Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Who wrote the Bible then?

124678

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 9,717 ✭✭✭YFlyer


    AllForIt wrote: »
    I don't believe that there is a God.

    However I still have the problem about how life became so sophisticated all by itself from basic building blocks.

    If it is explained as a process of evolution then fine but I still have to ask myself how evolution came about all by itself.

    I still have to ask myself why is it that it is not the case that there is absolutely nothing whatsoever and how instead there is something. I don't get how something can make itself. Maybe there will be a scientific explanation for this one day but I doubt it will be explained in my lifetime.

    Mostly because the quantum realm is ignored when explaining evolution.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 13,993 ✭✭✭✭recedite


    it seems they've changed the things they teach kids in school now. The stations of the cross have gone from 12 to 6 in my sons religion book.
    Post offices have gone the same way.
    There just isn't the market any more.


  • Registered Users Posts: 975 ✭✭✭decky1


    it's a bit like man evolving from the apes why is none of it happening now?


  • Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 90,537 Mod ✭✭✭✭Capt'n Midnight


    decky1 wrote: »
    it's a bit like man evolving from the apes why is none of it happening now?
    It still is.

    The Koran is centuries newer and the Book of Mormon is less than 200 years old.

    Then again lots of people think the New Testament is too new so there's that.


  • Registered Users Posts: 532 ✭✭✭Arbitrary


    Give a story one week with a sample size of 1,000 people and see how it evolves. I can't begin to imagine what that same story looks like after 500 years.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 10,558 ✭✭✭✭Fourier


    This is essentially the same thing as above though. A good question in reverse is why SHOULDNT the atoms do this? You are sitting there thinking about it because that IS what atoms do. Perhaps there is nothing remarkable about it, other than it seems remarkable to us! But even the most simple mathematical equations can have complex results. So really I find it remarkable and wholly mundane at the same time.
    Just thinking about this a bit I'm not quite sure the sentence in bold is true. It would require us to have demonstrated that all biological and chemical effects reduce to the physics of atoms which has never been done. You don't know if the chemistry of your neurons is "what atoms do" let alone if your mind is "what atoms do".


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 5,995 ✭✭✭Ipso


    Arbitrary wrote: »
    Give a story one week with a sample size of 1,000 people and see how it evolves. I can't begin to imagine what that same story looks like after 500 years.

    Th internet is a hyper example of this, just look st conspiracy theories to see how removed from reality people can get in a matter of hours.


  • Registered Users Posts: 9,331 ✭✭✭nozzferrahhtoo


    Fourier wrote: »
    You don't know if the chemistry of your neurons is "what atoms do" let alone if your mind is "what atoms do".

    "know" can be a powerful word. Well really the only thing we do "know", because we do not have conclusive proof of anything at all really, is what we have evidence for and what we do not.

    Consciousness could be something more than merely the emergent property that results from certain complex formations of atoms. We simply have no evidence of this.

    Any evidence we currently have in our limited and incomplete understanding of it however links consciousness entirely to the brain and the workings of the neurons/atoms underlying it. No evidence suggests anything else.

    So when 100% of evidence, even incomplete evidence, points one way and 0% points the other way..... I will go with the former. YMMV.


  • Registered Users Posts: 10,558 ✭✭✭✭Fourier


    "know" can be a powerful word. Well really the only thing we do "know", because we do not have conclusive proof of anything at all really, is what we have evidence for and what we do not.
    I mean "know" in a more colloquial sense than water tight philosophical demonstration, a more formal version of what I mean would be "scientifically supported".
    Consciousness could be something more than merely the emergent property that results from certain complex formations of atoms. We simply have no evidence of this.

    Any evidence we currently have in our limited and incomplete understanding of it however links consciousness entirely to the brain and the workings of the neurons/atoms underlying it. No evidence suggests anything else.

    So when 100% of evidence, even incomplete evidence, points one way and 0% points the other way..... I will go with the former. YMMV.
    This isn't true and my point was not explicitly about consciousness.

    Forget consciousness, it has not even been scientifically established that the chemistry of organic molecules reduces to the physics of their atoms. So even this first level of reduction has not been established. Even a two electron system can have properties that do not reduce or even emerge from any properties of the two constituent electrons and as the number of particles in a system increases the number of properties that are not reducible to a combination of those of each individual particle grows faster than those that are reducible. (For convenience I'm ignoring the fact that strictly speaking particles do not exist in quantum mechanics)

    Hans Primas's book "Chemistry, Quantum Mechanics and Reductionism" is a decent older account of the scientific issues with reducing chemistry to atomic physics.

    So in no sense does 100% of the evidence point to everything about neurons or even biochemistry being linked to the working of atoms.


  • Registered Users Posts: 9,331 ✭✭✭nozzferrahhtoo


    Sounds a bit too far in the direction of linguistic pedantry for me I have to admit. I see nothing there really taking issue with what I am saying, just the words I am using to say it. I can restate it in vaguer words if it helps, but would still essentially be saying the same thing, as I am only using the word "atoms" because the user did. And responding to people in the same language they use to you is a useful rhetorical move.

    So lets use the vaguer word "stuff" then. The user above us appears to be concerned that the "stuff" in his head has come together in such a way that it is capable of contemplating how the "stuff" in his head has come together. And as humans this is indeed amazing to us. And he is interested to explore explanations that do not require an appeal to a creator hypothesis.

    And my point is that much like the expectation that "nothing" should be default and therefore "something rather than nothing" is what requires explanation..... perhaps this is just what that "stuff" does. Perhaps it is that "stuff" NOT doing it would be what requires more explanation, similar to that "why should there be nothing rather than something" might be what would require explanation. Much like the Anthropic Principle.... the reason the "stuff" is doing that is because that is what that "stuff" does in this universe.

    Or TLDR version: Perhaps we just ask the wrong questions sometimes.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 10,558 ✭✭✭✭Fourier


    Sounds a bit too far in the direction of linguistic pedantry for me I have to admit.
    The fact that the world lacks a reductive character is just "linguistic pedantry"?

    The point is what "stuff" in his head performs the functions you're speaking of?


  • Registered Users Posts: 9,331 ✭✭✭nozzferrahhtoo


    Fourier wrote: »
    The fact that the world lacks a reductive character is just "linguistic pedantry"?

    Nope. The fact that the changing of wording does not change point being made, is more suggesting of linguistic pedantry.....
    Fourier wrote: »
    The point is what "stuff" in his head performs the functions you're speaking of?

    .... because that is what I mean. Our knowledge of that is not complete. We simply have no knowledge as to how and why the "stuff" in our head is doing what it is doing.

    But when I referred to "100% of the evidence" I was pointing out to the user that whatever it is.... however it is doing it..... THAT it is the "stuff" doing it is so far where 100% of the evidence points.

    There is no evidence that anything external is at play.... such as these new agey ideas of a consciousness field for which our brain is only a receiver. And there is no evidence whatsoever at this time that consciousness and the brain can work independently of each other, let alone continues working somewhere somehow following the death of the brain which theists often believe.

    So what stuff in the brain is doing it, or how, is still an open question for us. THAT it is stuff in the brain doing it however is where all the evidence currently lies, and all my point to the user above was. That while we are seeking to explain it, just like when we explore the question "Why is there something rather than nothing".... that we do well to explore our assumptions too when asking such questions. Why should there be nothing? Why should the stuff in our heads NOT give us the emergent properties we call consciousness?


  • Registered Users Posts: 10,558 ✭✭✭✭Fourier


    Nope. The fact that the changing of wording does not change point being made, is more suggesting of linguistic pedantry.....
    Well my point was to make you aware of what I think is the interesting fact that the scientific properties of objects do not wholly arise from their constituent parts. I think it is an amazing point and counter to at least my intuition and I thought by your use of "atoms" you might find it interesting to know, but fair enough if you find such details "linguistic pedantry".
    So what stuff in the brain is doing it, or how, is still an open question for us. THAT it is stuff in the brain doing it however is where all the evidence currently lies, and all my point to the user above was.
    What's the content of this aside from "the thing causing consciousness causes consciousness"?

    Also you still might not get my point. The point is that in a two electron system for example there are properties that are not associated with either of the single electrons or both of them combined. And thus one cannot easily point to some "stuff" in which they are embodied. And that's at the simplest level of reality. This is not "linguistic pedantry" but to me makes what you're saying difficult to imagine.


  • Registered Users Posts: 20,392 ✭✭✭✭kneemos


    Nope. The fact that the changing of wording does not change point being made, is more suggesting of linguistic pedantry.....



    .... because that is what I mean. Our knowledge of that is not complete. We simply have no knowledge as to how and why the "stuff" in our head is doing what it is doing.

    But when I referred to "100% of the evidence" I was pointing out to the user that whatever it is.... however it is doing it..... THAT it is the "stuff" doing it is so far where 100% of the evidence points.

    There is no evidence that anything external is at play.... such as these new agey ideas of a consciousness field for which our brain is only a receiver. And there is no evidence whatsoever at this time that consciousness and the brain can work independently of each other, let alone continues working somewhere somehow following the death of the brain which theists often believe.

    So what stuff in the brain is doing it, or how, is still an open question for us. THAT it is stuff in the brain doing it however is where all the evidence currently lies, and all my point to the user above was. That while we are seeking to explain it, just like when we explore the question "Why is there something rather than nothing".... that we do well to explore our assumptions too when asking such questions. Why should there be nothing? Why should the stuff in our heads NOT give us the emergent properties we call consciousness?


    The conscious mind is only a bit of what the mind gets up to.
    Even that is not wholly in our control.


  • Registered Users Posts: 9,331 ✭✭✭nozzferrahhtoo


    Fourier wrote: »
    Well my point was to make you aware of what

    I already am aware of those things and the points you are making which I am getting just fine, though I appreciate your intent all the same! I just do not think it is a distinction that is required to carry the point I was making to the other user. They are both interesting things to discuss, I just see a distinction between them.

    I see a distinction between discussing the "stuff" in our head and what it appears to be doing, which I was doing with the user, and discussing what that stuff actually is and how it is doing what it is doing.

    The only issue I am pointing out to the user is that when seeking an explanation for why consciousness arises as it does.... or why there is something rather than nothing.... that we should be doing that while also considering the reverse question. Why do we expect it NOT to be that way? Why should there be nothing rather than something? Why should the constituent parts of our universe not produce consciousness.

    It is just good to focus a light on the assumptions behind how we question things sometimes, and that is the point of my response to the user.
    kneemos wrote: »
    The conscious mind is only a bit of what the mind gets up to.
    Even that is not wholly in our control.

    Indeed, and in fact some experiments on free will recently are suggesting to us that much of the control we even think we do have.... we actually don't. That many aspects of what we traditionally consider to be free will.... may be illusory. I find myself suspecting that many aspects of what we consider consciousness may be too!


  • Registered Users Posts: 10,558 ✭✭✭✭Fourier


    I already am aware of those things and the points you are making which I am getting just fine
    I only learned it in graduate school so tend to assume it is not well known. Did you learn the mathematical formalism with it out of curiosity or just the bare facts? I'd just be interested to know how it is taught in other areas.
    The only issue I am pointing out to the user is that when seeking an explanation for why consciousness arises as it does.... or why there is something rather than nothing.... that we should be doing that while also considering the reverse question. Why do we expect it NOT to be that way? Why should there be nothing rather than something? Why should the constituent parts of our universe not produce consciousness.
    The point though is there are already many known effects that "constituent parts" do not produce and exist only at the "higher level" of the system and not clearly located anywhere or embodied.

    Even ignoring that I don't think what you are saying is productive or the normal scientific approach. Little to no neurologists and neurochemists investigate the question "Why shouldn't the physical systems of the brain produce consciousness?" but rather "Why do the physical systems of the brain produce consciousness?" That is everybody actually approaches the question as a meaningful one not as a non-question resulting from incorrect human preconceptions.

    I think you have more of a point with the "something rather than nothing" question as opposed to the consciousness one.


  • Registered Users Posts: 9,331 ✭✭✭nozzferrahhtoo


    ^ Most of what I learn in that area is self taught. So I can not tell you how it is taught in other areas to be honest.

    Again though the point core to what I am saying to the other user is about the assumptions we hold when we ask some of our questions as humans. Nothing more than that. I think you are making a much different set of points, no less interesting, than the one I am making therefore.

    By mentioning neurologists and neuro-chemists you are entirely correct about the scientific approach to the question. So I do not think I have more of a point with one and not the other. It is a valid way of thinking about both. Even if scientists on the ground have no utility to think that way in their day to day work.


  • Registered Users Posts: 10,558 ✭✭✭✭Fourier


    By mentioning neurologists and neuro-chemists you are entirely correct about the scientific approach to the question. So I do not think I have more of a point with one and not the other. It is a valid way of thinking about both. Even if scientists on the ground have no utility to think that way in their day to day work.
    So you're just making the very general point that the initial way one might intuitively phrase a question might have the wrong focus and not so much on whether that turns out to be the case for any given question?


  • Registered Users Posts: 10,558 ✭✭✭✭Fourier


    ^ Most of what I learn in that area is self taught. So I can not tell you how it is taught in other areas to be honest.
    Do you remember the texts? I'd just be interested to see how it is explained without the mathematics, might be handy for teaching purposes. No worries if not.


  • Registered Users Posts: 9,331 ✭✭✭nozzferrahhtoo


    Fourier wrote: »
    So you're just making the very general point that the initial way one might intuitively phrase a question might have the wrong focus and not so much on whether that turns out to be the case for any given question?

    That would be the general point I was focused on yes. That it is useful when questioning how and why the universe, or some aspect of the universe, is the way it is.... it is also useful to question why would it not be so. Why does the contents of our skull produce consciousness? We do not know yet. But also why would or should it not do so? Is it really as remarkable as it seems to us, or is it just as mundane in a sense as any other fact about our universe.

    Why is there something rather than nothing? Good question and I hope we answer it! But why would there NOT be something and why do we intuitively expect nothing to be the default in this way? It is a valid assumption? Probably not!


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 10,558 ✭✭✭✭Fourier


    That would be the general point I was focused on yes. That it is useful when questioning how and why the universe, or some aspect of the universe, is the way it is.... it is also useful to question why would it not be so. Why does the contents of our skull produce consciousness? We do not know yet. But also why would or should it not do so? Is it really as remarkable as it seems to us, or is it just as mundane in a sense as any other fact about our universe.
    Okay of course one can make this general point. However to me in most questions it has little to no content and this is more important than just the general observation that one can do it.

    For instance take let's say "Why do superfluids flow so easily despite what the main elements composing them are?"

    Sure one could say "Well maybe that is just what the stuff of superfluids does", but what real content does that have? It is true in a trivial sense that "the stuff does it", but I'm not sure of the value of that observation.


  • Registered Users Posts: 9,331 ✭✭✭nozzferrahhtoo


    Fourier wrote: »
    Sure one could say "Well maybe that is just what the stuff of superfluids does", but what real content does that have?

    From the perspective of a scientist on the ground actually working on answering that question I agree with you 100%. Probably absolutely no useful content at all.

    From the perspective of constantly questioning our assumptions as human beings, more philosophical than scientific, I think it is just a useful practice to maintain.

    I think as humans we WANT the ultimate explanations for certain things..... stuff existing, consciousness, and morality being the top three that tend to come up in religiously themes threads........ evolution being another common example..... to be as lofty and special as those things are to us. My feeling has always been that the general lay public, especially theists, do not want simple mundane science to answer those topics. Many people do not WANT Evolution Theory to be correct because the lofty hubris of human existence emotionally demands for us something lofty and magical to explain it. Like a god or gods.

    People may not WANT consciousness to have some simply explanation about how it is just emergent as a property when neurons reach a certain level of complexity in their structure and interaction. They want "soul" to exist, some consciousness field of which we are only a manifestation, or some godly plan.

    But maybe it is as simple as consciousness is just what a universe like ours does. And though it is special and wonderful TO US..... it is as mundane as any other fact about our universe.

    But who knows? Our knowledge is incomplete about consciousness, what it is, and how it works. Until that changes we are all, myself included, talking out of our hoops :) And I am good with that.


  • Registered Users Posts: 10,558 ✭✭✭✭Fourier


    People may not WANT consciousness to have some simply explanation about how it is just emergent as a property when neurons reach a certain level of complexity in their structure and interaction. They want "soul" to exist, some consciousness field of which we are only a manifestation, or some godly plan.
    Okay you're more making the point that things might not have the higher status we intuitively expect them to or more so to at least consider that.

    No problem there. I more just want to point out (which doesn't affect that point of yours) that we know there are things that exist at a higher level that do not emerge from anything at a lower level and that might be relevant to the mind.

    i.e. there are natural/physical alternatives to both supernaturalism and emergence which tend to be ignored in these kind of discussions.

    My point being it is not a dichotomy between things being emergent from lower "stuff" or a "soul".


  • Registered Users Posts: 16,066 ✭✭✭✭Grayson


    Who wrote the bible leads to a discussion about the nature of consciousness :D

    Only in AH.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,546 ✭✭✭rock22


    BeerWolf wrote: »
    Word of mouth... which we all know is prone to being altered by gross exaggeration, and in a time of ignorance people would believe.

    Hell, even now people believe what the mass media feeds them right off the bat...

    research on Homer and modern Balkan oral material strongly suggest that this is not the case.


  • Registered Users Posts: 6,587 ✭✭✭Feisar


    I more pertinent question would be who edited it.

    First they came for the socialists...



  • Registered Users Posts: 6,385 ✭✭✭Badly Drunk Boy


    Most of it was actually made up of retweets and .gifs from live streams.
    It's definitely funnier than most retweets and gifs!


  • Registered Users Posts: 13,819 ✭✭✭✭Zebra3


    And Man Created God.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 5,995 ✭✭✭Ipso




  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 454 ✭✭snoopboggybog


    Its the equivalent of the Harry Potter books today.

    Probably a big fiction seller 2000 years ago.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement