Curiosity: machine and motive
Temlakos~POTL~PWCM~JLA~☆
2012/08/06 02:23:54
|
|
|||||
|
31 votes
|
|
25% | ||
|
80 votes
|
|
65% | ||
|
13 votes
|
|
10% | ||
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!
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...
Top Opinion
-
tommyg - POTL- PWCM-JLA 2012/08/06 03:05:29No accident made man, no more than one made Curiosity.
http://mars.jpl.nasa.gov/msl/...
There's probably better somewhere.
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.
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.
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...
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
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..
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.
What's the distinction?
{But there absolutely IS an objective morality.}
Okay. Prove it.
{Since God both created man,}
Prove that.
If you are willing to hear a major prophesy fulfilled, without demanding that ridiculous level of detail, I can provide many.
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."
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.