Quantcast

Curiosity: machine and motive

Temlakos~POTL~PWCM~JLA~☆ 2012/08/06 02:23:54
No accident made man, no more than one made Curiosity.
We're all a great cosmic crapshoot.
Undecided
You!
Add Photos & Videos
Curiosity will be down, one way or another, in a little over three hours after this post.

It's time to reflect on what a marvelous machine Curiosity is. In fact, the intricate instructions that Curiosity must follow, if it's to land intact, are the closest man-made thing to a model of animal behavior.

Here's the scoop: neither that machine nor its instructions came about by accident. Somebody designed both, to the last detail. A lot of other somebodies put Curiosity together and sent it, with its landing instructions, to Mars.

Now then: human beings are orders of magnitude more complex than Curiosity. Wouldn't you say? And even animal behavior is still more complex than those landing instructions must be. A cat can land on all fours from a great height. We still don't know (yet) whether Curiosity will land on all sixes. Animals know instinctively how to land. And human beings know a great deal more.

And anthropologists still insist that human beings, and all their behaviors, came about by accident?

I don't think so!

Read More: http://www.conservativenewsandviews.com/2012/08/05...

Add a comment above

Top Opinion

Sort By
  • Most Raves
  • Least Raves
  • Oldest
  • Newest
Opinions

  • Lt. Fred Pedro D... 2012/08/06 11:20:55
    Lt. Fred
    +1
    You on twitter? There's a whole feed of basically little but pictures.
  • Pedro D... Lt. Fred 2012/08/06 11:24:51
    Pedro Doller ~Inc.
    No, just on the net. Just get animations and control room staff from the NASA links. Do you have one, I seem to be missing something.
  • Lt. Fred Pedro D... 2012/08/06 11:28:12
    Lt. Fred
    There you go:

    http://mars.jpl.nasa.gov/msl/...

    There's probably better somewhere.
  • Pedro D... Lt. Fred 2012/08/06 15:40:47
    Pedro Doller ~Inc.
    Yeah, thats what I want to see. Thanks
  • Ben Pedro D... 2012/08/06 11:42:03
    Ben
    +4
    Here's the latest photo to emerge from the rover. Seems like they've found something interesting already!

    Curiosity marvin mars
  • Dwight ... Ben 2012/08/06 13:58:31
  • Pedro D... Ben 2012/08/06 15:41:43
    Pedro Doller ~Inc.
    Love it, thanks
  • dallas 2012/08/06 07:39:30
  • RastaFan dallas 2012/08/06 08:02:42
    RastaFan
    We all wish that ... :-)
  • Lt. Fred dallas 2012/08/06 11:21:31
    Lt. Fred
    The Pyramids were built by humans.
  • dallas Lt. Fred 2012/08/06 12:24:47
  • Lt. Fred dallas 2012/08/06 12:27:29
    Lt. Fred
    +2
    We know perfectly well how the Pyramids were constructed.
  • dallas Lt. Fred 2012/08/06 12:30:53 (edited)
  • Getting... dallas 2012/08/06 17:27:36
    GettingBarried
    +2
    The Pyramids were constructed by many thousands of men using simple tools and math. It took a few decades to complete each one but there is nothing mystical about how they were built.
  • dallas Getting... 2012/08/07 03:17:42
  • Getting... dallas 2012/08/07 13:07:38
    GettingBarried
    +1
    Proven? Don't be silly. Yes, I know that is difficult for you, but try.

    Limestone is easy to work with and quarries are all over the place. The ancient Egyptians' had a good grasp on algebraic math and really, with a simple measuring wheel, it's pretty easy to get alignments on a large scale.
  • dallas Getting... 2012/08/07 14:12:42
  • Getting... dallas 2012/08/07 16:50:03 (edited)
    GettingBarried
    I certainly don't dispute that life exists elsewhere. You may be right in that Earth has been visited. It does not change the facts involved in creating such structures. The math is simple. The 'rudimentary tools' are all that are needed. You may not be aware of this but a pyramid is a rudimentary, three dimensional object. You're probably not accounting for things that people of different eras, use every day what we in the modern age have simply forgotten because that bit of technology or lore is considered to be no longer important today.
  • Lt. Fred dallas 2012/08/07 13:01:39
  • Brian ☮ R P ☮ 2012 ☮ 2012/08/06 07:22:08
    We're all a great cosmic crapshoot.
    Brian ☮ R P ☮ 2012 ☮
    +5
    Of all the billions of stars in the universe, and all the trillions of planets revolving around those stars, for all the billions of years they've been doing that revolving, the thought that life couldn't spring from all those possibilities and time is, simply put...ridiculous. Even more ridiculous, the thought that a single entity is responsible for it all, and actually has some sort of "plan".
  • STU~PWCM~JLA~POTL~AFCL 2012/08/06 06:37:56
    No accident made man, no more than one made Curiosity.
    STU~PWCM~JLA~POTL~AFCL
    +1
    Anyone who thinks humanity is an accident just can't see anything. When you look at our accomplishments, our ability to exercise (and choose not to exercise) morality, and as a set of civilizations fulfill Biblical scripture, it is obvious that we were created by a divine God.
  • Lt. Fred STU~PWC... 2012/08/06 11:21:54
    Lt. Fred
    +2
    Of course, evolution doesn't state that humanity is an accident.
  • STU~PWC... Lt. Fred 2012/08/06 14:52:01
    STU~PWCM~JLA~POTL~AFCL
    Agreed, but it fails to explain free moral agency, which no other physical being except man possesses.
  • Getting... STU~PWC... 2012/08/06 17:36:56
    GettingBarried
    +1
    Look at any critter (including man) long enough and their design will tell you why they are the way they are. In the case man, bipedal locomotion, excellent color, binocular vision, large brains and opposable thumbs made us who we are. Our brains allowed for early man to begin the mastery of his environment rather than be part of the cycle of ontogeny recapitulating phylogeny. We obviously don't have all the answers but evolution is the best theory to come along. Until it can be legitimately disproved, evolution is it.
  • STU~PWC... Getting... 2012/08/22 01:28:06
    STU~PWCM~JLA~POTL~AFCL
    +1
    Must disagree. There's no evidence that pre-man had any form of social structure other than family and possibly tribe. The idea of government, which depends on morality (or suppression of it) is unique to homo-sapiens. I'm in no way saying that evolution based on perpetuation of those with the best traits is a false theory; I'm simply saying that human beings did not evolve from the prehistoric "post-apes." The differences between humans and pre-man are just too great. Something of a cataclysmic nature happened. A leap too great to be explained by Darwinian theory.
  • Getting... STU~PWC... 2012/08/22 01:44:05
    GettingBarried
    The passage of time is a funny thing. It's exceptionally hard to gauge in our day simply because everything happens all at once. Even contemplating a few hundred years back is pretty difficult to do.

    Our intelligence allowed us to overcome our environment. It allowed us to survive collectively rather than by survival of the fittest (although survival of the fittest undoubtedly played a role in man's development beyond our environment). Advancement was glacial at best because we were tribal. That is the first social step. Being tribal likely gave us social structure. Communication is what allowed us to advance. As we started to use tools then technology, it all pushed us forward.

    Cataclysms occur now and again. The last was probably the ice age of about 12k years ago. Clearly man was already adaptable enough to withstand it and even grow as it is the last ice age that likely allowed the first humans to come to the Americas.

    I don't believe the leap you believe happened, happened at all. The simple, loooong passage of time can account for these questions; in my opinion.
  • STU~PWC... Getting... 2012/08/22 01:45:51
    STU~PWCM~JLA~POTL~AFCL
    We'll have to agree to disagree.
  • Lt. Fred STU~PWC... 2012/08/07 13:02:48
    Lt. Fred
    Nonsense. Are you suggesting wolves have no socialisation? Are you suggesting that morality has a negative aggregate effect at making a group suited to their environment?
  • STU~PWC... Lt. Fred 2012/08/22 01:31:00
    STU~PWCM~JLA~POTL~AFCL
    Socialization and ethics are two entirely different things. Animals, like wolves, can experience emotion, intuition, logic, and sensation, just like man. The one thing only man can do is differentiate between right and wrong, and volitionally choose which path to follow.
  • Lt. Fred STU~PWC... 2012/08/22 01:34:25
    Lt. Fred
    Define ethics.
  • STU~PWC... Lt. Fred 2012/08/22 01:52:41
    STU~PWCM~JLA~POTL~AFCL
    Ethics is the dichotomy between what is right and wrong by absolute as opposed to relative measures. A dog may protect its master, even though its master started a fight. The dog just feels protective emotion (feelings, which are situationally relative), not ethics. But a brother of the master might aid the victim, in spite of family loyalty (ethics of the true kind are not "relative"). Ethics (right vs. wrong) transcend both logic (true vs. false) and emotion (good vs. bad), and only human beings have it.
  • Lt. Fred STU~PWC... 2012/08/22 01:55:33
    Lt. Fred
    +1
    Which absolute measures?
  • STU~PWC... Lt. Fred 2012/08/22 03:36:43
    STU~PWCM~JLA~POTL~AFCL
    +1
    Ahhhh, a profound question. I congratulate you for asking this critical question. And I'm happy that we're getting somewhere now.

    The simple starting point is MAN HAS NO IDEA. Man only has the ability to choose right or wrong. Innately, he doesn't know which is which. This is why parents have to train children.

    But where do parents get the correct knowledge from? Of course, many of them don't. But those who do know something.

    Bible prophesy fulfilled establishes the Bible as divinely inspired. Thus, the moral doctrines of the Bible, which may not be clear at first, do become clear with practice (i.e., you start to understand why the doctrines are correct).

    A great mistake made by many people is that proof and faith are totally bipolar. The Bible says "prove all things." This simply means prove that prophesy has been fulfilled. It doesn't mean that you will understand, at first, why moral doctrine of the Bible is correct. Practice develops understanding.

    An analogy is Enrico Fermi. He was a genius at nuclear physics. Some of what he did you could understand, and find amazing when he proved it. Other parts can only be understood by experts in the field. But the point is that if Fermi can prove his genius on enough points, you take him on his word (faith) with regard t...



    Ahhhh, a profound question. I congratulate you for asking this critical question. And I'm happy that we're getting somewhere now.

    The simple starting point is MAN HAS NO IDEA. Man only has the ability to choose right or wrong. Innately, he doesn't know which is which. This is why parents have to train children.

    But where do parents get the correct knowledge from? Of course, many of them don't. But those who do know something.

    Bible prophesy fulfilled establishes the Bible as divinely inspired. Thus, the moral doctrines of the Bible, which may not be clear at first, do become clear with practice (i.e., you start to understand why the doctrines are correct).

    A great mistake made by many people is that proof and faith are totally bipolar. The Bible says "prove all things." This simply means prove that prophesy has been fulfilled. It doesn't mean that you will understand, at first, why moral doctrine of the Bible is correct. Practice develops understanding.

    An analogy is Enrico Fermi. He was a genius at nuclear physics. Some of what he did you could understand, and find amazing when he proved it. Other parts can only be understood by experts in the field. But the point is that if Fermi can prove his genius on enough points, you take him on his word (faith) with regard to those points whose meaning at first you can't understand, and then try to understand them through study and practice.

    Thank you for an excellent question.

    Stu
    (more)
  • Lt. Fred STU~PWC... 2012/08/22 03:47:29
    Lt. Fred
    "Which absolute measures?"

    I was presuming that you were going to give me some Kant to knock down. At the very least the categorical imperative is a serious attempt to argue for some form of objective morality (of course, it doesn't work at all).

    But then you answered:

    "Bible prophesy"

    Boring. The Bible is an even sillier attempt to codify morality than Kant. At least Kant is internally consistent. At least Kant had a basis for his anti-rationality.

    Of course, there IS no objective morality. All ethical systems beg the question.

    To get back to the point at hand, in the absence of an objective system of morality, a working definition is "willing to give up personal advantage in the interests of group good." Some socialised animals do this, disproving your original claim..
  • STU~PWC... Lt. Fred 2012/08/22 13:21:14
    STU~PWCM~JLA~POTL~AFCL
    +1
    I doubt the willingness to "give up personal advantage in the interests of [a] group good" by animals can be considered ethics, as this is based on emotional than moral factors as far as animals are concerned. In humans, such an action may driven by moral or emotional factors, sometimes both.

    But there absolutely IS an objective morality. Many systems of thought lay claim to it, but of course at most one can be correct, since they all differ to one degree or another. Since God both created man, and predicted his history in advance, I take on faith that the Bible's definition of morality is the correct one.
  • Lt. Fred STU~PWC... 2012/08/23 00:20:40
    Lt. Fred
    {I doubt the willingness to "give up personal advantage in the interests of [a] group good" by animals can be considered ethics, as this is based on emotional than moral factors}

    What's the distinction?

    {But there absolutely IS an objective morality.}

    Okay. Prove it.

    {Since God both created man,}

    Prove that.
  • STU~PWC... Lt. Fred 2012/08/24 14:58:31
    STU~PWCM~JLA~POTL~AFCL
    +1
    I can prove that the Bible proves itself, but I suspect I'd be wasting my time. You'd want a prophesy like "John Q. Anderson of Provo Utah will buy a red Toyota Camry on 8/15/2012 at 10:13 AM local time with antilock brakes and a sunroof, and then go to Longhorn's Steak House at 12:04 PM local time for a rare rib eye steak with ceasar salad, rice pilaf, and a diet Coke."

    If you are willing to hear a major prophesy fulfilled, without demanding that ridiculous level of detail, I can provide many.
  • Lt. Fred STU~PWC... 2012/08/24 22:45:30
    Lt. Fred
    Three questions: the distinction between 'emotional' ethics and 'moral' ethics, your proof of objective morality (using deductive reasoning) and your proof of the existence of God as described in the Bible.
  • STU~PWC... Lt. Fred 2012/09/16 04:37:32
    STU~PWCM~JLA~POTL~AFCL
    +1
    While some people view morality as relative, I view it as absolute. Since the Bible proves its authority via fulfilled scripture, its doctrines set an absolute standard for ethics.

    While fulfilled scripture proves the existence of God as described in the Bible, objective morality cannot be deduced using human reasoning. The Bible in fact condemns those who substitute scriptural doctrine with their own opinion of right and wrong. This is fact was the reason for the fall of mankind (the original sin in the Garden of Eden, where Adam and Eve substituted their own judgment for God's instructions by eating the forbidden fruit). The Bible instructs that the thoughts of God are different than those of man. But practice of God's thoughts (commandments) eventually leads to understanding of why Biblical ethics are right. This, in part, explains why the Bible says "Fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom."
  • Lt. Fred STU~PWC... 2012/09/16 05:44:29
    Lt. Fred
    {While some people view morality as relative, I view it as absolute.}

    Okay, fine. Prove that, using deductive reasoning.

    {While fulfilled scripture proves the existence of God}

    The bible is very good at predicting events that have already occurred.

    {objective morality cannot be deduced using human reasoning.}

    Good. Then there's no objective morality.

See Votes by State

The map above displays the winning answer by region.

News & Politics

2014/04/18 13:31:33

Hot Questions on SodaHead
More Hot Questions

More Community More Originals