I don't understand the context or the reason you are referring it to me.
to Roy Cezana,
The problem is not in religions - the problem is in people!
You don't have to be religious to think that your opinions are the right ones and the opinions of others should be deleted. You don't have to be religious to think that your jokes are true and that other people's jokes should be deleted. Perhaps we only need the possibility for that... perhaps those who have the possibility to delete different opinions are the same people who had the ability to delete different people as well.
So why go far into history, when here we see a demonstration of dangerous hypocrisy? ? ?
Hugin:
All religions interfere with science even if they are not supposed to, in your opinion.
This disorder has often even reached the point of torturing and murdering scientists.
The vast majority of opponents of scientific theories come from the ranks of institutionalized religions and the rest come from private religions.
The approach of religion that says believe and do not test is opposed to the approach of science that says test everything individually and put it to the test of experiment and logic.
It is difficult to describe two approaches to understanding the world that are more contradictory than science and religion contradict each other.
Well, father, should I have said in azimuth? Indeed, I was debating whether to inform those who are interested in knowing more tiny information about the "directions". The ones that are infused with knowledge. (Everything is mutual..). And.. if there is a free sky, why why price them too?? Ah.. Ah.. This Jewish head..
To my father 'The Night of the Long Knives' in Lizovsky,
About what and why this cut in the comments?
To Hogin, Ma'ale 22 of the Haggadi section sounds like some kind of address for a guesthouse in some Mitzpe in the Galilee. I understand there are discounts for midweek, and a free third night for every star that stacks up?
point
No religion should interfere with either knowledge or science, what people do in those "information centers" is the thing that should be examined by everyone - and everyone knows how to read, think and learn these days.
And as for drawing our attention to the beautiful celestial cluster between Venus/Zedek/and the Moon, which you mentioned - thank you very much.
As for the music...
There is an amazing connection between the creative processes and the musical scales.
The different contexts between the intervals create different "colors", different feelings.
Full and rich "harmonious" music will contain all frequencies on the spectrum just as a "rich" and "harmonious" ecosystem will contain all layers of flora and fauna.
Also the connections between the rhythm (the time), the harmony (the big pattern) and the melody (the personal line)
They teach that different and contrasting individual roles can fit and be in harmony with each other (counterpoint) if each of the players is aware of the harmonic process, the great pattern.
amateur scientist:
Thanks for the compliments.
It's interesting that you say there are dangers in evolution.
I don't think it's true, but since it's a common way of thinking (not necessarily for the reasons you mentioned, but for other reasons I'll discuss later), a philosopher named Dennett wrote the book Darwin's Dangerous Idea - a book I highly recommend.
Dawkins' book - Unweaving the Rainbow also deals with a similar topic and tries to dispel the fear of evolution.
The main argument that is usually raised against evolution (I mean the argument raised by those who understand it and even accept it - like you - but think that in some way the development of the theory and its publication could be harmful) is that evolution takes the mystery out of things that the mystery actually makes more exciting.
The books I mentioned explain why this is not the case and also Feynman in one of his books (I don't remember which one anymore) tells about his debate with a painter friend who made a similar claim and to whom he explained why the cracking of reality through science not only does not diminish the thrill but actually increases it.
The fact that there are people who use evolution (without realizing it!) as an excuse for their atrocities is not evolution's fault.
Racism was not invented by Hitler (see the entry "The Chosen People") so evolution is not necessary to be a racist.
Of course Hitler was much worse than just a racist and he used the arguments of race as a reason for mass murder but, as mentioned, it has nothing to do with evolution even if he used it as an excuse. This was, by the way, a silly excuse because evolution is merely a description of facts and not a moral theory.
I do not believe in hiding correct information as a method.
There are extreme cases where it might be desirable to do this, but I think ignorance is more dangerous than information.
There is no reason for depression in evolution and the books I mentioned illustrate this in detail). If there is something depressing in our lives, it is the fact that they are transient and yet - no one bothers to try to hide this fact.
Personally, I find in the sincere attempt to understand how the world works (and the theory of evolution is part of this understanding) a not bad answer exactly to our most troubling problem - as mentioned - the fact that we are mortal.
There is a sentence that very much characterizes Hugin's approach to the world that says "Knowledge is the mother of boredom".
This is a pessimistic way of seeing reality and I see the same facts in a different way which is much more optimistic.
Before detailing how I see the facts, I must tell a joke about the difference between a pessimist and an optimist:
The optimist thinks the world is the best it can be.
The pessimist fears that this is exactly the case.
So what is the optimistic form in which I see the facts?
First of all I will clarify which facts are involved.
Our lives, for the most part, are a collection of experiences.
Some of the experiences are repeated and exciting every time.
As soon as one understands the physical mechanism behind the experience, something is lost on its behalf - the mystery is lost.
This is the reason for the phrase "knowledge is the mother of boredom".
What else?
This phrase does not take into account the supreme fun of actually understanding and knowing.
Maybe something is lost because of the experience, but it is replaced by something much better.
In fact, once I understand the mechanism behind a certain experience, I no longer need to experience it again and again to enjoy it. She became in many ways a part of me.
It can be described as if in the dimension of that experience the dimension of time collapsed into one point which is the moment of insight.
What does it mean that I don't have to experience the experience over and over to get the full enjoyment out of it?
This means that in everything related to this experience I have lost the need for eternal life because I have already extracted from the experience everything that can be extracted from it in eternal life.
The more I move more areas of life to this state where I understand them in their entirety - my need for eternal life decreases and so, as I said, I find a balm for the disturbing problem of the finitude of my life.
Amateur scientist, your claims show why religion interferes with science.
All the misunderstanding of evolution stems from wrong theories about it, distorted theories that are spread by religious people (with the aim of knocking down the same distorted theory).
To an amateur scientist, this argument against evolution is a trite one. That people misinterpreted the theory disqualifies the people, not the theory.
Ignorance is never an advantage.
And since this is a natural phenomenon that cannot be hidden, it reminds me of a story I read that when one of the largest observatories in the US was built at the end of the 19th century, and a white eclipse was expected, there was someone from the leaders of the nearby town who suggested that the owner of the observatory not allow viewing of the eclipse outside the observatory, and charge an entrance fee Your logic and that of that mayor, is exactly the same logic.
OK, I thought you were less (: I browse the site a lot, I enjoy it in general, and in particular your interesting comments...
Allow me to share one of my thoughts with you, evolution is the explanation for the development of life, there is no doubt about it..
There are dangers in the theory of evolution because it causes a rather pessimistic and bleak view of the way of the world - the fit survives and those who have not adapted themselves fade away, evolution can also lead to comparisons between different human races (the Nazis already did this...and see the sad result...)
The danger in evolution is not only in extreme ideologies such as Nazism, but it can also affect any human being and oppress them. Evolution is extremely efficient and ingenious, but also cruel... My proposal is to limit the study of evolution to partial populations and not to spread it to the masses... This is the situation that currently exists in the state of Israel for the most part The people think that this is a stupid theory and do not know that it is called every moment and during all of history... I think this ignorance also has an advantage.. What do you think? Other commenters are welcome to answer…
point:
You're right.
I also called some friends and sent them to look outside.
amateur scientist:
I'm 56
Look at the moon outside now, Venus and Jupiter are holding it.
I think this is beautiful.
Michael, I have a question for you: how old are you? I am very interested...
It's already December, I have to go to bed.
Come on. End of argument.
Tu => Good
Tu, listen, period - I'm getting bored
I forgot to mention the music that induces different feelings.
I mean - I forgot to go back and refer to it in connection with my last comments because I actually already touched on this point in a previous comment when I talked about associations, but when someone decided to object, there is no chance that he would try to go back to previous comments (something that could have been done even before the question was written)
Hi Michael, be specific, I wrote: against this kind of evolutionary "explanations". The quotation marks come to say that the explanation does not explain anything because the explained does not take the totality of the things it is supposed to cover and focuses only on what is convenient to explain, a type of religious explanation. And certainly not scientific.
That's why I call it an idea, not an explanation, and we can discuss the idea.
By the way, point:
It is worth noting that there are people who started writing "jarring" music and they and their people got used to it (learned to recognize it) and therefore they enjoy it.
how do you say?
A packet is also a fact
point:
I don't know why exactly you call shrimah, but no matter how you look at it, it can be likened to a suitable rant in a painting.
I don't know if you read my words seriously, but if you did, you probably saw that I wrote "difficult to identify specifically" and not "not specifically identifiable".
The point is that in order to specifically recognize chatter or squealing, someone must devote effort to them and learn to recognize them in advance, and this is something that very few people will do - especially when the investment of effort is required when they do not yet recognize the pattern and therefore do not enjoy it either.
There is no demagoguery in my words and I try to explain things as I understand them.
Since I read many of your responses I had the feeling that I recognized the pattern of your behavior - the recurring refrain in it - what is more, what you stated in your first response to - you are generally against evolutionary explanations.
With such a world view, it is clear that there is no reasoning in the world that will convince you.
This is why I identify your words with demagoguery.
They seem very illogical to me and I think that they do not arise from real thought but from the desire to protect the all-embracing prejudice that you have already stated (and not only here).
I missed the new comment. So again and in short,
Squealing in music is not bullshit. It is a very specific pattern that makes the listener feel uncomfortable. And besides, everyone knows that music in movies can make them, fear, laugh, smile or cry. And everything is music, and it's even beyond pleasure. That is, things here are much more complex than the concept of pattern recognition and beauty.
Furthermore, when a person recognizes gibberish, he can enjoy the very recognition that it is gibberish, therefore what you tried to put into my words does not contradict what you say, and I would never claim that.
I don't understand why I started going down on me, but with already..
So you are the demagogue who decides to define everything beautiful, as an identified pattern.
point:
Although I'm sure (and even said) there's more to it than pattern recognition, I also know that what you're saying isn't true. "Zirima" is not a pattern and therefore, obviously, it is also difficult to identify specifically.
You can also claim that "chatter" is a pattern in the painting, but that's just demagoguery because it will be difficult to recognize the quackery as well.
I assume that my words go in with you one way and come out the other because you decided in advance not to be convinced and therefore my words are more aimed at others.
Templates make the creations to build recognition.
It's not surprising that so many songs have a repeating chorus - that's part of the point.
A point would call for the absence of a repeating chorus called "pattern" to solve the problem but we all know that is simply demagoguery.
The songs also have rhymes and this is a pattern, but a point would call the absence of rhymes a pattern.
Of most things that a dot would call a pattern, everything on earth belongs to that pattern of a dot.
Now that's a grand unifying theory for you
All reality obeys the same "template"! hallelujah!
Pattern recognition is far from explaining this, because even in jarring music patterns are recognized (jarring is a jarring pattern).
And of course that doesn't explain why everyone's taste is slightly different, and why one pattern is beautiful and another pattern is not.
Pattern recognition explains beauty and explains ugliness. It's just that you claim that what communicates beauty is related to survival, and I ask about beautiful music how it is related to this.
point:
A significant part of the enjoyment of music, both listening and creating, is the process of pattern recognition I was talking about.
It is no wonder that in all the works we talk about recurring motifs - these are the patterns.
I think the whole topic of music rhythms also connects to the specific evolutionary need to recognize sound rhythms in nature and especially to recognize animal footfalls.
One could even go so far as to guess that it is no coincidence that the number 4, which plays such an important role in music, is exactly the number of habits common in nature, but this would probably be going too far beyond logic and it is much simpler to perceive this division of the notes as just powers of two.
In any case - recognizing patterns probably plays an important role in enjoying music, but there must be other things that rely more on the world of associations - including sexual associations.
I think, for example, that it is not at all surprising that there is special treatment for male bass voices in opera.
Michael, do you have an idea, how can the topic of enjoying music be explained in an evolutionary context?
to little brother,
"If it helps then you will know under a different 'pen name' also about Yehuda Stalbati in the past and maybe even more."
Big Brother? 🙂
Objectivity wins
to higgs*
For Hugin, the idea of explaining the physical world is not necessarily related to mathematics nor to physics, but in my opinion more to computer science. The investigation of a function that receives certain parameters and finding the connection between what it received and what it returns (which can also be several parameters).
The problem is that sometimes, apart from the constants of the global gravity constant, the Coulomb constant, pi and many other constants, there are also unknown variables (after all, we determine what the function receives) and then it turns out that there are identical functions with different results. One of the examples of this is the somewhat random collapse in quantum theory.
The cool commenter:
I already told Yehuda when he made a similar claim that nowhere (but absolutely nowhere!) did I say that beautiful is true. More than that: I raised the claim that Pushing Gravity is wrong despite its beauty for the first time precisely in this context when I argued to Yehuda that this is the only reason why he (he and not I!) thinks it is true.
So the wise thing you quoted from Yehuda's mouth is something I said myself and you, like him, used it to refute something I didn't say.
You raised the words of the little brother for the same reason and as mentioned - this reason is wrong because you are expressing opposition to the things that you simply put in my mouth but I did not say.
In my response to Hugin, I mentioned that some of the things that appear in this article appeared in a response that I wrote here in Bidan.
Michael
Good luck and shame on the effort to answer the critics who didn't bother to think and consider in their minds the issue you brought up before denying it a place in their back seat.
It concerns the deep and fundamental questions for understanding the nature of the world.
Physicist Eugene Wigner wrote in a 1960 article about
"The illogical efficiency of mathematics".
The question is why does mathematics explain so well the physical world as we see it? I agree with the approach you brought up in the article.
What is the miraculous source that allows us to create patterns and for us as humans to understand them and create copies of them in different forms in a way that allows us to understand the controlling forces and know how to acquire control over ourselves. There are no real answers to these questions and the ones you raised. The courage to bring up such ideas and discuss them is also virgin ground and is the engine needed for science to move forward.
and improve.
To Michael,
The problem is that what you write is valid until 1920 at most.
The scientific theory that rules existence, quantum theory is a theory that is known for its ugliness and many people are dying to replace it with something simpler (in your words, more patterned).
Also as our Judah said, I think his theory is one of the most beautiful theories that exist.
And allow me to quote the little brother, for one of the wisest sentences I've seen here in the discussion:
"If I had a shekel for every time I thought I was completely right (and experienced eureka-type transcendence) and in the end it turned out I was completely wrong - I would already be a Rothschild (Edmund, not Michael)."
What says beautiful is often not necessarily true.
What in formal logic they say:
Ugly => not true
leads to
True => beautiful
There can still be a situation of (wrong + beautiful)
DA I have a feeling that I have already seen this article written by you in the knowledge, I just don't remember where
When I wrote "I didn't mean anything for God's sake" I didn't add the phrase "for God's sake" as a way of arguing as others have done but to say that no intentional intention of mine is for the sake of God in whose existence I do not believe.
little brother:
I didn't mean anything for God's sake.
Aryeh Seter has already talked about the connection between the characteristics of female beauty and fertility.
Another characteristic of beauty among all animals is symmetry, which also represents good health and survivability.
There are fads and the fads are created by the memes and not by the genes.
I have explained this many times and you are welcome to search the site, but tell me:
Is it really the only flaw you find in "my words" that you obscure (mis)opinion my opinion about the things I said I don't want to discuss?
By the way, on the topic of the fashion aesthetics you talked about, you are invited to read the book "The Golden Ratio" by Mario Livio to get rid of your prejudices on the subject.
Michael's last comment reminded me
https://www.hayadan.org.il/on-food-and-cheating-281002/
What's new:
Indeed, my statement did not fully describe my opinion.
This was only a summary of the part of my opinion relevant to the current discussion.
I have already mentioned before that evolution has embedded in us a variety of feelings to make us do the right thing for our survival.
As a principle, these feelings can be laid out on a scale of "pleasantness level" where on the one hand there are feelings of suffering of all kinds and on the other hand there are pleasant feelings.
By nature we tend to avoid the causes of suffering and be drawn to the causes of pleasure.
What causes us suffering? Mainly things that endanger us.
What gives us pleasure? Mainly actions that do not carry out endanger us.
It is not easy (and there is no need) to separate the pursuit of pleasure from the escape from suffering because they are essentially the same thing.
What is interesting is that what causes us suffering indeed endangers us (usually) and what causes us pleasure does indeed increase our chances of survival (usually).
I will return later to the reason why I said "usually" and not "always" because I want to emphasize first of all the logic in the rule.
The various animals and man's ancestors within them did not always know how to make the connection between cause and effect, when the time distance between them was great.
They knew nothing about the connection between not eating and dying of starvation or between having sex and the birth of offspring.
Most animals (if not all, except man) are unaware of this connection to this day.
Therefore there was no chance that they would perform these actions if they did not bring them pleasure.
Indeed, individuals (unusual, nowadays) who do not have these actions for reasons of pleasure do not get to produce offspring and therefore the "defect" in them is not passed on to the next generation.
The same is true for animals that for some reason lack the sensation of pain.
The only way to get animals to perform actions is the way of avoiding suffering and seeking pleasure, so it is only natural that the animals that survived during evolution (and man among them) are the ones whose suffering and pleasure are well "tuned" in the sense that suffering is indeed caused by harmful situations and pleasure is indeed caused by beneficial situations.
Theoretically, it is possible to describe animals whose pleasures and sufferings are not related to survival, and indeed the author of "The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy" describes animals that enjoy offering restaurant visitors to eat them, but, as mentioned, such animals did not survive evolution.
So why only "usually"?
Because even precise tuning has a price.
When a mechanism is created that causes sex to bring pleasure, the door is opened to extract similar pleasure from masturbation.
Apparently the price of masturbation is not so great that natural selection will eliminate it.
When the mechanism that induces pleasure from the consumption of calories through sweet foods is created, the door opens, in abundant societies, to obesity.
Here it is less clear what the last word of evolution will be because the society of abundance has only existed for a short time in evolutionary terms.
When the mechanism that evokes pleasure from the experience of pattern recognition is created, the door opens to create pleasure from pattern recognition for its own sake (as opposed to pattern recognition for survival).
This is one of the topics I was talking about.
"I will not deal here with the type of beauty that arouses in us an attraction to members of the opposite sex. This kind of beauty clearly stems from evolutionary origins and almost everyone who has dealt with it has attacked it from that point of view.” - What are you implying?, that you are courting a Nebot?.
Know that the Lancet aesthetic is in harmony with the Fibonacci series. Female (and male) aesthetics change from place to place, from culture to culture and even from season to season - have you heard of fashion?
So what on earth did you mean?
Michael R. (formerly Michael),
"This wonder reminds me of the feeling of "enlightenment" I had as a child when I noticed that all the actions that nature requires man to perform in order to survive are "miraculously" actions that give him pleasure."
Michael,
Do all the actions that nature requires in order to survive make a person happy?
See my previous response.
Thanks, Aria.
The response that begins with the words beauty of an article and ends with the mention of the correlation between beauty and fertility is mine.
Nice article. As for modern art, my opinion is the same as Michael's, but it must be remembered that modern art is a way of expression for the artist to convey a message. Creators like journalists and writers do this in writing. So just as not everyone (perhaps not even most) read, so modern art does not speak to most of them either.
It is appropriate to add to the subject of the article regarding beauty and evolution: - Regarding accepted assessments of women's beauty and aesthetics - there is a connection between beauty and fertility.
Michael R. (formerly Michael),
"This wonder reminds me of the feeling of "enlightenment" I had in my childhood when I noticed that all the actions that nature requires man to perform in order to survive are "miraculously" actions that cause him pleasure. It seemed to me then like a kind of gift we received that almost indicates the existence of a loving God. Unfortunately (or happily) it took me a very short time to sober up and realize that actually this phenomenon is required by evolution (because an animal that does not enjoy performing the actions essential to its survival simply will not perform them and therefore will not survive) and does not require divine intervention."
Michael,
Most of the humans including the animals on the planet envy you for the actions you perform for your pleasure a lot in order to survive.
Does a cleaning worker work for the pleasure of surviving or out of fear of being left without a livelihood.
Are the workers all over the world working in the smelly, noisy factories, building on scaffolding, working for the pleasure of surviving or out of fear that they will not be able to make a living.
Does the antelope that runs away from the lion enjoy running to survive or is it scared to death of the lion.
Few people are in such a position that the actions at work (what we call survival) cause them pleasure.
Apparently the animals in the zoo who don't have to fight for their survival have fun, and eventually die of boredom.
So maybe the majority does not enjoy the survival war after all?
point:
In principle, when you encounter a certain question, there are two options for action:
One is to try to solve it and the other is not to try.
It is hard to know which approach you advocate but if you want to solve the questions I raised (as well as the questions you added) you are welcome to suggest a different approach. Just resisting is simply not productive.
By the way - regarding the fact that the pleasure is in the brain, none of the scientists today have any doubts. If you doubt this, you are welcome, as mentioned, to present the alternative, but you must remember that the alternative explanation you give should also explain how it is possible to cause exactly the same feeling of pleasure by electronic stimulation of the appropriate point in the brain.
Interesting claims and interesting ideas.
But I must point out that in general I am against this kind of evolutionary "explanations". Since the explanation does not really explain how this is required by the principle of evolution, it only explains how this does not conflict with that principle (and this can also be disputed).
The point is that the reason for the feelings of pleasure are cerebral (this is also still not explained at all), which developed from the DNA. But there is no principle that states that the entire DNA is responsible for the survival of the person. Therefore, there is no objection to saying about this or that trait that it evolved without a significant impact on natural selection.