Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [evol-psych] Re: The New Atheists Are Still Gulping

Expand Messages
  • John Norris
    Thank you, Don, my literary allusion didn t totally go to waste. Apparently it didn t penetrate the frozen north, however. I do like your brilliant insight
    Message 1 of 17 , Feb 20, 2013
    • 0 Attachment
      Thank you, Don, my literary allusion didn't totally go to waste.  Apparently it didn't penetrate the frozen north, however.  I do like your brilliant insight into the real origin of the "uncertainty principle".  As Oscar Wilde probably would have said "I wish I'd said of that!"

      Apropos the "other" Heisenberg.  I wonder if evolutionary psychology has an explanation for how morally-oriented human beings can become so engrossed in following the path of an initially moral man who becomes, in stages, morally ambiguous then amoral and then frankly pathological monster.  I know I have been totally hooked and await the final episodes of the 5th series with marked impatience.

      Regards

      John N


      On 21/02/2013 7:59 AM, Don Zimmerman wrote:
       

      --- In evolutionary-psychology@yahoogroups.com, John Norris wrote:

      > Well, if Heisenberg said so, it must be true! But wait. A man who
      > pushes methamphetamine that he makes himself shouldn't go public on
      > matters like science and atheism

      Heisenberg was uncertain about whether to color his crystal meth blue or green, and that is the origin of the famous Uncertainty Principle.

      Best regards,

      Donald W. Zimmerman
      Vancouver, BC, Canadaet
      dwzimm@...
      http://www3.telus.net/public/a7a82899


    • Don Zimmerman
      ... DWZ: John, I have not yet watched a single episode of that show, but have read a couple of accounts of the plot, which gave it good reviews, and was
      Message 2 of 17 , Feb 20, 2013
      • 0 Attachment
        --- In evolutionary-psychology@yahoogroups.com, John Norris <john.norris@...> wrote:

        > Thank you, Don, my literary allusion didn't totally go to waste.
        > Apparently it didn't penetrate the frozen north, however. I do like
        > your brilliant insight into the real origin of the "uncertainty
        > principle". As Oscar Wilde probably would have said "I wish I'd said of
        > that!"
        >
        > Apropos the "other" Heisenberg. I wonder if evolutionary psychology has
        > an explanation for how morally-oriented human beings can become so
        > engrossed in following the path of an initially moral man who becomes,
        > in stages, morally ambiguous then amoral and then frankly pathological
        > monster. I know I have been totally hooked and await the final episodes
        > of the 5th series with marked impatience.


        DWZ:
        John, I have not yet watched a single episode of that show, but have read a couple of accounts of the plot, which gave it good reviews, and was intrigued. So I just recently bought a package of DVD's with the complete 4th season. My wife and I, having just finished watching a similar complete season of "Mad Men," are looking forward to finding all about Heisenberg and his blue meth. The path from morality to immorality should prove to be of the greatest importance for evolutionary psychology.

        Best regards,

        Donald W. Zimmerman
        Vancouver, BC, Canada
        dwzimm@...
        http://www3.telus.net/public/a7a82899
      • Nils K.
        Dear Donald, dear All! Donald W. Zimmerman, you wrote: Heisenberg was uncertain about whether to color his crystal meth blue or green, and that is the origin
        Message 3 of 17 , Feb 21, 2013
        • 0 Attachment
          Dear Donald, dear All!


          Donald W. Zimmerman, you wrote:

          "Heisenberg was uncertain about whether to color his crystal
          meth blue or green, and that is the origin of the famous
          Uncertainty Principle."

          (Unquote)


          First John told a lie about Werner Heisenberg, the great German
          physicist. Then you, Donald, is trying to save Norris by producing
          a fog over the whole "discussion" by pulling in another man having
          the same name. It was easy to understand that the brilliant quote
          was by the physicist Werner Heisenberg, because it's readily found
          in most lists of quotes by him. Moreover, I sent the Heisenberg
          quote and the Schroedinger quotes as sister messages. One must be
          pretty stupid or be lacking enormously in knowlegde of science if
          one does not understand the connection here between the two "sister"
          physicist giants. So, now, Mr. Zimmerman, you are a bit of a charlatan
          here. You are not intellectually honest here. You have broken the most
          important rule of science, namely honesty. Besides, you have misused
          this potentially serious group by using unfriendly "humor". Stop that
          way of "debating" when you are intellectually beaten. Be silent when
          you are beaten, or do positively admit that you are check mate.

          Lastly, Donald, you too have here been telling lies about Werner
          Heisenberg, because people reading your message may now believe
          that Heisenberg was a drug addict. He was not, and he loved good
          health and clean wild forests. By the way, Heisenberg's discoveries
          in QM are much more than the famous Uncertainty Principle.

          Best,
          NKO
        • Don Zimmerman
          ... DWZ: You greatly overstate the extent to which modern scientists have entertained religious belief. It seems to me that the most eminent scientists such as
          Message 4 of 17 , Feb 21, 2013
          • 0 Attachment
            --- In evolutionary-psychology@yahoogroups.com, "Nils K." <n-oeij@...> wrote:

            > First John told a lie about Werner Heisenberg, the great German
            > physicist. Then you, Donald, is trying to save Norris by producing
            > a fog over the whole "discussion" by pulling in another man having
            > the same name. It was easy to understand that the brilliant quote
            > was by the physicist Werner Heisenberg, because it's readily found
            > in most lists of quotes by him. Moreover, I sent the Heisenberg


            DWZ:
            You greatly overstate the extent to which modern scientists have entertained religious belief. It seems to me that the most eminent scientists such as Einstein, Heisenberg, Schrodinger, and many others, have been without religious belief, if that means the traditional variety. Those glib quotes, I imagine, are mainly for popular consumption in the media, not a reflection of an attitude present in their serious thinking and underlying their life work.

            As a matter of fact, it seems to me that having strong religious belief restricts and hinders scientific productivity. Theorists like Einstein and Heisenberg could not have produced their great work if they had worried all the time about how this or that conceptual innovation would or would not be consistent with religious ideas.

            I doubt if any of the modern innovators are what you call a "non-atheist." Personally, I am a non-non-atheist. This terminology is getting confusing. It might be easier to call a non-atheist an aatheist, and someone like me an aaatheist.

            Best regards,

            Donald W. Zimmerman
            Vancouver, BC, Canada
            dwzimm@...
            http://www3.telus.net/public/a7a82899
          • Nils K.
            Dear Don, dear All! Don: It seems to me that the most eminent scientists such as Einstein, Heisenberg, Schrodinger, and many others, have been without
            Message 5 of 17 , Feb 22, 2013
            • 0 Attachment
              Dear Don, dear All!

              Don:
              It seems to me that the most eminent scientists such as
              Einstein, Heisenberg, Schrodinger, and many others, have been without religious belief.

              NKO:
              You are totally wrong, Don, because
              Schroedinger was extremely religious.
              Heisenberg was very far from being an "atheist". There are several
              woderfully expressed quotes by him, quotes that even a Pope cannot
              compete with. The Heisenberg quote that you ridiculed, Don, is
              one of the most beautiful and deepest. It absolutely rejects that
              science results are supporting true atheism.
              Einstein was very angry each time he was misused by atheists.
              Don, you are not informed about this very subject. You are still
              intelectually dishonest.

              Dirac was claimed, by atheists, to be an atheist. But his wife did
              inform the journalists (after his death) that he was not an atheist,
              he was even a churchgoer. But in a great meeting among almost all top
              physicists of the world, Dirac repetedly during the meeting expressed
              atheist thoughts. No one of the other great minds did like his
              statements. He was a bore. One of the great names then suddenly said
              in clear and strong voice: "Yes, there is no God, and Dirac is His
              prophet." Laughter followed, and Dirac never repeated his ideas. He
              started thinking. This event reminds me about the famous Dawkins
              scandal when Dawkins debated (TV) with a philosophically trained high
              ranking religious mind, and became logically trapped to the degree
              that he had to admit that he was NOT an atheist. That this scandal
              was at all possible stems from Dawkins and Co's bad philosophy, a
              fact that I've explained many times on this group in earlier messages.
              Dawkins' equation: Evolution exists equals God does not exist, is
              logically wrong. That this biologist not even does understand that
              humans do have a religion instinct is horrific. That he ends his book'
              The Selfish Gene by concluding that our brain is a blank slate brain
              is tragic. That he is confusing Catholicism and religion in general
              is thoughtless. Wasting his life fighting worldwide cultures that are
              thousands of years old is pointing to mental illness --
              Aspergers, ADHD, whatever. Reasonable people do not fight windmills
              and the ten moral rules of Christendom.

              Best,
              NKO
            • Steve Corsini
              Define what YOU mean by God? SJC From: evolutionary-psychology@yahoogroups.com [mailto:evolutionary-psychology@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of jacob mack Sent:
              Message 6 of 17 , Feb 23, 2013
              • 0 Attachment

                Define what YOU mean by God?

                 

                SJC

                 

                From: evolutionary-psychology@yahoogroups.com [mailto:evolutionary-psychology@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of jacob mack
                Sent: Tuesday, 19 February 2013 8:21 AM
                To: evolutionary-psychology@yahoogroups.com
                Subject: Re: [evol-psych] The New Atheists Are Still Gulping

                 

                 

                Sooo true!!!!!

                 


                From: Nils K. <n-oeij@...>
                To: evolutionary-psychology@yahoogroups.com
                Sent: Monday, February 18, 2013 5:18 PM
                Subject: [evol-psych] The New Atheists Are Still Gulping

                 

                 

                Hi All!

                "The first gulp from the glass of natural sciences will turn
                you into an atheist, but at the bottom of the glass God is
                waiting for you."
                ¯ Werner Heisenberg

                NKO

                 

              • Steve Corsini
                Nils 1) The Heisenberg to which John referred was not the philosopher, but a character in a television series - Breaking Bad - The lead character in
                Message 7 of 17 , Feb 23, 2013
                • 0 Attachment

                  Nils

                  1)      The Heisenberg to which  John referred was not the philosopher, but a character in a television series – “Breaking Bad” – The lead character in this fictional tale is a high school chemistry teacher, diagnosed with a brain tumour, who finances his medical expenses by manufacturing methamphetamines, which involves him in a downward spiral.

                  Hence the subsequent comment about

                  evolutionary psychology having an explanation for how morally-oriented human beings can become so engrossed in following the path of an initially moral man who becomes, in stages, morally ambiguous then amoral and then a pathological monster. 

                   

                  To which I answer, At one level it’s an indictment against the US medical system. It’s also a warning to not make and sell drugs.

                  The hypothetical situation makes you question his actions and tests your own sense of morality. How would you act in THESE situations.

                  partly it’s a morality tale a warning of what happens when you make poor choices.

                  It’s also a well written and well-made piece of drama.

                   

                   

                  2)      Please define God

                   

                  sjc

                   

                  From: evolutionary-psychology@yahoogroups.com [mailto:evolutionary-psychology@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Nils K.
                  Sent: Saturday, 23 February 2013 8:53 AM
                  To: evolutionary-psychology@yahoogroups.com
                  Subject: [evol-psych] Re: The New Atheists Are Still Gulping

                   

                   



                  Dear Don, dear All!

                  Don:
                  It seems to me that the most eminent scientists such as
                  Einstein, Heisenberg, Schrodinger, and many others, have been without religious belief.

                  NKO:
                  You are totally wrong, Don, because
                  Schroedinger was extremely religious.
                  Heisenberg was very far from being an "atheist". There are several
                  woderfully expressed quotes by him, quotes that even a Pope cannot
                  compete with. The Heisenberg quote that you ridiculed, Don, is
                  one of the most beautiful and deepest. It absolutely rejects that
                  science results are supporting true atheism.
                  Einstein was very angry each time he was misused by atheists.
                  Don, you are not informed about this very subject. You are still
                  intelectually dishonest.

                  Dirac was claimed, by atheists, to be an atheist. But his wife did
                  inform the journalists (after his death) that he was not an atheist,
                  he was even a churchgoer. But in a great meeting among almost all top
                  physicists of the world, Dirac repetedly during the meeting expressed
                  atheist thoughts. No one of the other great minds did like his
                  statements. He was a bore. One of the great names then suddenly said
                  in clear and strong voice: "Yes, there is no God, and Dirac is His
                  prophet." Laughter followed, and Dirac never repeated his ideas. He
                  started thinking. This event reminds me about the famous Dawkins
                  scandal when Dawkins debated (TV) with a philosophically trained high
                  ranking religious mind, and became logically trapped to the degree
                  that he had to admit that he was NOT an atheist. That this scandal
                  was at all possible stems from Dawkins and Co's bad philosophy, a
                  fact that I've explained many times on this group in earlier messages.
                  Dawkins' equation: Evolution exists equals God does not exist, is
                  logically wrong. That this biologist not even does understand that
                  humans do have a religion instinct is horrific. That he ends his book'
                  The Selfish Gene by concluding that our brain is a blank slate brain
                  is tragic. That he is confusing Catholicism and religion in general
                  is thoughtless. Wasting his life fighting worldwide cultures that are
                  thousands of years old is pointing to mental illness --
                  Aspergers, ADHD, whatever. Reasonable people do not fight windmills
                  and the ten moral rules of Christendom.

                  Best,
                  NKO

                • Don Zimmerman
                  ... DWZ: Immanuel Kant observed that two things fill the mind with wonder: The starry heavens above and the moral law within. If that sentiment is taken to be
                  Message 8 of 17 , Feb 23, 2013
                  • 0 Attachment
                    --- In evolutionary-psychology@yahoogroups.com, "Nils K." <n-oeij@...> wrote:

                    > You are totally wrong, Don, because
                    > Schroedinger was extremely religious.
                    > Heisenberg was very far from being an "atheist". There are several
                    > woderfully expressed quotes by him, quotes that even a Pope cannot
                    > compete with. The Heisenberg quote that you ridiculed, Don, is
                    > one of the most beautiful and deepest. It absolutely rejects that
                    > science results are supporting true atheism.
                    > Einstein was very angry each time he was misused by atheists.
                    > Don, you are not informed about this very subject. You are still
                    > intelectually dishonest.


                    DWZ:
                    Immanuel Kant observed that two things fill the mind with wonder: The starry heavens above and the moral law within. If that sentiment is taken to be the gist of religion, then many scientists today would probably consider themselves religious. A lot of them might have some doubts about the "within" part and look to society "without" for the origin of the moral law.

                    Religious sentiment itself evolves, and today it may be more appropriate to say, "Two things fill the mind with wonder: The multiverse and the ability of the human species to construct a society based on moral law and promotion of the good and well-being of everyone."

                    Somehow I suspect that many religious people would not believe that is enough. They want organization, churches, hierarchies of the faithful, and involvement with politics. For example, the Religious Right of modern times might think the second part smacks too much of big government and not enough big church.

                    Best regards,

                    Donald W. Zimmerman
                    Vancouver, BC, Canada
                    dwzimm@...
                    http://www3.telus.net/public/a7a82899
                  • Nils K.
                    Dear Steve, dear All! ... Define what YOU mean by God? NKO: The basic concepts of mathematics and theoretical physics are NOT defined. They are in principle
                    Message 9 of 17 , Feb 24, 2013
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Dear Steve, dear All!

                      --- In evolutionary-psychology@yahoogroups.com, "Steve Corsini" <sjcarc@...> wrote:
                      Define what YOU mean by God?

                      NKO:
                      The basic concepts of mathematics and theoretical physics are
                      NOT defined. They are in principle not possible to define.
                      Additionally definitions here would be unscientific since it would
                      mean infinite regress. It would equal the death of science. (See
                      Dawkins' scandal in this respect.)

                      Browse GRT and QT and learn that the basic elements: time, space,
                      mass, energy, etc are all UNDEFINED. They are ONLY specific letters
                      in the differential equations: t = time, m = mass, etc.

                      God (if there is a creator at all, we can never ever know) is
                      similar to Das Ding An Sich (See: Kant) or similar to Mathematics
                      which is non-physical (a kind of spiritual object) having no time,
                      space, matter, energy, etc). Mathematics is independent of our
                      Universe.

                      It's laughable and thoughtless, Steve, to ask for a definition of
                      God in this World where we not even know what time and space is.
                      A World where the great minds of physics and cosmology state that
                      we do not understand anything (in the deepest sense). We only have
                      rhetoric and have discovered math relations between events. We do
                      not UNDERSTAND why the realations are the way they are, etc.
                      We do not understand why there are waves and particles.
                      Etc. Etc.

                      Moreover, Steve, definitions are not enough. Having produced a
                      definition we must show that the defined object does exist.
                      That's the most difficult part of the project.

                      The philosophy of religion and the philosophy of QM and cosmology
                      are filling many volumes. I'm an amateur here. This is hobby for me.

                      My own speculations on these subjects are orbiting around logic and
                      theoretical physics (including chemistry) in addition to
                      biology/genetics/evolution.

                      My speculation about "creator candidates" (or "God candidates")
                      is probably not totally new and totally original in the world of
                      philosophy. My best "creator candidate" is the Singularity of the
                      BB because the BB is a perfect CREATION. It is not possible to
                      imagine a more perfect CREATION. Note that CREATION is possible to
                      observe. And note that we see that the Singularity is the most
                      complex "thing" we can imagine. (Complexity measured as order.)

                      Steve, science is extremely limited compared to the mysteries of the
                      Universe, and the mystery of Existence. The more we observe ("know")
                      the more mysteries we meet. We are trapped. Our definitions are not
                      of much help for us. But undefined objects have been successful in
                      the hard sciences. Religious books are using symbolic rhetoric, but
                      atheists childishly believes they are talking about the real thing.
                      Don't try to develop definitions when you not first do have the real
                      thing. Historically a successful definition comes AFTER the real thing
                      Avoid rhetoric.

                      Best,
                      NKO
                    • Nils K.
                      Dear DWZ, dear All! DWZ: Immanuel Kant observed that two things fill the mind with wonder: The starry heavens above and the moral law within. If that sentiment
                      Message 10 of 17 , Feb 25, 2013
                      • 0 Attachment
                        Dear DWZ, dear All!

                        DWZ:
                        Immanuel Kant observed that two things fill the mind with wonder: The starry heavens above and the moral law within. If that sentiment is taken to be the gist of religion, then many scientists today would probably consider themselves religious. A lot of them might have some doubts about the "within" part and look to society "without" for the origin of the moral law.

                        Religious sentiment itself evolves, and today it may be more appropriate to say, "Two things fill the mind with wonder: The multiverse and the ability of the human species to construct a society based on moral law and promotion of the good and well-being of everyone."

                        Somehow I suspect that many religious people would not believe that is enough. They want organization, churches, hierarchies of the faithful, and involvement with politics. For example, the Religious Right of modern times might think the second part smacks too much of big government and not enough big church.
                        ¨
                        NKO:
                        You are hiding things, DWZ.
                        You are hiding that Kant was a non-atheist.
                        You are boycotting/avoiding the religion instinct.
                        You are boycotting/avoiding "little church" only mentioning "big
                        church". Religious activites are 99.99 percent taking place in
                        small local communities, local church buildings.
                        You are boycotting/avoiding the Religious Left which is just as large
                        as the Religious Right. ) Exampel: The cancer stricken leftist leader
                        returning home from Cuba these days is a 100 percent religious guy.
                        You are boycotting how diverse the world is when it comes to
                        religious activities. You are painting with only black and white
                        paint. You remind me of the black and white painter and atheist
                        prophet in the UK, namely mr. Dawkins.
                        Religious people love small church, not big church, you boycotted
                        that fact too, DWZ.
                        In Norway, as well as in the US, say, religious people do help people
                        who need help. They want the government to do more for these unlucky
                        ones. Every week, in Norway, leaders of religious help-organizations
                        are reporting on increasing poverty, and increasing need for help,
                        and are trying to motivate the government to be "bigger" in this
                        part of political work. They want bigger "big governent" not smaller
                        government, in this respect.

                        Best,
                        NKO
                      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.