Date sent: Thu, 8 Apr 2004 20:23:58 -0700 (PDT)

The parts Roger has written are in italics. The parts Toby has written are in normal text.

01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36

Toby: is there a watchmaker, or are humans a random event?

 

Date sent: Fri, 9 Apr 2004 06:58:30 -0700 (PDT)

Toby: nothing, but we're discussing philosphical basis for conduct, and an understanding of the nature of the universe -- a basis for why we do what we do, not how to predict what to do. it is a useful tool whether your are virtuous, amoral-utilitarian whatever, and in fact those beliefs will color your game theory. not the other way around.

> I mean the game no insult, but it is a tool and only a tool. Its prediction is based upon assumptions about yourself and another person's motives and philosophy.

Roger: What do you mean by it's a tool and only a tool? What more do you want it to be?

 

Date sent: Fri, 9 Apr 2004 07:02:19 -0700 (PDT)

Toby: > is there a watchmaker, or are humans a random event?

Roger: There is no watchmaker.

then we have to back up. what/who made the U? we need a first cause since it was "made" not begotten, if you will. (puns intended)

Humans are the result of a cascade of random events, not a single random event. The universe has made a ton of "mistakes" in developing humans (trial and error), and if the process was to be repeated with the same starting parameters, humans would not come out again, but something human-like would.

I'll go one step further: if there was a watch maker, the universe as we know it would not have developed.

If there was a watchmaker, the universe would be a lot more like one of the pre-20th century envisionments of the universe (earth is the center; God made it in seven days; the earth sits on the back of a turtle...) The thinkers who came up with these ideas for universe design weren't dummies. They used the facts that they had available to them to come up with practical universe designs -- and the concept of practical includes efficiency.

If there was a watchmaker, the universe would be a much smaller, younger place.

what makes you say so?

 

Date sent: Fri, 9 Apr 2004 07:13:47 -0700 (PDT)

Toby: i will reply further after we deal with first cause, but do answer they why it would be younger, i take you say "mistakes" because really there are no mistakes, no valuable higherarchy, just random events.

also, i guess you would agree with the following statements:

Because of Darwin and his progeny "Now atheists, and others who wish to be, are free from the need for religion."

All design is apparent.

Purposeful form of life is not really purposeful, it is random events without an underlying purpose.

only the Darwin world-view can explain the mysteries of life. (your younger more efficient achievement of life would be a corrolary (sp) to this broader concept or "evdience" to support it)

you might even agree that biology is the study of complicated things we define as life which give an appearance of having purposeful design.

which do you agree with (if any)?

 

Date sent: Fri, 9 Apr 2004 13:44:07 -0700 (PDT)

Roger White <no-spam@whiteworld.com> wrote:

> nothing, but we're discussing philosphical basis for conduct, and an understanding of the nature of the universe -- a basis for why we do what we do, not how to predict what to do. it is a useful tool whether your are virtuous, amoral-utilitarian whatever, and if fact those beliefs will color your game theory. not the other way around.

Roger: OK. I think I see where we differing.

I don't see a big distinction between a basis for conduct and predicting conduct. I think this is just a nature of the framework I think in natively. Since I don't think along the good-evil axis, I don't feel a lot of tension between what I should do and what I will do. I simply look at the percieved concequences of my actions, and make decisions. In my environment, prediction is all you need, and good prediction is very valuable.

As well it should be; but this means you have an absolutely untilitarian view. Now what consequences matter to you (what do you value)?

Likewise, understanding the universe becomes synonimous with predicting it. If I can make a good prediction of what the universe is going to do next, I feel I have a good understanding of it.

why do u care about the univ except were it directly impinges on you? black holes... worm holes... so what?

But, if I have this right, in your frame of thinking knowing what is good and what is evil is more important than knowing what will happen?

sure. I don't know for sure what will happen, but I do know that good v evil matters, my role in that IS determinitive of my eternal destiny (silly point for you) but even for my "purgatorial destiny" and even for how I think about myself from hour to hour. (I have a conscience).

The parts Roger has written are in italics. The parts Toby has written are in normal text.

01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36