Harry Friedman, professor of chemistry, taught physics and chemistry to chemists at Bar-Ilan University. He is an emeritus professor and researcher in the field of lasers and the relationship between physics, chemistry and biology, as well as the effect of laser rays on body cells in medical use. An excerpt from a book from his pen that is about to be published soon
.jpg "Immanuel Kant, painted portrait. From Wikipedia")
In the history of world thought there were two opposing schools of thought. The first school, which is the rationalist school of Plato, Leibniz and Descartes, claimed that all our knowledge comes to us from reason, which alone is capable of discerning the truth and determining the truth. On the other hand, the second school, which is the empiricist school of Locke, Day and Mill, claimed that all the knowledge available to us comes to us through the experience that comes from the perceptions of the external and internal senses.
The modern approach of science is closer to Kant's approach, which unites the two schools, of rationalism and empiricism, in his famous saying: concepts without sense perceptions are empty, and sense perceptions without concepts are blind. This is Kant's synthesis. And indeed, science advances by using previous concepts, and inventing new concepts to describe the accumulated data from experience.
Experience and theory are the two means by which science conducts a dialogue between itself and the world. Scientific theory does not invent the world but describes it. Science discovers the laws of nature. But what science does not have is the explanation of the very existence of nature and the origin of the existence of the laws of nature. There is a fundamental difference between describing existence within the framework of what exists, and explaining the origin of existence itself: science does not explain either the origin of existence or the origin of the laws that govern it.
According to science, our knowledge about the world is based on two factors:
- A. Sensory intuition, i.e. the sensations we receive directly through the senses.
- B. The concepts are the words we use to describe the sensory experience.
Obviously, both feelings and concepts are purely subjective. Nevertheless, we treat the world as a kind of reality that exists outside of us objectively. This is because the most successful description we have for our relationship with the world is given by science. Science explains to us how the external world acts on our senses. The beauty of this description is that it is universal and accepted all over the world as one language, the language of science. And therefore there is a kind of fundamentalist scientific approach that holds that it is not legitimate, or that it is pure fantasy, when descriptions are used that are not directly or indirectly related to things based on experience.
But even Kant himself, who advocated the close connection between concepts and experience, did not accept this approach. Because he was aware of the existence of morality, which dictates to us not the actual state of the world, but rather the proper state. And morality even opposes the impulses that exist in the real world that arise from passions.
What science reveals to us is the laws of nature. Science does not invent reality but only describes it. But it is morality that reveals to us the freedom of choice. Or as Immanuel Kant expressed it, morality is the factor that allows us to know (ratio cognoscendi) freedom. When freedom is the factor that enables the existence (ratio essendi) of morality. Thanks to morality we are able to choose not according to the instinctive impulses. Morality proves that there is freedom of choice. Thanks to morality we know about the existence of freedom and thanks to freedom morality is possible.
What does this mean? This means that science does not include the world of ethics, which has the most important and central meaning in the human world. Furthermore, science has no idea about the essence of consciousness, which enables the private experience of each and every one and gives him the inner feeling of his existence. Science also does not give us the way in which consciousness is able to feel sensory or conceptual reality. And this is the problem known as the psycho-physical problem. And this is the matter of the two points that present to us the two important fields in our world that are outside the scientific framework. These two important areas, morality and consciousness, are beyond science and outside the framework of science.
The contemporary effort of science is to find such a legality, which will apply to everything. The theory is called TOE (Toe of the Foot). And the TOE stands for Theory of Everything. If it were really possible to create a physical theory that describes everything that happens in the world, then there really would be no freedom of choice and no place for morality.
I see the failure to create such a theory, which today is expressed in the failure to unite quantum mechanics with the theory of general relativity, as an expression that without the spirit there is no unity for the world. This means that the world is only one if it also includes the spirit. Therefore, TOE is not possible but BIG TOE is also possible. I mean, when BIG TOE includes not only the material world, but also the spiritual world.
Surely the morality based on lofty universal principles such as 'love your neighbor as yourself' or 'do not do to your friend what you hate', does not exhaust the spiritual realm, because it is clear that morality can only exist between moral people. You cannot be moral among criminals (according to the rule "he who has mercy on the cruel is cruel to the merciful"). And as for the others, it is necessary to exercise justice and the enforcement of justice by the court. These two are also important areas of the spiritual world.
So far Prof. Friedman's article
Site system response
(Avi Blizovsky responds) The site of science is supposed to be a nature reserve of rationalism in a sea of non-scientific arguments that receive coverage many times greater than that received by science (astrology, various New Age sections, thousands of religions and cults). One of the foundations of rationalism is that science is everything. Not from the point of view that he knows everything - certainly he does not know many things and the subject of the unification of the laws of physics is only one of the things, but we strive to improve our knowledge without ceasing. Twenty-thirty years ago we did not know many things that we know today - for example dark matter and dark energy, the reason for the extinction of the dinosaurs, the fact of global warming and more. We don't know the human brain well enough yet We are trying to do that. There is no reason why we should not discover the cause of morality at some point. My suspicion is that it is something that man inherited from his ancestors, something that helped them survive and produce offspring.
By the way, if morality is something inherent in us, then how is it that so many books and movies deal with gangsters, glorify murderers and wars?, movies and books that become bestsellers.
We also contacted Michael, a regular commenter on the website, on this issue and here is the response in his wording:
This article is a classic example of the arguments put forward by the supporters of the various religions, and even if we leave aside for a moment the argument that a claim that is used with the same degree of success to "prove" contradictory claims (the various religions) cannot be true - we will have no difficulty finding the logical flaw in the article.
How does the author of the article know what is moral and what is not? On what is his separation between the "order of morality" and the "impulses of the passions" based? The author leaves this question - a question on which all his arguments are based - open - and he expects us to draw the conclusion ourselves that the separation is derived from the spirit or from religion. The lack of an explanation for this conclusion is entirely due to the fact that such an explanation does not exist and the conclusion he wants us to draw does not stem from the facts.
So much for the main logical flaw of the article, but it also has a moral flaw and this flaw manifests itself in hiding what we do know about the origins of morality.
The author does know what is moral and what is not because some of his works are moral impulses. These impulses were imprinted in him during many years of evolution and therefore it is easy to explain their development in her terms.
Some of them are a consequence of what is called the "preference for similars" which is actually the most effective way that evolution has found to program in us the tendency to promote the genes that we have in ourselves (since similarity arises - with similar probability - from similar genes). The preference for the similar is spread over a whole range of human and animal behaviors where our love for our children precedes our love for our brothers which precedes our love for the rest of our family before our love for the members of our people who are preferred in our eyes over the other humans who are themselves preferred in our eyes over the other animals.
This whole scale of preferences is only intended to promote the genes. Our feelings of morality were imprinted in us because they promote behavior that increases the chances of survival of the genes that promote it and with it the chances of survival of the genes adjacent to them.
This is also true regarding our perception of justice and our willingness to resort to altruistic punishment - that is - behavior in which we punish another individual even at the expense of our personal chances of survival, only because this behavior - to the right extent - promotes the chances of our genes to survive (these impulses sometimes get out of control when our developed minds For millions of years in which we were not helped by cars - pushing us to punish those who "cut" us on the road). These behaviors are also observed in other animals and not only in humans.
The commandment "What is hateful to you do not do to your friend", which I call the commandment of symmetry, is a simple conclusion of considerations in the theory of games and it is not at all surprising that humans came to it as a concise expression of the morality and justice that must be followed.
In fact, this phrase is exactly the phrase on which our definition of morality is based:
- We are actuated by different and diverse impulses, each of which is created for different immediate reasons, with the unifying reason being the reason of survival.
- The existence of those different impulses is actually the real reason for our ability to choose and moral choice, contrary to the article's claim, is only a private case of this ability to choose. After all, we also choose whether to eat salad or ice cream right now and we don't do it for moral reasons.
- Different impulses that drive different actions are the cause of the need for a conscious choice and as far as I understand, our definition of the action as "moral" stems from a situation where the choice is between an impulse that pushes us to perform an action that is not in accordance with the command of symmetry and an impulse that pushes us to an action that is in line with the command of symmetry.
It is worth noting, in a broader context than that of the article itself, that the known facts teach us that an entity such as a spirit does not exist separately from the body at all and the claim of morality originating from the spirit falls on this basis as well.
The facts from which this conclusion can be drawn are related to the behavior of people whose minds are physically damaged. In many of these cases the victim's personality changes radically and in some of them the change is actually in the moral aspect of the behavior. If the spirit existed separately from the body, these things would not happen.
127 תגובות
The origin and essence of life according to scientific data
Liberate your mind from concepts dictated by religious trade-union AAAS.
Life is just another mass format + re-understand natural selection + natural selection is ubiquitous.
Life Evolves by Naturally Selected Organic Matter
I.
Homegrown Organic Matter Found on Mars, But No Life
http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/2012/05/homegrown-organic-matter-found-o.html?ref=em
II. EarthLife Genesis From Aromaticity/H-Bonding
http://universe-life.com/2011/09/30/earthlife-genesis-from-aromaticityh-bonding/
September 30, 2011
A.
Purines and pyrimidines are two of the building blocks of nucleic acids. Only two purines and three pyrimidines occur widely in nucleic acids.
B.
Pyrimidine is a heterocyclic aromatic organic compound similar to benzene and pyridine, containing two nitrogen atoms at positions 1 and 3 of the six-member ring.
A purine is a heterocyclic aromatic organic compound, consisting of a pyrimidine ring fused to an imidazole ring. Purines, including substituted purines and their tautomers, are the most widely distributed type of nitrogen-containing heterocycle in nature.
Aromaticity (Kekule, Loschmidt, Thiele) is essential for the Krebs Cycle for energy production.
C.
Natural selection is E (energy) temporarily constrained in an m (mass) format.
Natural selection is a universal ubiquitous trait of ALL mass spin formats, inanimate and animate.
Life began/evolved on Earth with the natural selection of inanimate RNA, then of some RNA nucleotides, then arriving at the ultimate mode of natural selection - self replication.
Aromaticity enables good constraining of energy and good propensity to hydrogen bonding. The address of Earth Life Genesis, of phasing from inanimate to animate natural selection, is Aromaticity. Hydrogen Bonding.
Dov Henis (comments from 22nd century)
http://universe-life.com/2012/02/03/universe-energy-mass-life-compilation/
Doo doo.
The questions you asked are so trivial that I find it hard to believe that you are asking them in good faith.
The whole point of evolution is that you don't need any explanation for what survives longer survives longer. This is the definition.
If there are genetic traits that increase the survival of the animal that carries them (and with it their own survival) then it goes without saying that these traits survive more than traits that do not.
All the "why" questions are irrelevant because in the "why" question there is a hidden assumption of the existence of a purpose, while things that happen naturally even when there is no purpose do not require this kind of assumption.
Therefore the answer "because without them there is no life" (which by the way - is not my answer - I argued that life is more successful with them and not that "without them there is no life") is an answer that perfectly explains the reason for the existence of these and other traits in animals.
This is true, by the way, for every trait and the fact that you only go against the evolutionary origin of morality and not against the evolutionary origin of the nose shows that you do not come with clean hands.
I detailed the well-known facts for which any reasonable person will understand that there is no soul separate from the body in my article "How are you doing?"And I even summarized them - as you quoted - in my comments here.
In order to talk about the existence of something, we must define what we are talking about.
If you just wave your hands and say that there may be a "soul" that does not have all the qualities that I expect a soul to have - that is independent of the body - I agree with you in advance. It is possible, for example, to define a soul as a box of corn whose existence does not depend on the existence of the body. The question is whether this kind of soul is interesting and why we even decide to call a box of corn "soul".
You are welcome to define what you want to call a soul and then I can talk to you about how dependent it is on the body. As long as you don't, there's no point in arguing.
BDS
Hello everyone!
In the midst of the night of Tisha B'Av, the day of the destruction of the Temple, I found some time to review the article.
There are indeed a few specific things I would like to comment on and ask.
First, the website editor Avi Blizovsky.
You asked - "By the way, if morality is something inherent in us, then how is it that so many books and films deal with gangsters, glorify murderers and wars?, films and books that become bestsellers"...
Well, morality is indeed inherent in us. But another thing is inherent in us as well, and that is the tendency towards immoral things. In the "stolen water will be sweetened" exam. The difference between the two is that the motive for the immoral attraction and its reason is the individual's private self-pleasure, because if he does not enjoy it, he will not do it. Whereas the morality inherent in us does not depend on our self-pleasure, because it actually harms others. Therefore we will always determine the necessity of the existence of morality and we will not allow ourselves to deviate from it (even when we do not "enjoy" obeying it). After all, watching movies is an "impulse of instinct" that a person necessarily enjoys, and our late sages already said - "There is no person who sins and who does not"...
Second, I will ask Michael.
You wrote on the matter of "preference for the similar" - "This entire scale of preferences is only intended to promote the genes. Our moral feelings were instilled in us because they promote behavior that increases the chances of survival of the genes that promote it and with it the chances of the survival of the genes adjacent to them"...
Let's assume that these preferences do promote the genes. A completely material explanation. The question that is asked is why were these moral feelings of preserving the genes and those attributed to them instilled in us? The answer "because without them there is no life" is not an answer because the question will come back, God forbid.
You basically replaced spiritual morality with physical survival. And I ask you - why survive at all? If there is no one who directs from above and determines who survives and who does not, what is the motive, according to you, constant in materialization, which requires survival on earth?
You also wrote - "It is worth noting, in a wider context than that of the article itself, that the known facts teach us that an entity such as a spirit does not exist separately from the body at all and that the moral claim that it originates from the spirit falls on this basis as well"...
I would appreciate it if you would point out to me and the surfers "known facts" that teach that there is no spirit that exists separately from the body.
You continued and wrote - "The facts from which this conclusion can be drawn are related to the behavior of people whose brains have been physically damaged. In many of these cases, the victim's personality changes radically, and in some of them the change is actually in the moral aspect of the behavior. If the spirit existed separately from the body, these things would not happen "…
Well, it cannot be proven from here at all.
I will give you a parable of a glass of blue tint. If you put water in it, the water will look blue. Does this mean that the water has a blue tint? or red? The water in its essence is always simple.
So is the wind. As long as it is worn in the body and mind, it has the same "tone" of the body. Does this mean that the spirit is essentially a body or a mind?…
With the blessing of good news, and may we all be blessed with the building of the third house at the coming of a righteous Redeemer, Amen!
How to register for the site?
http://www.haaretz.co.il/hasite/spages/901263.html
http://www.haaretz.co.il/hasite/spages/1045265.html
http://www.aish.com/hspirituality/philosophy/Morality_Who_Needs_God$.asp
age:
On the contrary.
The definition of morality is relativistic and there is no way to justify a different morality (except by telling stories).
In the relativistic definition there is no logical fallacy and there cannot be such a fallacy because two different moral systems are not necessarily supposed to be the same. In such a situation to claim that there is a contradiction or a logical fallacy is just like claiming that there is a contradiction between two chairs.
Science does not define what is moral and what is not, but if you accept the relativistic definition (actually, the relativistic definitions), science can explain its formation by the laws of evolution.
Ideas about the purpose of reality can sometimes be tested through science. For example, when the laws of nature do not serve a certain purpose and even push it away, it can be concluded that this purpose is not the purpose of reality.
In general - there is no point in talking about the purpose of reality.
Reality has no purpose.
Only someone can have a goal - maybe the creator of reality, but again: there is no reason to believe in the existence of that someone or to attribute certain goals to him when it turns out that all he does is shoot himself in the foot.
Basically, there is no ability to know about things that do not affect the reality that we can perceive with our senses, therefore all the talk about them is idle talk and to free us from them Ockham's Razor was invented.
Both the article and the response mix several topics with each other - but a connecting thread can still be found..
- There is no connection between science and morality, but (as some have said before) there is also no reason to assume that they are connected. Science does not deal with morality and does not try to deal with it (except for the Scientologists...)
- Science does not deal with issues that cannot be proven or disproved in principle, therefore abstract ideas that express moral principles cannot, by definition, be part of science. In addition, ontological ideas cannot be part of science either.
- Ontological ideas about the essence of reality (its spiritual or physical nature), its origin (this or that god) or its purpose (if there is one...) but also questions about its value (whether a certain law of nature can be good or bad in some sense) cannot be Part of science because they cannot be measured, proven or disproved.
Morality (as a type of principle that exists regardless of reality)
It is a type of value judgment system and in this sense it cannot be part of science. An attempt to turn morality into science is related to the definition of relativistic morality, except that this principle is riddled with contradictions and logical problems.
Daniel:
I can't point to a place mirror at the moment but there have been lots of experiments showing this.
One experiment is the one presented by Roy.
Another experiment is more difficult to describe but I will try:
Build a series of three cages in a row.
In the two extreme cages they put monkeys.
In the middle cage they put a shelf that can slide on a rail from side to side.
The middle cage was large enough that only the monkey next to the tray could reach it.
A rope was attached to the tray that reached the cage that the tray was far from.
Another rope is attached to the rail in such a way that pulling it will knock the tray off and all its contents will roll to a place where none of the monkeys can reach.
This additional rope reached the cage that the tray was close to.
The contents of the tray were, of course, lovely transparent edibles.
Next to the cages stood the experimenter (Adam).
The man could drive the tray from side to side as he saw fit and that's what he did.
It turned out that when the person moved the cage from side to side, the monkeys accepted the judgment and waited for the tray to be returned to them.
If, on the other hand, the monkey farthest from him used the rope to pull the tray towards him, the other monkey got angry and pulled the rope causing the entire contents of the tray to be lost.
By the way, the experiment described by Roy was conducted in several variations, the most interesting of which was the following:
Monkey A is allowed to perform a task and as a thank you for doing it, they give him grapes (they like transparent ones very much).
Monkey B watches what is happening and the process repeats itself several times.
Then monkey B is allowed to perform the same task.
He performs it happily and comes to ask for his reward.
He is offered (as a reward) a cucumber (transparent likes, but less than grapes) and he refuses to take (!) He prefers to remain without reward than to feel like a sucker.
And to my father,
I think you should stop being nice to Hugin, she spreads her lies in devious ways. And in fact she is polluting your enlightenment with all kinds of nonsense from mystics and enlightened people of all kinds.
She doesn't belong here.
Haha what segments with Hugin.
It didn't work out for her despite how much she tried to steal the opinion of the science readers.
Hugin, enough lies.
Hugin and Monin.. of Odin..
You should stop your evil habit of threatening and snarking at others.
What determines whether you make things up or not, stems from the unpleasant feeling of the other commenters to your words.
There is no point in subtly implying, but calling the child by his name, you are making meaningless things.
You have no knowledge in any of the fields you claim to be in. Just fragments of words with no real content and lots and lots of manipulative talent.
Daniel,
Since it is difficult to ask the monkeys what they think and what is their reason for this behavior, you can define it as jealousy, as the first monkey's desire for justice, or a lack of understanding that cooperation can benefit both parties. And it is certainly probable that all three are true, and here you have the foundations for striving for social justice.
To Roy
Recently, an experiment was broadcast on the Discovery channel that showed that when two monkeys perform a task and the second monkey who wins a prize refuses to share the prize, the first monkey refuses to repeat the same action (somewhat reminiscent of the experiment you brought). However, the researchers did not argue for justice or jealousy, but for the monkeys' lack of understanding that cooperation can benefit both parties.
Why corrupt words... Why...
Daniel,
About two years ago, an interesting article was published in Scientific American, which showed that monkeys refuse to do tasks for a candy, if they see other monkeys receive two candies for the same task.
You can call it jealousy, but you can also call it justice.
My friend's words have a charged and enormous power. The words said whether at random (unwittingly) or on purpose work like ricochets here and there.
The choice of how to accept them and react accordingly - that is the question of the questions.
And how and how to behave in life - this is the real test.
For that matter, you need a long, complex and experiential path in life in order to examine these statements as well.
To Michael
I quote from your words "Since morality does not consist only of altruism but also of a sense of justice, I found it appropriate to point out in my initial response that it can also be found among animals"
I would love to receive an example of this claim.
Hugin,
No one can force you to hurt others. Only you can choose that.
Higgs
Let me see that the weight I attributed to you raised all the columns of your impudence. You don't know me
And you don't have the slightest right to continue to bully me.
If you do not understand the simplicity of my words, it is possible that the problem lies deep down in the cause of the illness that you are constantly and unsuccessfully trying to pin on me.
If you had a little courage in life - and not just in the last few days as your words are expressed in the most negative way while blindly projecting and devoid of any respectful and positive view, you might also be educated to understand that all my words are well established in my real life. If I were you, I would ask for forgiveness for a terrible lack of understanding. If you don't have the right and uplifting things to say, don't say it, and there's no need for you to force me to hurt you, or others.
If there are things that are beyond you to understand, shut up and let others do their work.
There's no need for you to try to "translate" syntactically-kabbalistically-talmudicly... that's not the point at all!! You understood things
Completely the opposite: you tried to demand too much. And by demanding and demanding nothing is absorbed, but only the shells. And this is the point, which apparently your limited space has seen until now.
*It is not you who will tell me when, how and how to continue or retire.
Hugin and Monin.. of Odin..
Write a single piece of information of value something creative of your own that has meaning without the confusion of the new age and such nonsense.
Something that can be read simply that arouses desire and interest and not rejection and disgust.
Your words are evaluated by how they are read by most of the respondents and what is their emotional feeling for these words.
If their feeling is negative, think for yourself what you have achieved outside of rejection and a bad memory in the reader.
Hugin and Monin.. of Odin..
Talks about morality and is first class minutiae.
In all cults of all kinds, your reaction methods are used, as well as in dark regimes.
Your way of saying it is an inflated ego without an opinion. Grading, constant judging, tagging.
All the scum you throw at others and your petty manipulations.
Do you think anyone here cares about the lot of nonsense you spew and your grades.
Are you in a place to compete with who??? Not clear at all.
Tired of your bullshit.
As far as psychology is concerned, there is no difference between you and Amnon Yitzchak and others like him.
Hugin,
Issues of morality and science do come up on the site, but as the responses on each topic will testify, they also stand up to the criticism of basic logic and reason.
Roy
I wrote and wrote and wrote a response to your response to the response to the related article you referenced.
And I deleted everything.
I will only focus on the proposal you made "for the sake of the schools..." but it is not there but right here on the site.
I do expect that issues of "morality and science" will be raised here...morality morality morality...without it we are lost
And the value of the entire infrastructure of science is lost for all of us: cold/alienated/cruel/lacking a human image/and damaged by a harmful evil gene
and corrupts every good part it touches.
I read the interview, and I was 'a little' shocked. It is full of empty accusations, most of which are based on false premises.
for example:
"If you ask an ordinary student why he has green eyes, he will answer that he has a gene for green eyes. If you ask the same question to a Bedouin boy, he will answer that he has a jinn (spirit) for this color. What is the difference? "
Well, the difference is that the Bedouin doesn't know how to do genetic engineering, doesn't know how to understand from the gene how it leads to the creation of a protein, doesn't know how to use the gene to find similar genes in animals, doesn't know how to analyze the structure of the resulting protein, and try to develop a blocker against it , if it is harmful to the body... and so on and so on.
It's like saying, "If you ask a rocket scientist what is the trajectory of a rocket, he will write you its equation of motion. If you ask the same question to a Bedouin boy, he will draw you a rainbow in the sand. What is the difference?"
What more…
"When you say, for example, that since single-celled creatures have evolved into multi-celled creatures, the organisms called humans are marching towards a totalitarian, fascist organization;"
Who says? what is he saying? Where did the honorable professor hear a scientist say such things, and who are the fools in the scientific community who even listened to such a delusional claim that is not compatible with all the other animal societies we know?
"The trouble is that science is presented incorrectly and it suffers to this day from Bacon's malice - from that blind faith in the power of induction to lead to a rational solution to any problem."
It is easy for the professor to disqualify, but it is difficult for him to explain why. In fact, it is clear why it is difficult for the aforementioned professor. Because in order to explain why science is wrong, it has to rely on the power of induction which it dismisses.
In the end, no better method of problem solving has been found than the power of induction, which has been tested over and over again. Of course, if the professor has a better way, that would be great. But the shameful fact is that throughout this article he continues to attack and attack - but does not bring the slightest hint of another method.
Pay attention to the following two sentences, one after the other:
"They teach plant diseases and ways of healing and human diseases and ways of healing, but forget to point out that for humanity, the individual life is the main thing - and for the most part any effort to save them is justified; While in the plant world the harvest is the main thing, so we will not hesitate to sacrifice plants on the altar of collective wealth. Whoever does not stand for this profound difference, while teaching science, causes the distortion of the student's image of the world and the disappearance of the sanctity of human life."
"When you strip a frog and remove its brain, in order to teach the Israelites about reflexes and other phenomena in humans, you inadvertently train the student to treat the problem of brain removal in frogs and humans with the same degree of scientific equanimity. "
So on the one hand the professor complains that they don't teach that human beings deserve to be saved at all costs. On the other hand, he describes himself how animals are sacrificed to learn how to save humans. So what exactly does he want?
And the sentence I really liked:
"And when you teach them about the Darwinian war for existence, which originally refers to animals, he learns that the violent types are the most suitable to survive, and the result: a song of praise for violence and the ability to get along at any cost."
Anyone who teaches students about a Darwinian war for existence and emphasizes the issue of violence is completely missing the point of evolution. Organisms that have acquired the mechanism of altruism in nature survive better than isolated organisms. Either the professor does not know the mechanism of evolution very well, or the teachers who teach it do not know it. But this can be solved through better education of the teachers, or simply by adding a 'Science and Morality' course.
In conclusion:
The professor raises a series of problems, but most of them can be solved in a very simple way: add a course of 'science and morality' in universities. In the end, all the problems he raises arise from the fact that he tries to make science the source of morality - but at the same time he also distorts the theories of science so that they lead to distorted morality (cells that lead to fascism, evolution that leads to existential violence).
know what? I must quote one more paragraph, the following in response to the question:
"What do you suggest, give up grades?
I do not know. I see no reason why teachers should not assess the potential of their students, based on their success in facing challenges shaped and determined according to the student's personality, instead of according to his ability to vomit proficiency in forced subjects.
And do you believe it is practical?
In a small country like Israel, I believe so."
According to the professor's method, each teacher will give a grade as he sees fit (because how can you monitor and criticize the giving of grades that are given in a completely personal way? The teacher can always say that he knows the student's personality better than anyone else). Moreover, each teacher will be able to supervise a maximum of five students, and will have to spend his whole day on them and creating new challenges for each of them. Where will we find enough teachers for this? Where is enough money for every such teacher who spends his soul on the student? "In a small country like Israel it is practical" ?? After all, a small country like Israel also suffers from Israel's small budget!
And what will happen if the teacher does not appreciate one of the students? In this case, will he fail him, and is there no one who can cancel his determination? Or will he give him challenges that are too easy with a high score, but will not fulfill the purpose of the method?
It's been a long time since I've read an article, but it's also been a long time since I've seen an article with such a number of logical failures.
To "I":
Professor Lorch exaggerates, admittedly, in his claims and of all of them I would adopt the one that the scientists' words should not always be swallowed uncritically and applies it mainly to the rest of his words.
He, more than most scientists I've met, uses the science professor title to sell us his belief in other fields.
This is not the place to insist on all his mistakes, but what is clear is that none of them eliminate the logical errors in the article discussed in this discussion, just as none of them eliminate the role of evolution in the development of morality.
Hugin:
All of you see
"The Cult of Science and the False Prophets"
An interview with Prof. Jacob Lorach, which was published in the journal "Mechvot" in March 1972, and in my opinion is still relevant - especially for the above topic.
http://www.tapuz.co.il/blog/ViewEntry.asp?EntryId=1066556
for cool
When you turn to me, you better brush your teeth first
Know very well who you are addressing.
And it will be true if you don't respond.
and Higgs
If you don't understand, let it go.
Apparently my words are not intended for you - you are too proud to contain them.
Happy New Year
Hugin and Monin.. of Odin..
I am amazed at the effect of the new king's clothes that you managed to assimilate among the commenters.
After all, you write and write word combinations, there are computer programs that do it better.
Finally someone has to say all this talk you wrote is just meaningless.
With all the hints and implied threats and scores and all the shenanigans.
You still haven't written a single meaningful thing. I tried several times to read (I forced myself because of the boredom of the things) meticulously what you wrote. Again and again it is completely meaningless. Pointless gibberish and boring conceit.
Patience has already run out, it repeats itself all the time.
It also turns out that your messages about your separation from this site were manipulations.
Not tired of squealing.
Lahugin: You corrupt people have had enough!
A cow in a sheep's skin
Michael
Who are they?
Hugin:
I don't move my lips when I type on the keyboard.
The direct connection from the brain to the fingers works well for me.
So there is no need for me to keep my mouth shut when I comment here.
You still haven't told me how you would describe the fact that they see you.
Michael
Keep your mouth from sinning again and again with inaccuracies about.
And it's better at this point that you tell jokes - I'm in favor.
Good night.
Hugin:
Is it true that you give face-to-face lectures where the deceivers see you?
I wonder how you would state this fact (the fact that they see you) in your language.
Higgs
Hel- is aimed at delegating up.
You already commented on this to me once and I noticed your comment.
Even in my book, I insisted that it remain so. It is my lips and it is probably gifted with a special purpose.
Thanks in advance.
And a good year for everyone
Hugin
Avi Blizovsky
In my opinion, Prof. Friedman tried to stimulate creative thinking and debate at the height of his eyes and he missed big.
All his arguments tend to the example from which he is trying to escape, including his arguments in matters of morality which are charged to Gentiles but do not contain the moral content they are supposed to carry.
In my opinion, Anino pays enough attention to the heart murmurs of the atheists and those who are sensitive to irrational ways. Instead of talking about morality as a parameter, it would have been better for him to use a bit of moral content such as respect and self-doubt.
Hugin
The trial
"According to your comments, it is evident that you do not understand at all >>> the basics and the formations that I see through them."
which contains this preposition that you repeat over and over again is really jarring.
Be aware that the quality of the melody depends on the type of connections between the boxes.
to Odin
I'm not kicking you out, God forbid. Of course, I respect wisdom very much, but I am not prepared to respect stupidity that is supposed to be wisdom. Of course, the reference is to astrology, not to you personally.
Why do we continue to take seriously and give respect to someone who defends "astrology"?! (and more on the knowledge site) Is it not clear to you, like me, that the right way to deal with this young lady is by ignoring her? I personally do not understand most of what she writes (and I really have no problem understanding others...) Let's just declare that we ignore her, and that's fine one hour earlier.
my father
I wanted to add that mine doesn't matter at all. You don't argue with wisdom and a mother, you just respect her.
There is no point in scorning things you are not knowledgeable about.
A little provocation, and I answer you in my own way.
For example, there is a chamber for scientific astrology and I am not a member of it, for the same reason that I don't like all Haggadah topics of any kind. At the same time, the learned code is rich and vast and the one who rejects it, rejects it, not me.
And thank you, (to the God you despise) I enjoy and gain wisdom every moment of my life.
I have no problem with this wisdom being respected and recognized as the mother of all advanced sciences, and you will continue
In your Titans Rebellion.
From your comments it is clear that you do not understand the basics and the formations that I see through them at all.
And Tzedek Yehuda who pointed out that I don't deal with small things.
Hugin: The petite one for you.
I hope you are not kicking me out of the paradise of science.
To Odin, it won't help. Astrology ended its role 400 years ago when Copernicus discovered that the earth revolves around the sun and not the other way around. No amount of PR or even a majority of the public believing this idiotic theory will make it scientific. Any attempt to force scientists to believe in astrology means an attempt to forcibly return us to the Middle Ages. Using power in the Knesset, it is possible to pass a law that the earth is square, but such a law will not bind the scientists.
It is possible that if science is able to accept within itself the astrological enlightenment in subjection to aseronomy as it was and emerged in the past as the mother of the precise and intelligent sciences after a failed strike, there will also be a balm for the shame of science that has forgotten the foundation of the foundations from which it drew, expanded, branched out and perhaps in the extreme that is often expressed - even abhorred.
At a certain point, as in every field, we are forced to return to the source from which we gained strength.
Will Prof. Harry Friedman include this aspect in his book?
This is the question of questions.
In any case, we will continue to expand our horizons and scientific knowledge as well.
Roy and Daniel:
As I mentioned at the beginning of my words - exactly the sentence that Daniel attacked - "We are activated by different and diverse urges, each of which is created for different immediate reasons, where the unifying reason is the reason of survival."
The immediate reasons are not survival, but the reason for which these reasons were created is survival.
Some of the indirect causes are by-products and the most important by-product is the ability of memes to wage their war of survival in our minds.
All of this has nothing to do with the soul or God and its connection to religion is simply that religion is a collection of water that survives.
Since morality does not consist only of altruism but also of a sense of justice, I found it appropriate to point out in my initial response that it can also be found among animals.
Daniel,
There is no argument between us, but perhaps about an implicit point at the end of your words, according to which 'we are not only driven by the need to survive'. Altruism can of course be interpreted as a collective survival instinct, but this is already a stretch of the term 'survival instinct'.
Consider that we are not alone among the animal world. The phenomenon of altruism exists everywhere, and has even been proven to exist among bacteria. Altruism allows the group to survive and thus it allows its representatives to pass on their set of genes to the next generation - including the genes for altruism. This is a very effective mechanism for preserving genes, and it's no wonder we see it everywhere.
Some extension to the point:
Although it is worth watching the entire lecture by Sam Harris, but if you don't have the time and energy, you can let it load without being played or projected at the same time as other work, and then skip straight to the 20th second in the 58th minute (58:20/1:21:17) and hear the relevant part to our eyes.
Roy:
The truth is that this is probably a fabricated story but since it is so reminiscent of human behavior we tend to slander the monkeys with an unsubstantiated plot and claim that they are stupid like us.
Religion, on the other hand, with the Inquisition and the observances of chastity, is a real story about humans and not a parable about monkeys.
To Roy
It's clear that the laws of survival apply to us as well as to the BH, this was not my intention but a lower holding and gives us the possibility to oppose them, for example, even though we perceive the world in a stereotypical way, we can oppose it and accept the different, like the example of black trusting black, this is understandable From an evolutionary point of view and as a result, it is rooted as a stereotype, but we understand in the thinking part of us that this is not true and that is why we have friends of different races. The debate between us if there was one that I claim these laws are weakened by us humans and we are not only haunted by the instinct of survival.
Michael,
Thanks for the detailed analysis. I know the story of the monkeys and the banana, but as far as I know it is just a parable about human nature. Unfortunately, I have never been able to find any mention of a real experiment of this kind. Since parables are not exactly reliable sources of information about human behavior, I preferred not to include it in the previous responses.
point,
How do you explain periods and peoples in which religion did not command moral laws, and yet society was more than moral? An automatic example of this is ancient Greece, where the gods were clearly immoral, and it was civil laws that enforced the law. There wasn't even a 'next world' where you get reward or punishment, and if there was, it was only hell.
It is true that one can say regarding today's data, that atheists made their choice voluntarily and are therefore more rational and perhaps also more moral - and as a result they are less criminals. But how can you deal with the moral-atheism of the ancient world, which had a stable society no less than the religious-moral societies in history?
point:
Your claim is not true, and if it were true, we would both be thieves and murderers.
The truth is that statistical information that completely contradicts your words is found at the end of Sam Harris's lecture which is found in the following link:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1232718550543562442&hl=en
It is true that at the dawn of human civilization, religion was used for these needs because it organized the people who were afraid to go beyond its laws for fear of God's hand.
At that time it was necessary because the sophisticated mechanisms of legislation and enforcement were not yet in place.
The situation today is different and the law enforcement system is used in the roles of deterrence that in the past God served in so that religion has done its job and religion can go.
Roy and Daniel:
Man is very different from other animals in the length of his childhood and in the relationship between learned behavior and innate behavior.
This is why the mechanism of belief (which is relevant for animals that make claims that can be believed or disbelieved, much more so for animals that do not) is more distinctly found in humans than in other animals.
There is also no doubt that a child's tendency to believe his parents and the other adults around him provides survival advantages - after all, the chances are that all of these provide him with knowledge that he produced from rich life experience that he lacks.
The child's acceptance of his parents' religion is of course a harmful byproduct - but it is only a byproduct of a beneficial feature.
The "rebellion of the youth" is also a mechanism that is necessary for a person to transform from a "gullible believer" into a person with self-judgement and decision making, but, as Roi pointed out, this rebellion is not effective enough in an environment of people who have been washed with memes from religious conservatives who prevent those around them from acting in directions that contradict the the religion
A story with some relevance to the matter is the story about the four monkeys, the banana, and the corporate tradition.
I hope that everyone who is interested in the subject knows the story, so I won't go into detail right now, but if someone asks, I will go into detail later.
Look Michael,
It seems to me that we must agree that without religion the evil would celebrate much more, with all the murders and wars. Religion is a stabilizing factor.
This is due to the fact that there are many people who, if they were not religious, would behave like wild animals. Religion protects society in this sense.
It's kind of like the media's way of providing dumb entertainment to the masses to stabilize the country and instill the illusion of happiness and contentment. But in this case the rich have the clear motive. :).
Regarding religion, I did not find a clear motive that a certain group outside of religion benefits from having religious people. Therefore, at least in this sense, religion is clean.
Daniel,
My last sentence, "You and your descendants will conquer the whole earth" was not directed against a certain population today or in the past. The intention was to illustrate the way in which a gene that encourages blind faith can easily pass on and become significant in the population within a few generations, provided that it also provides certain survival advantages (not putting your hands in the cozy fire, not playing with tigers, and so on).
I am sure that as you say, only 6% repent, but many others are also full of sufficiency. They simply have no one to talk to, they don't have the courage to break the cycle. And this is precisely the human society in which faith in its various incarnations has been preserved with such strength for thousands of years and more.
And as for your claim that 'the laws of survival that apply to inferior stocks do not apply to us'... this is such a sweeping claim that it is very difficult for me to answer it satisfactorily. Obviously, the rules of natural selection do not apply to us as strongly as they do to fish, for example, because we take care of our offspring and our families and take care to nurture the weak among us as well. But natural selection still applies to us as a society, and there are various theories that discuss the evolution and natural selection of human societies. I strongly suggest you read about the subject. Two very interesting books discussing the field (both by Jared Diamond) are 'The Third Chimpanzee' and 'Bacterial Guns and Steel'.
Just so you don't stay in tension - both of us - both the boy and I got out of the story safe and sound and continued on the trip.
An interesting phenomenon:
Beyond all the controversy in the discussion between me and Daniel, one interesting point stands out which I think is more important than the rest of the debate.
I tried to explain the claim that the origin of morality is not in an ethereal entity such as "spirit" or "God" or any religion, and I gave a logical explanation for the origins of morality.
Daniel came, and took a sentence that I used to convince me of the correctness of my claim, and showed me an example of behavior that in his opinion does not stem from the sources I pointed to (and we all know that the source from which it stems is religion).
Beyond the fact that Daniel simply failed to see the connection (which does exist) between the motives I described and the behavior of a suicide bomber, the fact that he gave an example of immoral behavior stemming from religion rather than moral behavior stemming from it stands out.
Indeed, religion is a mechanism (which has many evolutionary explanations) that extorted morality from man and basing it on a "divine" source actually leads humans to immoral behavior.
Yaron Yedan's book "Religion Rises on Its Creators" contains many other examples of this.
By the way - in connection with other things he said, maybe I should tell something from my personal experience - precisely about rescuing people from a stormy river.
I just happened to perform such an action personally and it is desirable that the real facts that I learned from it be taken into account by those interested in the subject.
I was on a trip of the Society for the Protection of Nature in the Jordan Estuary to the Kinneret.
At a certain point there was a bend in the river where the water flowed in (relative) gushing foam.
There were also children with us and one of them was suddenly swept away by the current and attached to the spiky raspberry bushes on the other side of the river - in fact only the raspberry thorns probably prevented him from continuing to drift away.
There was a whole group of adults and children, including the group's instructors and the child's parents, and no one dared to come to his aid.
You can probably guess that I was the one who dared, but that is less important.
What is important is that it is not true that this behavior - of rescuing people from a stormy river - is a common thing.
In fact the opposite is true.
Daniel:
I understand you may have been referring to comment 48 here.
This is at least a response from me to you, but it does not say that you are religious or from the Bata'at. She is talking about the topic you talked about, which is the suicide terrorist.
Daniel:
First of all, I mentioned that Habbat can be secular because his honesty (or lack thereof) allows him to lie.
Second, there are many ways to try to bring people back to repentance and defending the religion whenever it is attacked is one of them and it is your favorite way.
I also said that I was talking about my definitions but why not ignore my words if it furthers the lie.
Of course, when I was referring to previous discussions, I mentioned it.
I don't think it's within your authority to try to explain my intention to me, but of course not such trifles as to deter you.
Response 48 in the discussion you voted on is a response from Roy Lali.
I didn't wait for you to give me a number and I looked for all occurrences of the word "Daniel" in the responses - this is because all my responses to you contain this appeal.
None of them called you religious or a rabbi.
But no problem.
You are welcome to continue rambling.
You probably don't really have anything relevant to say.
It's a shame, it could actually be interesting to hear and try to understand your words to the end. But if that's what you want, then…
My father certainly did not intend to expel or silence you, because the content of the comments should not be compatible with the agenda of the content of the articles on the site itself (after all, that is already the editor's and the writers' business). Although I personally would not touch the comments at all (and even if it is an ultra-Orthodox preacher with vested interests, there are enough people here who are competent to answer him, without misleading the public), but that is already the editor's business.
I am sure that my father is not a thought policeman, and is not in favor of censoring opinions even if they are anti-scientific, God forbid.
To Michael
Goes like Mechabat, etc. If I were a convert, I would not surf the website on a holiday, in order to explain this sentence to you, a religious person does not desecrate a holiday and turn on a computer, so as usual your conclusions are wrong, and this is already the first mistake.
The second mistake or the second lie as you like to express it, in your response to me and I quote "I wrote a lot about this point, but since I'm sure you saw it and your attempt to ignore what I wrote on the subject is just another one of the lies you resort to the sycamore and tonight I will not repeat the things here." First of all, the second thing from your words, it is clear that you did not mean only in this discussion but also in previous discussions, response number 48 so that you will not have a problem finding the response number again.
Regarding the link I gave, the number of responses there is not in order, so I did not write down the exact response number for you.
Although I am very tempted (and I hope I will stand up to it in the face of the lies you claim about me) to answer you matter-of-factly I have decided not to exchange opinions with you for the time being due to the poor level of conversation involved in talking with you. God, and it no longer moves like a pan, etc.
Daniel:
Tell me: Is your point of departure in the discussion that people will not go to the link you gave but will just believe you?
It is true that in my words I meant the current discussion, but see it's a wonder - even in the link you provided I did not call you that, even though I must say that according to my personal definition of the terms, you respectably meet the requirements of each of them (and this is beyond the fact that those who walk like a mahbat, are disgusting like a mahbat) A and lays eggs like a tank is a tank) But since this is my personal definition and I currently have no interest in burdening myself with the details that there is no chance you will understand, I will content myself with your definition of these concepts (which does not reflect any essence but I really don't care).
So I repeat that you just went back and lied.
By the way - matter-of-fact, you did not refer to the words at all.
Amadeus
Let's leave it at that, for the time being. I don't want to violate Abi Bilozovsky's certain norms
and the "measured" line for the needs of the existence of this site.
In my opinion, there is a deep-rooted flaw in a wrong and mistaken perception regarding the subject I mentioned earlier and there is no point in me insisting on the matter. I believe that those who want to learn and understand, can learn and experiment even on their own and neutralize any irresponsible dependence on others.
and my father
Look, I'm kind of a sensitive breed... do you think it's right for me not to react when arrows are sent against me?
It seems to me that there is no other way and a better response to venomous silence.
Clarification and directness: this is my way.
And about the dictionary you suggested? You might be surprised, but in 11/2007 it was indeed published... but as you can see, I'm not using your site to glorify it. And maybe with a slight allusion, when asked to save a certain situation - otherwise.
What exactly is hidden in a rational nature reserve?
It is worth reminding you of the slogan of the Free People movement that operated in the nineties: "Let the seculars live". What is it if not a nature reserve for the rational?
Avi,
Besides, if that's the case, you can't say "nature reserve" rationally, there is a fundamental contradiction between these two things.
You will also not be able to call your website the "Scientist", but only the scientist.
Think about it.
Hugin: In direct Hebrew/I avoid telling you that my place feels a sting.. I said..
To Odin regarding your reply to Amadeus, I'll be honest, I got lost in the middle.
It is more appropriate to refer to the essence of the matter and not to the essence of a person, as you did regarding a point. If you have a criticism of something he wrote, you are welcome to express it.
Regarding dryness, sometimes it is better to be dry and clear. Otherwise you will have to get out a Hebrew-Udini dictionary in addition to the books.
Hugin, thanks for the compliments, and in this case it's Lohengrin... (another time it might be Amadeus...)
In any case, I must point out that I can't quite get to the bottom of your mind.
I admit that I have no academic knowledge in the field of logic, and there may be several different "types" of logic. I was talking about the simplest classical logic: assumption, argument, reasoning.
If the assumption is correct, and the reasoning is structured correctly (from a logical point of view, of course), then the claim is correct.
Besides, as my father pointed out, logic by itself is meaningless. For logic to have value it has to represent something meaningful, and in the case of science these are empirical facts. Science and logic are not equal and balanced, science is built according to the principles of logic, but not necessarily every logical claim is scientific (because it is possible to claim a logically correct claim, but its basic assumptions will be wrong as far as science is concerned).
I don't know what kind of logic you're talking about, and how it differs from the logic that Michael and I talked about, so it would be nice of you if you could elaborate. I don't understand, for example, what is meant by "elevated Hittite observation is necessary in order to prove the reflection of every observer."
Quantum mechanics is actually not built on logic that is different from normal logic. I didn't understand how quantum mechanics "manages to solve vanishing issues which before according to the theory of science (in all its fields) was unable to touch and define them."
After all, quantum mechanics grew out of physics, not out of a vacuum, and it is even now in the field of physics. Physics failed to define the quantum phenomena for the simple reason that it did not have the technological means required to measure the quantum phenomena. Empirical data that indicated the existence of quantum mechanics was already available at the end of the 19th century and the beginning of the 20th, and what was required was a few good minds that would be able to understand their meaning. Although the acceptance of quantum mechanics required a change of several paradigms, in the end it arose logically from what was known before.
I admit that astrology is not a field in which I am strong, but I believe that I am quite familiar with its basic assumptions, and the rationale behind its methods. I don't know if astrology is indeed "logical" as you claim (perhaps it is), but it is not acceptable to me personally. As I have already said, logic alone is not a sufficient condition to establish that something is factually true. For astrology to be a science, it needs to give accurate predictions that can be verified experimentally a large number of times, and independently. No special kind of logic will prove its correctness alone.
Besides, why only astrology? What about ghosts, feng shui, crystal healing, communication with the dead? Is there not some deep logical rationale at their base as well?
I don't know what chaos and rifts you are talking about, that exist in the sciences, maybe this was true 50, 100, 200 years ago, but today the various scientific disciplines are united more than ever to answer the same basic questions. I also don't see how astrology will solve the problem (although if it eventually turns out to be correct, this will require several revolutions in the sciences, and perhaps open alternative approaches to the study of phenomena).
I don't understand why astrology needs its own "language". You said "as mathematics and numbers and statistical terminology are languages. And as in every field and field in the subjects of the sciences there are different theories and different approaches, so also in the field", but it seems to me that you did not understand my intention. Mathematics and logic are not just another language, they are the languages of knowledge, without which science does not exist. You can't adopt any new language you want. All science is based on the same language, the language of empirical data and measurements and their unification in a logically consistent theory. If astrology does not meet these requirements, it is invalid as a science, and as such cannot claim to provide information about the world.
And I'm sorry, but I'm not able to understand statements like- "It is indeed, the ability to observe quantum in octaves that allows an observant flight like the astronaut-or
The satellite - or the bird that sees everything from the air. And everything in front of the virtual steering box, the computer that shows a complete peripheral image."
which as far as I'm concerned don't mean anything, beyond wrapping something in empty adjectives. Calling something "quantum" or comparing it to music, doesn't make it something it's not. If we are talking about science and facts, then there is no place for expressions of this kind (at least not in this specific context).
You push us to learn something, but in the meantime you fail to innovate or prove something we didn't know. So what do we actually need to learn?
my father
If you had read my rational response to Amadeus in depth, you would not have accused me of a logical flaw.
The point is that it's not right for me to deny the human side. And that's the main point. Would you prefer me to be a cold and chilly dry land like the lonely space that expresses "point" on your site?
Odin,
A proposal was made here, open a website yourself and allow everyone to open their minds as you wish. I prefer to leave the science site a rationalistic nature reserve. You are of course welcome to continue reading and commenting here, and I fought for you to stay, but respect our desire to maintain the integrity of the site.
At my age, I probably won't repent anymore (and it doesn't matter what the question is)
Amadeus
Wolfgang Mozart does not forgive me that I put Beethoven together with him in the same methodical-musical basket...and if you also identify yourself with the British string quartet...oh wow
Maybe I messed with you too..so..sorry.
Hugin
דניאל
I did not refer at all to the matter of what affects what and the legality of mutual relationships in everything.
So let's say for now on this issue.
Hugin
Avi Bilozovsky
I read the attributed article at the beginning of my stay with you.
Let's continue with the unconditional agreement between us and the indefinite: you will continue with the matters of the external astronomical phenomena and I with the privileged and special logic that serves my tolerance to you as well
What do you think? After all, I mentioned that everyone has their own tendencies, what's more, I'm a girl and you're a boy, and the extreme configuration of our brains is slightly different, what's more, we might find overlapping complements.
Apart from that, I hope you enjoyed the flight..and maybe the opera too..and the experience was not particularly painful..
To Michael
Unlike you, I am not a liar. Read your comments to me in which you call me religious and religious https://www.hayadan.org.il/zamir-cohens-changeover-blofs-140908/
So who turned out to be a liar? Nice, you managed to bring me down to your childish level, at least something came out of your simplistic arguments.
Daniel:
I didn't say you were religious.
I said you were a liar and I stand by my claim.
The fact that you said that I said that you are religious also strengthens this argument of mine.
I also didn't say that you are a rabbi, even though there are also secular rabbis (because a liar doesn't see it as a moral problem) and I'm ready to call you a rabbi now, if that's what you want.
I treated your words matter-of-factly and did not avoid anything.
I have already said many times here on the site that religion makes people do horrible things that they would never do without it.
I also gave a fairly in-depth explanation of the phenomenon in response 47 here:
https://www.hayadan.org.il/baylor-survey-finds-new-perspectives-on-us-religious-landscape-2109089/
But there is nothing - you are welcome to continue to lie and say (of course without attacking me personally) that I always attack personally instead of addressing the matter
to hug
I'm not trying to tease, but why should a piece of stone floating in space affect the choices I make or don't make in my lifetime?
To Roy
Regarding the figure 6% of those who return to the question are ultra-Orthodox, the answer is that, on the other hand, in the world of knitted domes, the figure is higher (close familiarity with this world) and this leads to the conclusion that due to mental closure (the BB ghettos and the like) they manage to maintain a low level of return In the question, however, this does not mean that the children do not doubt the faith, there is simply no one to answer their questions, so they remain within the framework.
In relation to the claim that the descendants will conquer the world, this is an overly pessimistic claim, since principles and moral teachings change every few generations, therefore this fear of the ultra-Orthodox was exaggerated in my eyes, the Jewish religion has gone through intellectual revolutions throughout its existence, therefore a current that is now the majority does not guarantee that it will continue to be so in the future (reformers in the USA For example) Likewise, the ultra-Orthodox are no longer able to live on such a closed level as before and they are opening up to the secular world, which was not the case in the past (due to cuts in allowances that lead to work, natural growth, etc.).
Regarding the issue of monkeys "and the garden of faith" this is basically my argument that we are different from other animals ("man is allowed to be a beast") and therefore the laws of survival that are inherent in low levels of life do not bind us at the same level!.
to Odin It is possible that there are those who will find logic in astrology.
However, once its premises are wrong one by one, including the very fact that there is some correlation between a random collection of stars in the sky and the activities of humans, logic has no meaning. Logic in science has meaning only if the basic positions are correct, only then the conclusions are correct.
You are invited to read the eight reasons why astrology is nonsense. Note, each of the reasons refutes astrology and there is no need to accumulate all of them or some of them.
https://www.hayadan.org.il/astrology-290401/
Daniel,
You raise an important point here. Of course, if attempts to rescue children from tunnels are not usually successful, then there is no advantage in altruism. But as long as the rescue attempt is successful with a chance higher than 50:50 (and I think it is very likely), then you have received preservation and amplification of the altruism gene.
But something that is very important to remember is that I gave only one example here. Altruism is not only responsible for bailing out of raging tunnels. He is also responsible for Likud and group formation and the tendency of people to contribute and help each other in the group. All these are features that will obviously be worth preserving during evolution.
Let's move on to the next point: Why don't apes (or many humans) help those outside their extended family or race?
The answer is that natural selection instilled in us the desire to help those who are similar to us - and therefore carry a genetic load very similar to ours. Just as monkey tribes fight each other, and Eskimo tribes fight each other, so do the 'human tribes' fight each other - whether it is whites and blacks, Eskimos and Chinese or the Cezana family and the Alon family. Each of the human beings outlines an 'extended family' and alienates the other families from him. For some of us this means that altruism will be valid for all human beings in the world, for others it will be valid only for the members of that country, for others only for the immediate family and for certain exceptions - only for themselves.
Of course, a matter of education is mainly involved here, since we know that people can be educated to feel altruism today towards their countrymen, even though there were times in the past when this was not acceptable. And it gives great hope that as globalization and information networks advance, more people will also accept everyone else around the world as part of their extended family.
Regarding the monkeys and the Garden of Faith, the answer is simple: monkeys are not humans. It is possible that this is one of the developments we went through in evolution from an ape-man ancestor to the present day.
And as for children questioning their parents' customs of life, this is very true, but the basic beliefs are instilled in us at a very young age and it is very difficult to break free from them. Mentioned repeatedly in the question as proof that people can break free (and even in many cases want to) from their childhood customs. However, according to the statistics today, only 6% repeat the question out of all the ultra-Orthodox, according to the following website:
http://rabbiwein.com/column-667.html
Pay attention to the simple math: 6% of your children overwhelmingly challenge the faith you instilled in them, but 94% continue to believe and uphold it and teach it to their children and their children's children. Give it a few generations, and in a very short time you and your descendants will conquer the whole earth.
to Amadeus
Your methodical approach is at least as noteworthy as Beethoven's music being played, and it is likely that if you called yourself this name, your ability to play with logic does not diminish in value from the exemplary order in which you tend to present the face of things in your approach. You also have the ways of looking - observation).
I agree that it is not possible to examine phenomena without logical tools - something that science is justifiably jealous of, even absolute. But the fact is that referring to Michael's logical approach, you missed my precise definition of the type of logic (perhaps due to a printing error) I specified linear-linear logic. This logic is the basis for the analysis of the phenomena The directness but is unable to rise beyond the apparent relativity. In contrast, here you brought up the quantum theory which succeeds in solving vanishing issues which before according to the science theory (for all its fields) was unable to touch and define them.
As a principle, the linear approach creates a separation and a conflict similar to a tug of war between all the ends of the parties and the domains and cannot and is capable of bringing about a solution that closes the ends and unifying them. These are local positions that do not allow for the elevated perspective that is necessary in order to prove the reflection of each observer.
Here, then, I must say again in an experimental personal tone, that I understood this dichotomous bin back in my youth when I was supposed to examine a specific field of specialization, I examined a lot of options that you mentioned
I read and studied among them and yet they did not give me a higher answer. But since logic is a necessary stepping stone for understanding phenomena in a structured way, I realized that I must examine in a thorough and deep way a field that may at this time - if not 800 years - be considered assigned by certain influential people
In Jewish history (the Rambam for that matter) at what point did they deny use in the field. This denial created a taboo
Trailer and comments in the field of exact sciences regarding a subject drawn from elementary astronomical data
and is borrowed for the study of phenomena and conduct of situations for all fields. This field also changes or more precisely develops according to additional discoveries and also according to hypothetical calculations as compiled and made by
Mathematical sciences and astronomy.
And now, Avi Bilozovsky-hold tight to the chair, because we are taking off... Yes. But what do you do with this brilliant astronomical knowledge and how do you expand incredible horizons with this =super=super-logical wisdom? That's the question. Here I personally found the ability for many perspectives - learning enormous peripheral tolerance
And a challenge to learn more and more fields in order to see their context. Without it, I would not be here
Able to live in the chaos that arose in the theories of science in all their divided and divided forms. Of course
And it is clear that each and every one has his natural inclination rooted deep within him in some direction of specialization
And from which direction of specialization does he like and is able to grow and fulfill his desire to study higher and to understand the phenomena of life in all their many and complex kinds and types and to solve pressing issues.
Astrology in its entirety is not mysterious at all. You only need to learn and understand the language as mathematics and numbers and statistical terms are languages. And as in every field and field in the subjects of the sciences there are different theories and different approaches, so also in the field :(Avi Bilozovsky-hold on
Landing in a little while... ) the pure in masterful logic.
This is indeed, the ability to observe quantum in octaves that allows an observant flight like the Astronaut-O
The satellite - or the bird that sees everything from the air. And everything in front of the virtual steering box, the computer that shows a complete peripheral image.
After learning this approach, it is no longer possible to see only divided linear-linear logic.
So, what do you say?? Just learn by yourself according to all the methods 12 13 It doesn't matter. There are basics
And from there everything stems and develops.
Amadeus:
Avi:
I believe that in all of us, and in most of us, there is a primal desire to learn to grow, understand and control ourselves for an enlightened, rich, wise and useful life.
The miraculous in order to contain intellectual and scientific insights is the question, and most likely there is nothing standing
In front of the learning desire and yearning to succeed in this.
And in the meantime: we will continue to listen to classical music in the background...heavenly and wonderful / my father,
I will dedicate an opera to you.
Hugin: Regards to our Judah…………
However, in any discussion, when you don't have anything smart to say or an answer that would contradict the claims, you turn to the path of insults in order to avoid the discussion (even though you call me religious and a pantheon, the fact that I answer you on a holiday already reveals your ignorance about My opinions in life, also a friendly advice, the less you make statements about people's thoughts the less stupid you will look in the future)
In our case, you will be surprised that life is not an equation of x and y, because even if we remove religion from your simplistic assumptions, love, jealousy, anger and other emotions are not useful only for survival, (murdering children, for example, abandoning them, etc.) There is a complex world beyond the basic level of kindergarten (in "A) As there is a complex world beyond simple formulas in physics (quantum theory relies only on probability to remind you)
At the end, you will learn from Roi that we respond matter-of-factly to the questions that respond to the Maalim site.
Pliers, of course
Hugin:
Rashi interpreted your words with the phrase "her stomach was twisted and her thigh fell".
The fact that you inform us that you were raised from a people and have superior intelligence does not change the fact that your world is as narrow as the world of an ant.
Daniel:
You just do not understand.
When I said "we" I meant humans and not zombies whose brains that evolution worked many years to build were hijacked by the religion virus.
I've already written a lot about this point, but since I'm sure you've seen it and your attempt to ignore what I wrote on the subject is just another one of the lies you resort to, Sycamore, and tonight I won't repeat the things here.
Laudin (regarding response 45). There are many more than seven pluses for the website readers….
: )
On the other hand, readers of mystic websites have only minuses.
Lahugin (42),
I will address what seems to me to be the main argument in your response -
"Michael uses logic... in order to define things and phenomena in a logically structured manner, and thus he somehow succeeds to a certain extent in dealing with dim phenomena of any kind - what is not within his logical reach does not exist at all.
Sometimes it is similar to trying to prove the theory of shades by a color blind person..."
Whether you meant an excessive reduction that misses the point, or an overly simplistic model to describe a complex phenomenon, you are right that this happened and is happening in science. Nature is sometimes more complex than one might imagine, and sometimes there is a desire (even if unconscious) to simplify everything in order to fit it into some framework that is very narrow and predictable.
But we need to qualify things and make it clear that logic is not the problem here. There is no such thing as "too much logic" because science necessarily requires logic, and without logic it simply falls. You can't use logic only sometimes or make assumptions about the matter. Every scientific theory is a definite logical structure in which there is never any ambiguity or lack of clarity, and if there are natural phenomena that are (as you expressed) - "phenomena that are even chaotic in another language, disharmonious - dull", then this does not rule out the very use of logic and the usual scientific tools to deal with them.
You will surely agree with me that whenever you try to assert a true claim or disprove a false claim you use logic in one way or another, this is the only structure with which we know how to assert claims about the state of the world. It is true that there are other "methods" (which some people believe are just as good) such as religion or other frameworks that require the acceptance of claims "because that's the way it is", but I hope you agree that methods of this type are not as good as the deductive logical method (ie to build a general argument, and from it to derive private claims), and that it is possible to claim an infinite number of "because that's how" claims, and also those that contradict each other, since the method does not actually make it possible to distinguish between truth and fiction (or gives tools to judge different systems of belief, say to know which religion is more correct than another ).
That's why science always tries to find the general principle behind things, the patterns and patterns, and thus the ability to predict the course of the phenomenon over time - no matter how chaotic and unpredictable the phenomenon is.
You'll be surprised, but there are chaotic and dull phenomena in nature that science can handle with great success (assuming you haven't heard of them before), all the hype of "chaos theory" for example, which manages to find regular patterns in systems that seem messy and unpredictable. As evidence, the global weather system is a very chaotic and unpredictable phenomenon, but regular observations and complex calculations manage to find certain patterns in the phenomenon and thus give more or less accurate forecasts for the next few days. An even more impressive example, perhaps, is quantum physics that manages to bring order to a very messy world. With the help of statistical equations, it is possible to make almost completely accurate predictions about particles and the various states, even though there is no classical determinism in the system as we are used to in everyday life.
Even a system that is very complex (and perhaps the most complex) the human being, psychology manages to treat with a certain degree of success with the help of well-planned studies and the collection and orderly analysis of statistical data (and perhaps also evolutionary psychology, as explained by Roy and Michael).
You said "what is not within its logical reach does not exist at all", this is essentially true. Although this is an argument that is not logically valid in an absolute way, but if we consider it from the realistic aspect, then in practice we are not able to deal with phenomena that we cannot perceive mentally, and hence they are basically as if they do not exist for us. Science needs an operative definition of a phenomenon, that is, a definition that will allow its precise measurement. If you claim the existence of a certain phenomenon, but are unable to give it a definition of this kind, then it is impossible to take your claim seriously, because how do you verify it? An infinite number of similar claims can be made on the same basis, and it will not be possible to disprove or prove any of them. Such a claim is God, for example, who by his very definition was not amenable to scientific treatment. You can say, the fact that we cannot perceive him does not mean that he does not exist, but on the other hand, you can also ask what kind of God is this? Is it one or are there several? What religion does he belong to? Etc. etc'. So if you try to refer to phenomena that are not within the framework of science and logic, they are essentially meaningless, they do not convey any information (beyond the imagination of the person who invented them) and do not allow you to conclude anything about the state of the world, so that it is practically impossible to refer to them. The situation is like this in religion, but also in other non-scientific doctrines (all branches of mysticism), the "facts" depend on the speaker who invented them and not on reality itself.
If science tried to deal with phenomena that cannot be measured, or those that do not operate according to some mechanism that can be predicted in advance, then we would live in a universe where gravity works on Monday and Thursday, but not on Tuesday, when light on Wednesday moves at the speed of light, but on Saturday it stops, and so'. This is the picture that mysticism and religion try to paint, and unfortunately, science is forced to reject them outright, and this does not indicate "brain problems" of the scientists.
to the point
You are in serious trouble. But as I mentioned, there are more +++++++ on the site, for whom everything is worth it.
To Roy
I'll go ahead and say that I know the theories in your answer, but they don't presuppose my opinion.
Means that your point of assumption is that the person survives the risk situation, which most of the times is not true, for example citizens who run to save people who are drowning and usually drown with them, this process was supposed to exterminate the carriers of the "genes that help".
Regarding the Iscamous theory - if it were true then we should have seen similar behavior in groups of monkeys such as monkeys, however the observed behavior is not providing help to a monkey in distress who is not from the extended family because its very survival affects my family (territory, food, etc.).
Also regarding the Ischmus, research has shown that people of a certain race for example white do not trust blacks and vice versa, sorry it sounds racist but this is human nature, so why would a white person go to save a black?
Regarding your second answer, it refers to the transmission of the gene of faith, and not to its formation.
In the wild I have not seen monkeys conducting pagan ceremonies, all of which are to strengthen the tribe.
Regarding the child theory, from a psychological point of view it is known that when we grow up we "dwarf" the figure of the father and we also allow him to disagree with his opinion, therefore if a person reaches a certain age and believes in what his parents taught him, I don't think it is only due to the upbringing at a young age, which also according to this theory We discuss the children's perceptions according to the fathers, which blocks the entire thought process. And also contradicts reality (repeating the question from an ultra-Orthodox house and returning to repentance from a secular house)
to hug
You wasted a lot of words
You could state the situation in one sentence: "To the point, there are things that you, the disabled, do not know, and I, the enlightened one, know"
Then I would ask, who tells you that you are not hallucinating?
to the point +++++
Not long ago you asked me about "my beliefs" and I sent you to the rest of the things I wrote on the site.
Indeed, you must now thank Yehuda who, immediately after the end of things between us last night, came to Michael's aid and thus reflected Michael's need in the challenging mental-scientific-conceptual "chess game" that is going on here. And the need to help him with unpolished issues, even By way of negation (the best method for solving mathematical-logical-philosophical and essential issues in general).
Nevertheless, the decisive human factor exists here behind the tools and the scenes (words - thoughts - ambitions - motivations - different perception beliefs - sublime impulses - emotions - different attributes - challenging stimuli - and more and more that operate and are operated by the participants on the site (and outside of it = life).
Look, point: you called yourself a point in space "nickname" This has the focus on the one hand and on the other hand it has a reduction in the ability to spatial vision. (That's why I added some pluses to you that will help you see more, and of course at the same time to refer to the additional company attributed on the site (reference.. )
You asked in an indirect way what my scientific inclinations are. Well, everything related to biology-chemistry-biochemistry-and spatial geometry are really in my blood. My place is drawn to the spectacular formations as if by a magical magnet. Indeed, I am always fascinated by beautiful harmonious things that have marvelous formations and stimulate a deep and high sense of inquiry.
But life has a very interesting dynamic and we are not always in the same absolute perfect state. Therefore, as a person who seeks to understand all the phenomena, it is also necessary to investigate and dig into even chaotic situations and phenomena, in other words, disharmonies found at different levels in the games of life and the passing or rooted phenomena: and I will give you an example on the site Michael uses Super-Liar-Linear logic in order to define things and phenomena in a logically structured manner. And thus he somehow succeeds to a certain extent in dealing with vague phenomena of all kinds. What is not within his logical reach does not exist at all.
Sometimes it is similar to trying to prove the theory of shades by a color blind person, or by a deaf person
The totality of the octaves of the sounds (which, by the way, may be in the seemingly limited tools of those "disabilities" maybe there is or is hidden a hidden wiring in the brain that is able to define - perhaps in a different language also the data I mentioned above) as a principle a researcher will not rule out anything and will always remain open to additional ways that he could not yet
To access them at a different time or in a situation unavailable for the same sequence of time and timing.
Point - there is no intention to negate your point, but it can be helped by you to treat the whole "Shash-Mt" formation in a more controlled manner according to your insistence on staying in the "turret" position or let's say A who is not willing to move much from his position and thus he acts or serves as a tool of " The keeper of the boundaries" defined by the rules of the term "science" according to your understanding (which is limited to an hour) for maintaining this site.
But there are, as you probably know, other important players in the game-stage of life represented here and without them, you will have to ask yourself "whose point am I anyway" or a tower of what and for what.
And on another occasion, according to the situations found here, I might expand more.
And to Yehuda? Thank you again that you will also help to appease the angels of resef that blow in our veins from time to time, that you are living and breathing ethereal and sublime virtual fragrances.. and others.
And even if thousands of light years away glittering and shining from our enigmatic gods.
Happy New Year
Hugin
Daniel,
In ancient times man (like most sociable organisms) used to live in small tribes of ~10 people, which were actually extended families. In such tribes, many genes were shared by all, due to the close family relationship (cousins, siblings and parents).
Let's take for example an altruistic action that a person does, for example jumping into a raging river to save one of the tribe's children. In such a case, he puts himself in danger, but if he succeeds in saving the child, he also saves the genes that are both in him and in the child. And of course, he himself survives and can produce more offspring. If the person did not do the altruistic action, then only half of the amount of shared genes survived in his body.
In other words, altruism serves as a very ancient mechanism for maintaining identical genes and increasing them. This mechanism exists in almost all species in one way or another, including bacteria.
The reason people today risk their lives for others they don't know at all is that this mechanism has gone out of control to a certain extent. He still makes us want to feel for the salvation of people with whom we identify as 'family members'. But today the country, and for some people the whole world, are the 'extended family' with which we identify. We learned to recognize everyone around us as a person in his own right, to sympathize with his suffering and to express empathy and altruism towards him. This goes against the original purpose - if I now save an Eskimo from drowning, and drown myself in the process, then the genes I saved are not mine - but what can be done if such mechanisms do not change quickly, and it is good that they are.
As for your second question, various studies have been conducted that try to test the connection between faith and evolution. We know that faith tends to unite different people, and it seems reasonable to assume that groups that survived better during prehistory and history were those that acted together. To act together it is desirable to believe in the same faith, and thus it seems that these genes were preserved and strengthened, when those tribes and groups that survived took over everything else.
Another possibility is the one proposed by Dawkins, according to which humans have a tendency to listen and accept as absolute truth everything they learn up to a certain single-digit age. The evolutionary need for this is understandable, so that the young child will not be devoured by wolves, or try to push his hand into the flame. The trouble is that if the adult believes in something (even if it is not true) and 'sells' it to the child at a young enough age, then the child will accept this belief as the truth and pass it on. And this is how faith is preserved and grows in a very short period of time, even though it is not necessarily useful from a survival point of view.
We are actuated by different and diverse impulses, each of which is created for different immediate reasons, with the unifying reason being the reason of survival.
There is no shortage of examples to invalidate this premise.
I didn't know that a suicide bomber wants to survive, this is a very simplistic way of seeing the world as if we humans are in a race for survival, also you can see quite a few situations where people risk their lives for the benefit of a person they don't know at all and when no benefit will arise from it.
The essence of the fallacy comes from trying to use scientific terms for moral teachings.
Also, how can science explain the need for faith, when from an evolutionary point of view it contributes nothing and even harms the survival of the individual.
to the point
I hope Michael is more expert in reading comprehension
Good Morning
Sabdarmish Yehuda
What relationship? Hugin is trying with all her might to convert your religion to hers. This is what I see happening here.
Tov Yehuda, if you think that's a compliment that's a perfume for you.
When someone tells you that it's a shame that your original mind doesn't think his thoughts, is that a compliment?
to the point
This is not the first time I have received compliments so I took it naturally.
But on the other hand, aren't you trying to cause a conflict between me and the one and only divine…. Hugin
Shame on you and all of you.
I think that your and Michael's disgraceful behavior stems from the fact that you are jealous of the wonderful virtual relationship between me and Hugin, accompanied by songs and sparks and books.
And by the way Hugin, my book was sent yesterday and I estimate it will arrive at the end of the week
We will not allow anyone to conflict between us
Secondly Masada will not fall
Happy New Year and good night
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Yes Hugin,
Giving compliments to people just to force them to obey your opinion is the lowest of all the elementary levels of basic morality. Compulsive domination by flattery. Reminds you of something?
Suffice it to quote what you said to Yehuda:
"I feel sorry for you from the bottom of my heart. I would have trusted your original intellect."
Yehuda, beware of her and her shoulder.
To the point and Michael
Enjoy the meal you cooked together.
It is not my honor to descend to the pitiful and ignorant bottoms you are in right now.
Mr. Higgs will forgive me for again having to answer in this way. This is not my intention and certainly not at the beginning of a new year.
point:
There is already a website "The Mystic" and this is the article about the Bermuda Triangle 🙂
All the company there and Hugin would fit in well there.
and Hogin,
Science is not in any way.
The distress is felt by those who are slapped in the face by the truth.
Happy New Year.
Avi,
Why would you let a mystic manage your website? I suggested that she open the Mystic website, not a bad idea in my opinion. Not bad financially and not bad in terms of business. Many are looking for these materials of the mystics.
A site like Hidan should only give a platform to correct opinions, that is, opinions that criticize the deceiving mystics and charlatans who are sick of control and representatives of the world of lies.
And if you are looking to challenge science readers, you can bring interesting opinions on topics such as the foundations of science, logic and thinking, the philosophy of science is full of such interesting materials.
Happy new year to everyone,
point
my father
If so, it is possible that we may have at least a year waiting for us with some kind of joint willingness, there are still areas on which you have put a taboo that at this stage I would not want to open precisely out of great respect for the tools that serve my life and I would not want you to categorize areas before you have studied them in depth. I am not at all
In favor of closed catalogs of any kind. (Sometimes it is not the field that is judged, but the malicious use of it. This too must be given consideration and weight when we want to learn something that is supposed to serve our lives for the potentials inherent in the set of phenomena).
I hope that articles by challenging scientists will be uploaded to the site and we will sharpen and renew ourselves in multidisciplinary research as you mentioned. Don't also forget articles on ethics because they are the person who may be found in it
Certain areas are in the process of being hacked and also on the verge of questioning their value (perhaps all areas).
I would love to receive articles from scientists who try to challenge existing concepts in science. There is something in your words regarding the sectoral division. It is inevitable, but today they are trying to fix it through multidisciplinary research such as nanotechnology.
I agree that a mechanism should be found that will allow cross-fertilization between different scientific fields because this is where the breakthroughs come from.
However, I believe that the direction is only forward, and areas of knowledge that have become apparent science (and I assume that the people who developed graphology, for example, had good intentions, and I suspect that IQ blood is on its way to becoming an apparent science), will not return to the mainstream and try to influence the progress of science. There is certainly nothing to talk about about pseudo science such as astrology, numerology, etc. Perhaps science is not perfect by its very definition as it strives for constant improvement, but it is the best tool we have so far, and I am amazed so far improvements in the quality of our lives have occurred in the last ten or twenty years thanks to discoveries in science and medicine, and with stem cells the hand is still tilted.
If the explanations are within the limits of science or at least do not contradict science, I have no problem publishing them, as I did this time (the argument was that there are things that science does not touch, this is a legitimate claim that can be argued with and within its framework. But I do not think that an article that I have any objections to should be published On the site identified with a certain line, without response, for the reasons I mentioned above.
my father
As of today, I find that science is in a very difficult and heavy dichotomous situation that does not serve the purpose
in whose name and in whose name it was founded, the product of a sectoral distribution manifested mainly since the beginning of the century
The previous one and the acceleration that brought a lot of rifts in humanity.
I personally and I imagine that many more and good ones also among the people of science feel this tightness
But we have not yet found the common desire to see together how and how to complete and heal the defects created by this.
If you don't define me in the mystics box (meaning that my place is in principle visible and not hidden) I will eat
Appreciate and even come towards - in a more moderate and constructive way.
I believe that people whose passion for development and learning burns inside them are truly free people
They will be happy to lend a hand and express themselves more openly. And with a less threatened feeling, the absorption and emission of intelligence is also possible
higher (and these are the articles discussed on your site - among the other articles) I don't care if you see this proposal as a joint experiment on your site for the purpose of understanding the structure of various brain types for example - and maybe we will find out
Together and each separately other things that stand in the order of our being.
It is understood that each and every one defines a certain phenomenon in the special or accepted language of the group he belongs to
But it is still possible to find ways to the seemingly opposite denominators.
Hugin:
Your words here are remarkably consistent with your words on any other subject:
Preaching morality without any foundation and without a hint of explanation or, to use a phrase that rings better - clearly immoral preaching.
I'm trying to find something in your words other than empty nonsense and I can't.
I have a friend who occasionally brings me examples of "miracle workers" of various kinds and when I expose their lies to him he tells me "so what - that doesn't mean all miracle workers are liars".
Of course he continues to say this even after dozens of cases have been revealed and in the absence of a single example of a real "miracle worker".
Hugin's words about having to read the whole book are similar.
The fact that we have not read the whole book does not make what is said in this chapter true, just as the fact that I do not usually eat breakfast does not make this chapter true.
I don't know what is found in the other chapters, it is possible that we will find points of interest there and it is possible that we will find nonsense there and yet the analysis in the chapter in question is at best wrong and at worst false (the difference is only a difference of intention). To describe a scientist (scientist!) who writes such nonsense as having integrity is simply a wild exaggeration because the chance that he is stupid and does not notice the logical flaws in his words is extremely low.
When my father asked me to respond, I asked him why because I thought that nothing would prevent me from responding as usual with the other responders. My father explained to me his motives, which he already detailed here in response 26 and since his words convinced me - I agreed to write a response that will appear as an integral part of the article. After all, we know the ways of liars and taking things out of context is one of their favorite weapons (God does not play with dice - remember?)
Odin, it has already happened that I uploaded a challenging article, and I wrote the response in a separate article and linked the two articles (this was ten years ago, in a version of the site that no longer exists, so I no longer remember the full details) I think it was an article that supported some mystical position and I responded on him separately.
what did i find Someone linked to the site and proudly said that the aforementioned mysticism has a scientific seal, a fact - it is found on the Hidan site.
This time the case is less extreme because it is a scientist, but because of the title, there will always be cynics who will say here is science going bankrupt, a fact that even the science website writes an article entitled Science is not everything.... and this should legitimize the things they believe in, which surely the respected professor does not believe In them being a scientist, but 90% of their surfers won't bother to go into the article and read it, so I did it for the avoidance of doubt.
Apart from that, I personally and many people who are involved in science believe that science is everything in terms of explaining the phenomena. He is not everything in this respect that there is also art, literature, travel and many things that science has nothing to say about, but that does not mean that they have meaning for the scientists except the interaction of naming celestial bodies from exotic mythologies.
It is possible that if any suspicion of bias had been removed in advance we should have received a net article - maybe a little bit
More extended-without the system response and Michael's response in one package deal.
In principle, what I lack in science today is an in-depth and rooted re-observation of the ethical rules that guide this field.
I would appreciate it if Avi Bilozovsky would honestly consider bringing additional articles from various academics who wish to participate and re-raise the questions and perhaps offer ideas with a perhaps bold approach
And maybe even a good old one that can give us back or shed light on us that we might forget.
Hugin: With a happy and fruitful new year.
to Odin In my opinion, a large part of the respondents do this in a matter-of-fact manner.
In my opinion, it is only natural that a discussion will develop around such an article.
In the opposite case it doesn't happen, if they ask me to give my opinion to a website, radio station, television, etc. coming from the mastic aspect, I am usually censored. Here we quoted his words word for word, I even took the last version I got from the publisher which had some corrections.
Balances:
Among all the values that have developed in humanity over many years of history, taking into account the great price that humanity has paid, and only then was it forced to draw lessons.
Those who today use the term "spirit world" have no idea where they live.
Who hurts whom?
It is not our fault that the esteemed professor commits basic logical fallacies...
How I hate this postmodernism, a kind of thought police that obliges everyone to accept every opinion as if it is always true to the same extent, and God forbid that someone tries to contradict it or even say something against it - it's straight up intolerance, anti-democracy, fascism!!
So that's it, the truth does not work in a democratic way, it does not depend on what we want to believe, and no respectable professor is immune from criticism if he tries to subordinate the truth to his own private agenda.
Confession: I am the one who recommended putting part of the book on the website. I thought it would be right if you opened yourself up to include another real observation.
Prof. Harry Friedman is reluctant to put himself to ridicule by you.
It is not right for me that you would hurt people who are trying to see and show things in an additional light and with intellectual integrity.
Hugin: Happy New Year.
Yehuda
Nothing makes me angry. Take out when a person does not see his virtue and he is attracted to something that is contrary
his real abilities-the extras.
You may or may not accept my opinion.
By the way, your (your) book hasn't arrived yet.
Happy holiday good year.
.
to hug
What did I sin?, that my opinion is not according to your opinion?, that my opinion partially matches Michael's opinion?
It happens between commenters, and it doesn't need to be amazing or infuriating.
Happy New Year
Sabdarmish Yehuda
I think that before categorizing comprehensively, you should read the entire book and be educated at all levels.
Science is obliged to serve the laws of nature and the universe and not to destroy them. Therefore it is necessary to learn and expand
for more horizons.
Amadeus: I hope this reference is sufficient at this point.
Hugin: Happy holiday - Happy New Year.
higgs,
If he recognizes it, let him explain why. An assertion without explanation is an empty password.
For those who did not understand,
Hugin sees herself as God.
point
I think he recognizes the consciousness problem with the TOE
This copying is quite acceptable among those involved in it
Yehuda
Apparently it follows from the title of the book from the general rule, "Don't you hear them?"
Hugin and Monin.. of Odin..
As a blank you have already given a failing grade to all respondents. And to yourself excellence.
Is Rosh Hashanah a day of judgment for you as a judge or as a judge?
Hugin,
I wish it could be said about all people that they are 'good categories of themselves'. A lot of suffering and lies would be spared from the world if everyone would judge themselves as harshly as they judge others.
I think I'm starting to get infected by you…
Huginaudin, you are right that Yehoda exaggerated a bit by labeling the entire book based only on a few pages of it, it is not necessarily a religious mission, or some shekel mystic. But we haven't heard any reference from you to Michael's words or my words, nor to the article itself?
to the point
In contrast to a thousand thousand differences from you, I am well versed in the material presented here and in the other articles and in my originality.
And as an old girl, I'm allowed for a change not to shy away - and this in order not to sink into the mud that you are
And your likeness waddles in it with nauseating masturbatory pleasure.
Michael
You could be a good category of yourself in court.
Of all your logical operations it can be said: the operations were successful and the patients, even if they were healthy, would have died!
And Yehuda: How you fall into the trap and big! I feel sorry for you from the bottom of my heart. I would have trusted your original intellect if you had trusted it too - more than Michael. (with the full potential).
Hugin,
I envy you that you are always above, connected to the secret of infinite eternity and the ancient spirit and drinking from the source of the upper waters.
And with all this your modesty is infinite.
You never react to people's bodies, and always to the bodies of things.
It was so expected that you would react like this: take things out of context.
And get down to the basics.
It is possible that this is about giving "pearls to swine"
who are unable to see clearly.
And Yehuda: Before you say anything irrelevant about Perp Harry, you should know that he also investigates everything else
The phenomena are higher and more enlightened than what is limited here on the site. I would expect from you
to see much more broad and tall circumferences and very tall - and very human.
I have no more expectations from Michael - and point 0.
Amadeus I have not yet wondered about your jar..bring out the music that plays in her honor.
I completely agree with what Amadeus and the other previous commenters said.
The analysis of Amadeus and Michael, excellent.
But, I'm only afraid that the commenters are obfuscating the main purpose of books of the above type, which is to give legitimacy to "scientific" theories such as "creationism" or, as others call it, "the intelligent designer".
Now, what will happen, that Prof. Harry Friedman's book "Science is not everything", will be quoted by all creationists, has already authorized the subject of "scientific morality" as a basis for the supreme moral creator - God.
Here I see the danger in this book and its ilk.
The example that Michael gives of a person whose mind is damaged and who changes his morality, is an excellent example of the denial of morality as a source of the laws of nature.
I would add that I see only experiment and measurements as the only proof of the laws of nature. This is also always within the framework of uncertainty that exists in measurements.
Happy New Year
Sabdarmish Yehuda
And more,
It seems that the professor did not understand that everything related to that "spirit world" is related to the way the brain works and there is no visible connection between the brain's operation and the problem of the great union (to be honest, I once thought of a possible connection).
I claim that he did not understand, because he did not mention the brain in his words, but went directly to other unrelated fields (in which he is an expert).
Another small addition, the author accuses science of "fundamentalism"
He writes-
"There is a kind of fundamentalist scientific approach that holds that it is not legitimate, or that it is pure fantasy, when descriptions are used that are not directly or indirectly related to things based on experience.
But even Kant himself, who advocated the close connection between concepts and experience, did not accept this approach. Because he was aware of the existence of morality, which dictates to us not the actual state of the world, but rather the proper state. And morality even opposes the impulses that exist in the real world that arise from passions."
I don't know where the author met such people, but even the most hardened materialist-atheist in the world would not argue that things like art are nonsense and meaningless imagination, because they are not scientific. Science only criticizes and rejects approaches that claim to explain the laws of nature, such as mysticism or religion (although religion also has a moral aspect, which can be separated from metaphysical-theological theories about the deity and the way it works in the universe).
Art and ethics do not pretend to explain the laws of nature, and hence they also do not conflict with science and science has no problem with them. It is also not implied from what was said that Kant believed that science invalidates morality. If it is said that ethics is what is desired and not what is found, and if ethics is objective knowledge about the world, then it should be subject to what is found and not what is desired. Kant obviously did not believe that science and objective information about the world should be influenced by the desired, so it follows that ethics is not related to knowledge.
That's how it is, starting with Plato Leibniz and the other greats, to justify all kinds of nonsense ideas.
I did not understand so much in his argument:
"What does this mean? It means that science does not include the world of ethics"
In the same sense and with a much shorter introduction he could have said:
"What does that mean? It means that science does not include the world of pee." Because science has not yet explained how it is that you feel the need to urinate.
And what's more, all this chatter in an article about freedom of choice and morality. There is no connection between them. This is what humanity lacked who were people with free choice, then the Andralmosia would celebrate.
Not a great article, but I also think the editor's response misses the point, the real logical flaw is a little different.
This article very nicely presents two facts-
1. Science is the best tool we have to learn about the world, and how it works.
2. Morality is a value framework that enables the existence of many individuals within a group.
So far everything is fine, but what is the connection between these two facts? There is no connection. The problem in the article is that the author tries to connect them, when in fact the role of the two approaches is completely different. The fact that science does not include morality is no more surprising or strange than the fact that science does not include writing music or shooting movies.
So Kant treated morality as objective knowledge... so fine, some 300 years of philosophical thinking have passed since then, and it is possible to correct it. Our morality is not true knowledge in the sense of the laws of nature, it is a consequence of conventions similar to spoken languages.
Science's role is to provide us with "cold" empirical information, morality on the other hand (and fields such as aesthetics should also be mentioned) has the role of giving value, and tools for value judgment. "Value" is not a scientific parameter, and it is not even a parameter that exists at all outside of human society, human society invented it for its own needs, therefore science cannot and should not be used as a tool for determining values.
Therefore, it is clear that statements such as this are complete nonsense -
"The contemporary effort of science is to find such legality, which will apply to everything... I see the failure to create such a theory, which today manifests itself in the failure to unite quantum mechanics with the theory of general relativity, as an expression of the fact that without the spirit there is no unity for the world."
The argument is first of all vague, and if I understand correctly, it goes like this-
1) Science is currently unable to find a unified theory that will explain all the phenomena in the world.
2) Science fails to explain the operation of human consciousness (the psycho-physical problem), and hence also to justify ethics.
It follows-
3) The picture of the world is not complete because it must also include "spirit".
The problem here is clear - the fact that science cannot explain morality, it does not mean that morality arises from some kind of "spirit", and it does not mean that the failure of science in the field of ethics proves the (probably temporary) failure in merging quantum and relativity... In short, there is a complete mess here.
The existence or non-existence of a spiritual-dual world does not depend on our ethics, and science should not accept its existence because ethics exists. The author also does not understand that ethics is not affected by an empirical fact from the outside world, the question of moral value can conflict with facts (from the fact that there are people who think it is okay to steal or murder, it does not follow that it is morally okay to steal and murder), and this also includes the existence or non-existence of the soul or spirit or whatever it is. Even if our world is purely materialistic, this simply will not eliminate morality (which is just like the religious argument, that morality cannot exist without God). The question of free choice is a little more complex, but it should be noted that the very question of whether we *really* have free choice or not objectively, should not affect our decision-making, because our conscious mental processes do not consider such things, and it is not practical anyway.
Regarding the system notes,
The explanations about the biological-evolutionary origin of human behavior are very beautiful of course, but they are not really relevant. The commenter falls into the same trap - even if it is a scientific fact that morality is innate in people, this does not tell us why it is good or why we should listen to our moral sense. To the same extent, we are biologically ingrained with urges for immoral behavior. Why would we prefer one impulse over another? The question is not scientific, it is ethical. I repeat, science cannot justify morality, and give us a moral framework to act in.
Ethics is a philosophical method whose role is to give a logical-rational basis for our behavior in society (and I stress, not a scientific basis). Although it is possible to a certain extent to introduce into the equation the biological facts that we are all human beings with a similar moral "sense", but this in itself cannot give us an answer of "why", but only a theoretical explanation of "how". And the commenter was right in saying that science explains the existence of morality without resorting to metaphysics, so the mere existence of morality does not prove that the "spiritual world" exists.