Ableton Forum

We should enlist Fox Mulder and Dana Scully to uncover the truth -

djadonis206 wrote:We should enlist Fox Mulder and Dana Scully to uncover the truth -

I don't know man? after how many seasons did they not prove that aliens exist? Scully was the sexiest woman in a suit ever, I would have to say.

I just watched the movie and they saw the aliens, the virus and a space craft take off out of the antarctic tundra

however, after watching every episode a few million times the dialogue and out come of every episode is the same

Scully's skeptical, Mulder's on a mission to prove something and at the end they admit something weird happened but there's always a logical explanation for it...

The later episodes with Robert Patrick were cool - a lot of people jumped ship but I remained loyal (like a Trekkie) - those episodes were good as well

39 pages?

For what it's worth, here's my take on religion:

A few simpletons had some out-of-body (or at least out-of-their-mind) experiences, probably drug induced. As the rumours of these experiences spread, other simpletons, having nothing better to do, decided to join in and see what all the fuss was about. As the number of simpletons grew, propelling drug use to new heights, a common set of beliefs and way of life was established. Religion was born. The non-simpletons, realising the controlling and policing aspects of this new-found way of life, decided to join in and proclaim themselves as the new religious leaders. As the popularity of religion grew (mainly due to the new leaders promoting it), the leaders gained power. With this power came wealth. A few of the more unscrupulous non-simpletons, attracted by the whiff of money, joined in and created a drugs market to keep the simpletons happy whilst making themselves even richer. As the drug-propelled frenzy grew, the cost of drugs escalated. The simpletons, being simple, found themselves to be short of cash and turned to a life of crime and prostitution, often stealing things from the wealthy non-simpletons to help feed their addictions. The non-simpletons soon got fed up of this and had no choice but to start whacking the simpletons over the head in an effort to curb the thieving. The non-simpletons, however, soon grew tired of this and decided to pay other simpletons to do the whacking (or 'policing') for them. And so it went; the simpletons, with their ferocious appetite for drugs, no longer had time to discuss the more religious aspects of life, they were too busy getting stoned, sometimes literally; the police, having their hands full with whacking simpletons, barely had time for religion anyway; and the non-simpletons, content with their new found power and wealth, didn't really care about religion any more - they'd achieved what they set out to achieve - although were more than happy to harp on about it if it meant even more power and wealth.

Moral of the story? Just say no.

Since this thread appears just about ready to descend into total madness, I thought I would offer the following reading/watching recommendation, which I think is relevant (at least to the discussion I was having):

"The Day The Universe Changed", by James Burke (of Connections fame).

This TV series (and companion book) is simply fantastic. It takes the premise "We Are What We Know", and looks at moments in history when the very basic foundations of what we "knew" were forever altered by a new discovery or insight. The 'gaps' in our knowledge are perpetually being filled by new information. New gaps arise, and we go on filling them, ad infinitum.

I remember watching this first time around, and I've been able to download the whole series (can't remember where...someone posted it as a torrent...I'll try to find the link). I also have a copy of the original hardcover companion book, which is simply amazing.

I completely recommend this (and any of Burke's productions, especially the original 'Connections', if you can get past the horribly dated outfits!). It gives the real sense that what we 'know' is really just a placeholder, until a new way of thinking somes along and replaces it with something else that we 'know', and so forth. At every moment of fundamental change, a new technology (the printing press) or discovery (the great libraries of Alexandria and Moorish Spain) completely change the way we see the world. Burke closes the series with some of the most poignant words I've ever heard:

"If the universe is, at any time, the way that YOU say it is...then SAY."

http://clickcaster.com/daytheuniversechanged
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Day_th ... se_Changed

Anyway, just thought this might be relevant, and a good way to inject some good discourse back into this thread.

I've seen the connections series, and it is indeed very good.
here is a book that both sides of this debate could benefit from.
http://www.amazon.com/Wisdom-Insecurity ... F8&s=books

edge100 wrote:http://clickcaster.com/daytheuniversechanged
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Day_th ... se_Changed

Anyway, just thought this might be relevant, and a good way to inject some good discourse back into this thread.

Relevant, yeah.
But so Western!

// C

Dumbing down evolution to kill it

On Darwin's birthday, vocal opponents of his theory fundamentally misunderstand what they don't believe in.

By Edward Humes
EDWARD HUMES is the author, most recently, of "Monkey Girl: Evolution, Education, Religion and the Battle for America's Soul."

February 12, 2007

WHEN I FIRST arrived at the Ronald Reagan Federal Building and Courthouse in Harrisburg, Pa., for what was billed as the second coming of the Scopes "monkey trial," a man mingling with the media gaggle handed me an invitation to a lecture titled "Why Evolution Is Stupid." The fellow advised me to come hear the truth about Charles Darwin's dangerous idea. Then he jerked a thumb toward the courtroom and said, "You're sure not going to hear it in there."

I had gone to Harrisburg just over a year ago to research a book, expecting cutting-edge arguments for the theory of evolution pitted against an upstart movement called "intelligent design," which claims there is evidence of a master designer inside living cells. And hear them I did, in frequently riveting (and occasionally stupefying) detail, as the judge considered whether teaching intelligent design in public schools breached the wall separating church and state.

And yet that invitation and the angry, volatile town meeting it led me to that week proved even more enlightening. It showed me an essential truth of this nation's culture wars that seems especially relevant today, Darwin's 198th birthday: There are really two theories of evolution. There is the genuine scientific theory, and there is the talk-radio pretend version, designed not to enlighten but to deceive and enrage.

The talk-radio version had a packed town hall up in arms at the "Why Evolution Is Stupid" lecture. In this version of the theory, scientists supposedly believe that all life is accidental, a random crash of molecules that magically produced flowers, horses and humans — a scenario as unlikely as a tornado in a junkyard assembling a 747. Humans come from monkeys in this theory, just popping into existence one day. The evidence against Darwin is overwhelming, the purveyors of talk-radio evolution rail, yet scientists embrace his ideas because they want to promote atheism.

These are just a few highlights of the awful and pervasive straw-man image of evolution that pundits harp about in books and editorials and, yes, on talk radio, and this cartoon version really is stupid. No wonder most Americans reject evolution in poll after poll.

But then there is the real theory of evolution, the one that was on display in that Harrisburg courtroom, for which there is overwhelming evidence in labs, fossils, computer simulations and DNA studies. Most Americans have not heard of it. Teachers give it short shrift in schools because the subject upsets too many parents who only know the talk-radio version. But real evolution isn't random; it doesn't say man came from monkeys. Those claims are made up by critics to get people riled up — paving the way for pleasing alternatives like intelligent design.

Real evolutionary theory explains how life forms change across generations by passing on helpful traits to their offspring; a process that, after millions of years, gradually transforms one species into another. This does not happen randomly but through nature's tendency to reward the most successful organisms and to kill the rest. This is why germs grow resistant to antibiotics and why some turtles are sea animals and others survive quite nicely in the desert, and why dinosaurs — and more than 99% of all other species that have ever lived on Earth — are extinct.

The environment changes. The recipe for survival changes with it. And life changes to keep up — or it dies. Darwin's signature insight is both brilliant and elegantly, brutally simple.

The real theory of evolution does not try to explain how life originated — that remains a mystery. The truth is that many scientists accept evolution and believe in God — and in a natural world so complete that it strives toward perfection all on its own, without need of a supernatural designer to keep it going.

The judge in Pennsylvania eventually found that real evolution was not stupid; that intelligent design was religion, not science, and that the school board in Dover, Pa., whose actions had precipitated this replay of Scopes, was out of line. Judge John E. Jones III was rewarded for his sensible and well-documented ruling with death threats. Such is the power of talk-radio evolution.

Meanwhile, a creationist history of the Grand Canyon is on sale in national park shops. A major American museum expressed interest in having me speak about my new book but decided the subject of evolution was too "political" right now to risk it. And teachers across the nation tell me they feel compelled to downplay or skip evolution lessons to avoid controversy; one L.A.-area high school instructor said she is the only one of five science teachers on her faculty to even mention evolution in class, notwithstanding a clear state mandate to teach it.

Judge Jones has since told me that his only regret in the case is that he did not bend the rules to allow live TV coverage so more people could see the powerful evidence supporting his decision. Because the one thing the prophets of talk-radio evolution have, it seems, is the loudest megaphone.

This should end this thread

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BteSSLN_8UI

knotkranky wrote:This should end this thread

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BteSSLN_8UI

or possibly unite it. That was really cool BTW. Nailed my thinking on this matter perfectly.

conny wrote:

edge100 wrote:http://clickcaster.com/daytheuniversechanged
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Day_th ... se_Changed

Anyway, just thought this might be relevant, and a good way to inject some good discourse back into this thread.

Relevant, yeah.
But so Western!

// C

I disagree. While the series does focus on the development of "Western" thought, Burke is quite aware of the enormous influence of Asian and Middle-Eastern cultures on this process. The very first chapter of the series is devoted to the fall of Rome, the insuing "dark ages", and the rescue of European science and culture by the fall of Moorish Spain.

But this is all beside the point. The series, I think, is relevant to the idea that was being discussed above: that "gaps" in our knowledge, and indeed the entire way we 'know' the universe, can change instantly, with the invention of a new technology, or even just a new way of looking at the same problem.

Burke should be (and often IS) standard material for late high school and/or 1st year science AND philosophy students.

knotkranky wrote:Dumbing down evolution to kill it

On Darwin's birthday, vocal opponents of his theory fundamentally misunderstand what they don't believe in.

By Edward Humes
EDWARD HUMES is the author, most recently, of "Monkey Girl: Evolution, Education, Religion and the Battle for America's Soul."

February 12, 2007

WHEN I FIRST arrived ...

A+ post.

knotkranky wrote: Meanwhile, a creationist history of the Grand Canyon is on sale in national park shops. A major American museum expressed interest in having me speak about my new book but decided the subject of evolution was too "political" right now to risk it. And teachers across the nation tell me they feel compelled to downplay or skip evolution lessons to avoid controversy; one L.A.-area high school instructor said she is the only one of five science teachers on her faculty to even mention evolution in class, notwithstanding a clear state mandate to teach it.
.

oh dear how unbelievably depressing!

That makes me feel glad I dont live in the US right now and understand how someone like dubbya is prez

(and these simpletons are probably the same people having the nerve to call Iraqis or Iranians backward)

in 2007 this attitude is astonishing

I havent followed this thread at all

but a book I've been reading at the moment is Bill Bryson's "a short history of nearly everything" which is like a condensed history of most scientific discoveries put into layman's language - he actually mentions and quotes Dawkins

but the interesting thing is, me who is in all respects an agnostic (I've read and explored various beliefs quite a bit - even called myself a christian as a teenager for a little while - just long enough to realise what unbelievable hypocrates most christians are and how they would have been exactly the type Jesus himself was shouting at)

anyway...the weird thing this book has been doing is making me actually start to think about "god" again

I will not and could not ever believe in this stupid fairy tale notion of a patriarchal god the jews, christians and muslims seem to believe in, but reading chapter after chapter of this book about how mind bogglingly miraculous it is that we are here at all, or the earth, or life or any of it has really got me thinking hard

it's things like bacteria and microbiology - the fact that there is clearly some kind of intelligence to things that are so small there are 100 billion on your fingernail is staggering

white blood cells being able to discern between types of infection

bacteria being able to change themselves and adapt to survive despite anti-biotics

all of these things have definitely evolved, but to do that requires some kind of intelligence

and to think that something made up of only a few molecules can have intelligence is mystifying

there is definitely some kind of "force" in life that has the capacity to improve itself, which requires intelligence

but all these religious idiots who feel the need to be so narrow minded are doing everyone a disservice with their bigotry and all they are doing is preventing us from getting closer to the source and learning more about what it is

NorthernMonkey wrote:39 pages?

For what it's worth, here's my take on religion:

A few simpletons had some out-of-body (or at least out-of-their-mind) experiences, probably drug induced.

And these simpleton drug-addicts wrote the greatest pieces of literature, constructed the greatest pieces of architecture, created the most beautiful paintings and sculptures the world has known, and carved the great empires and the cradles of civilisation out of nothing...

Doesn't sound like any of the druggies I know.

forge wrote:how mind bogglingly miraculous it is that we are here at all, or the earth, or life or any of it has really got me thinking hard

As I've discussed at length earlier in this thread, you only THINK this is mind-bogglingly miraculous because WE were the result. But think about it like this: in any system in which random forces are at play, there has to be some result, each of which is equally likely. I've likened it to winning the lottery; the odss that you will win are low, but given enough players, someone WILL win, despite the odds against it. Similarly, if we flip a coin 10 times, the odds of getting all heads is 1/1024, but the odds of getting HTTHTHHTTH is exactly the same. We would be amazed by the former, by not by the latter. Why? This tell us that the occurence of preconceived patterns, rather than chance, are what we're really amazed at; but remember, if we accept that WE are NOT preconceived, then our existence is more like the HTTHTHHTTH than the 10 straight heads. The fact is, though, that if we weren't here, something else WOULD be, and it would be asking the same questions as we are right now.

forge wrote:it's things like bacteria and microbiology - the fact that there is clearly some kind of intelligence to things that are so small there are 100 billion on your fingernail is staggering

white blood cells being able to discern between types of infection

bacteria being able to change themselves and adapt to survive despite anti-biotics

all of these things have definitely evolved, but to do that requires some kind of intelligence

Why? Natural selection is based on the notion that slight differences in 'fitness' (that is, the ability to pass on their genes) will, over time, cause some variant organisms to survive better than others. This means that specific genotypes will be favoured over others.

An 'intelligent' designer wouldn't have made rabbits with such poor digestive systems that they have to eat their own feces in order to maximally extract the nutrients from their food An intelligent designer wouldn't have left vestigial organs. An intelligent designer wouldn't have allowed mutant forms of genes such as CFTR (cystic fibrosis) or beta-globin (sickle cell anemia), which reduce 'fitness' in those who carry two copies, but actually provide a fitness advantage to those who carry only one, thus increasing the propagation of the mutant ('heterozygote advantage'). An intelligent designer wouldn't have made human DNA replication so inaccurate that the ends of chromosomes (telomeres) get shorter with every round of replication, leading to a whole host of problems (of which cancer is the most well-known). Natural selection, on the other hand, would be expected to produce ALL of these things.

forge wrote:and to think that something made up of only a few molecules can have intelligence is mystifying

there is definitely some kind of "force" in life that has the capacity to improve itself, which requires intelligence

There is natural selection, which does everything you've describe, and requires no outside 'intelligence'. Remember Einstein's version of Occam's Razor: theories should be as simple as possible, but no simpler. If natural selection possesses all of the characteristics you've just ascribed to 'intelligence', then 'intelligence' is superfluous and should be discarded, until such time as the evidence suggests it is required.

forge wrote:but all these religious idiots who feel the need to be so narrow minded are doing everyone a disservice with their bigotry and all they are doing is preventing us from getting closer to the source and learning more about what it is

Agree, 100%.

But I also agree with those religious people who feel this description of them is a straw-man argument. The vast, vast majority of religious people are intelligent, caring folks. For me, the bigger issue is that religion is not really on 'open' subject, and THAT is the real disservice that religious moderates do the rest of us. Religious beliefs are not generally openly criticized, the way belief in ANYTHING else is; every other aspect of our lives is subject to critical analysis. By protecting religion from any serious critical scrutiny, religious moderates protect religious extremists. If, on the other hand, religion was subject to the same critical analysis as everything else, we might make REAL progress towards eliminating the religious beliefs that REALLY do us harm.