tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4307187040250193857.post6723237106663575549..comments2024-03-20T03:33:22.357-07:00Comments on Skeptophilia: Do not adjust your setGordon Bonnethttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06003472005971594466noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4307187040250193857.post-56238924782573109302011-11-22T20:58:31.298-08:002011-11-22T20:58:31.298-08:00'I draw no conclusions' about the simultan...'I draw no conclusions' about the simultaneous invention facts, other than that the problem 'came to a head' in more ways and places than one. It *would* be peachy to posit a collective intelligence though. The mob mentality proves that possible, at least on the negative half of the graph.<br />Nice to read your thoughts here,Peterjsolberghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06841488269105958013noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4307187040250193857.post-32249778597254161872011-11-22T11:33:44.229-08:002011-11-22T11:33:44.229-08:00Yes, jsolberg, a good example of the evolutionary ...Yes, jsolberg, a good example of the evolutionary processes within collective human imagination to which I referred above.<br />I too, have, in earlier years, come up with ideas that I thought were a startlingly-original and personal insight.<br />One was the production of muscle tissue in vitro as a better food source than farming whole animals. This was hailed as a very cool/wild/original concept by my peers. It was only several months ago that I discovered that it had been suggested two decades before by, of all people, Winston Churchill!<br /><br />Now, of course, it is on the verge of becoming a reality.<br /><br />Again, in the course of my career I have taken out a number of provisional patents, none of which I followed up on. But when the Internet had evolved to a state when it became very easy (and free) to search patents, just as a matter of interest I checked to see if any had been taken up. Some, indeed had, but the most interesting feature was that there was invariably a rash of rather similar patent applications around around the time of mine.<br />All of us just picking the low hanging fruit of the prevailing state of collective human imagination, if you get my drift.<br /><br />Posted by Peter KinnonCognosiumhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14556412288134268451noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4307187040250193857.post-82179462195339917932011-11-22T08:49:46.968-08:002011-11-22T08:49:46.968-08:00I remember reading the first time about the Anthro...I remember reading the first time about the Anthropic Principle and thinking "OMG! They have a name nowadays for something I'd thought was a startlingly-original and personal insight." This was age 12 or so, after my bath-tub water-walking experiments had already by themselves de-bunked the God-Mythicists for me.jsolberghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06841488269105958013noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4307187040250193857.post-16825857121010951262011-11-22T00:44:46.011-08:002011-11-22T00:44:46.011-08:00While I would not disagree with much of what you a...While I would not disagree with much of what you are saying here, Gordon, there are components of the fine tuning argument which seem to be consistently overlooked.<br /><br />Firstly, the physical parameters are but the tip of the iceberg. There is actually a much greater body of evidence to support fine tuning to be found in fields of science far better established than cosmology. Geology, biology and particularly chemistry provide many examples of “just right” prevailing conditions that enable and, indeed, make virtually inevitable, the strong directionality we observe in evolutionary processes. <br /><br />The most recent part of this evolutionary continuum is that most familiar to us and of which we have the best knowledge: The automonous evolution of technology within the medium of the collective imagination of our species.<br /><br />Secondly, that the assumption that IF fine tuning is a valid phenomenon THEN it favors theism is flawed.<br />Because it predicated by the very common and entirely intuitive belief that it suggests a “designer”.<br /><br />But it can be very plausibly argued that, except in a very trivial sense, the concept of a “designer” is but an anthropocentric conceit for which there is no empirical basis.<br /> <br />An objective examination of the history of science and technology bears this out.<br /><br />To quickly put this counter-intuitive view into focus, would you not agree that the following statement has a sound basis?<br /><br />We would have geometry without Euclid, calculus without Newton or Liebnitz, the camera without Johann Zahn, the cathode ray tube without JJ Thomson, relativity (and quantum mechanics) without Einstein, the digital computer without Turin, the Internet without Vinton Cerf.<br /><br />The list can. of course be extended indefinitely.<br /><br />The broad evolutionary model, extending well beyond the field of biology is outlined, very informally in “The Goldilocks Effect: What Has Serendipity Ever Done For Us?” which is a free download in e-book formats from the “Unusual Perspectives” website.<br /><br />Posted by Peter KinnonCognosiumhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14556412288134268451noreply@blogger.com