In one of the debates about LOTU vs Christianity and why LOTU is best etc... I mentioned that humans basically have characteristics of the animal kingdom (Alpha, dominance exploitation etc...) and it was suggested that over the years, us humans have grown out of such things and improved ourselves so that we don't tend to act like animals.

All very well until you come to the subject of Who is it that is ruining our environment or other subjects that are related to; "Which bunch of gits has covered our planet in shit and melted the ice-caps" or "Who has nicked all the fish" or "Who has hunted xyz species to extinction" or "There is a water shortage" or... well just about any other complaint that there is about the deterioration of our flora and fauna - which, unless those people at transhuman HQ get their fingers out and come up with a fairly quick cyborg conversion for us, is all essential to human survival.  I'll make a couple of guesses.  It is not the whales or the mice.  Anyone else want to have a go?

I would contend that if we acted more like animals we'd be better off...

I have been known to act like an animal...

I would be proud of that statement heller.  At least you've made a start...

Arthur, there's no doubt humans have been unbelievably stupid with the way we've treated the planet's resources. Still, that doesn't mean we can't learn NOT to. To refer again to Ray Kurzweil, he's believes that within 30 years we'll have the ability to reconfigure the entire environment at a molecular level and undo the damage we've done. Personally I don't think we can rely on that, there are still things that could conceivably get in the way of nanotech, and we should learn to change our patterns of behaviour to avoid further damage. But the point is, humans, for all our flaws as a species, can learn and change. History proves it.

Sometimes it seems like humans (as a race) learn slower than some other animal species have evolved.... *sigh*

Ok, we learn, we do things differently.  In the medium term, that only sets us on a track to sort out how we are going to cure the the problems we've caused or how we have to re-engineer our environent to suit.  It could also mean that as a human race we have been stupid enough to believe that what we do is entirely correct.  It doesn't matter how many Laws of The Universe are in existence or how many of them we have some comprehension of, it still doesn't alter the fact that as the Alpha being in this world we have only proved (thus far) that we haven't exactly got it right but we still display the same instinct to dominate and exploit that we've done since history has been recorded.

I can understand you looking to Ray Kurzweil and the eminent band of scientific collegues he has worked with to come up with his belief but there is a difference between applying a super-technology to cure a problem and actually having the wherewithall to deploy it.  It's all very well for someone to say that "we have a cure in 30 years time" but by the time that 30 years is up, the task is much much bigger because we still have to keep dumping crap all over the place.  Also, in the intervening 30 years someone somewhere has to take Kurzwells laboratory stuff and turn it into a production plant.  Then there is the small problem of the environmental lobby being suspicious about microscopic robots burrowing around in the soil to clean it up.  Then if you can convince these same people that they are not being exploited (there's that word again) you can start worrying about where these nano robots are going to be set to work and distributing them.  So, unless there is a world revolution and the transhumanists become the Alpha the fact that the technology might be ready in 30 years time means nothing.  Kurzweil might as well have been applying his efforts to perfecting an electronic babel fish.

@dek are you serious? What animals have learned / evolved faster than humans?

@Arthur - have you read Kurzweil's books? He covers off the complexities and challenges of deployment (and his rebuttles of them) in quite a lot of detail.

Cam, I meant it as a passing comment.

However, I just did a search, and got a few interesting hits:

Natural Selection At Work In Dramatic Comeback Of Male Butterflies

Mussels' Fast Evolution Turns Scientists' Heads

Note that the point here is that evolution isn't the 'thousands of years' cycle usually thought of

I don't need to read Kurzwiel in any detail.  The concepts, technologies and ideas he has are nothing startling from technology point of view.  I'm not trashing his knowledge and expertise, but the big difference between him and his peers is that he has a more eloquent way of writing and speaking about his ideas.  He may have rebuttles for everything that, in their own isolation, make sense.  I have no doubt that given the time I could sit with a couple of collegues and wear down each and every one of his rebuttles.  For example, it's 2008 and while every PC sold in the last 6 months probably has half decent text to speech/speech to text software, hardly anyone uses it because it has a dreadful voice (Ms AT&T would have been better) and it has not been marketed properly.  This is contrary to one of his predictions - and text to speech/speech to text is really old beans.

Anyway Kurzwiel is not the issue here.  No-one has yet come up with anything approaching an argument to tell me that a human is any better than an animal.

From the purest objective view, all animals, humans included, are just a certain arrangement of atoms. There's no inherent reason to value the arrangement of atoms that makes a human being over the arrangement of atoms that makes a beaver, or an elephant, or a tree, or a lump of iron.

Clearly we aren't objective, we value some things above others - either because of scarcity (gold > iron) or the effort/artistry put into something (gold ring > equal sized gold nugget, painting > pile of art supplies) or any other attribute we care to assign value to. Complexity could be one such attribute, or sentience, or intelligence, on all of those counts a human being becomes of greater value than another animal (just as we don't feel bad when we swat a fly, but might do so if we kicked a puppy)

The real reason we (humans) value humans above animals is really fairly obvious, we're humans... we value ourselves above animals, and the people we care about above other humans... with the exception of PETA, but they aren't a statistically significant group 

SK.  This question isn't asking for who is more valuable.   It's asking; what is it that makes humans better than animals.

At the moment I can only think of one fundamental thing that seperates humans and animals.  That is that humans have the capability to exploit animals whilst animals find it difficult to exploit humans on the same scale (except for cats that is).

There isn't a 'great divide' between us and the animals, as you say, we're still animals.

There are some things that separate us from most of the animal world though - modifying our environment instead of just reacting to it (although beavers do that to a lesser extent... and actually manage to be beneficial to their environment) use of tools (although some primates do use primitive stick-tools) the invention of culture (although I have heard rumour of signs of culture in some of the apes)

So do Crows and many others use tools.  Bees, termites, ants build things, as do birds build nests and so on.  (This is environmental modification).  Rabbits dig burrows, the list is endless.  The difference btween their buildings and ours is that theirs rarely destroy huge tracts of the environment beyond further use for years on end.  Beavers only cut down enough to create what they need.  They don't feel the need to transport stuff for 100's of miles.  They live near their raw materiels and their food.  Therefore they don't need flash 4x4's to go to B&Q at the weekend in or crummy stinking trains to commute to their hunting grounds in.  Reacting to their environment instead of modifying it.  I wonder why you might say that is a lesser thing to react than to modify.  We built thousands of houses on flood plains, a bit of rain and they are ruined for 12 months or so.  Most of the wildlife is back to normal within a week or so of the floods going away.  Culture in humans.  Hmmm.  Kebabs, lager, McDonalds, Opera, Art (Damien Hurst), Pop Idol.  Depends what you mean by culture.

Keep thinking...

You know what I'm getting at, we've made "progress" far beyond the reach of any of the animals you listed. Some elements of that are, admittedly, very shitty, but if you focus only on the bad then any animal would look like a monster. There's a lot of good things in that progress too.

I'm not going to disagree that humans have done mind boggling things, some even beyond the understanding of the people who have done the things.  We have machines and tools that can make our lives really simple.  We can cure 1000's of diseases, repair shattered bodies to almost normal and we can count to mega-trillions in a matter of the blink of an eye.  We can see stuff in the universe that happened 15 Billion years ago.  We can at a whim manufacture almost anything from almost anything.  We can communicate with almost everyone all at once.  We have complex and rich languages.  We are invincible in our world.  We are currently the Alpha and the Alpha is best because it dominates and exploits it's environment.

However I don't think that answers the question.  Who (other than humans) is to say that we do the right things for us and where we live, we are after all, in total control of how we react to and make alterations to our environment.  Animals are damn successful at coping with positive and negative natural changes but they also have a nack of adapting to the (largely) negative changes we impose on them despite the fact that they don't have any tools, advanced hyper threaded processors or wheelbarrows.

Arthur, from Wikipedia's article on extinction:

According to a 1998 survey of 400 biologists conducted by New York's American Museum of Natural History, nearly 70 percent believed that they were currently in the early stages of a human-caused mass extinction,^[20] known as the Holocene extinction event. In that survey, the same proportion of respondents agreed with the prediction that up to 20 percent of all living populations could become extinct within 30 years (by 2028). Biologist E. O. Wilson estimated ^[5] in 2002 that if current rates of human destruction of the biosphere continue, one-half of all species of life on earth will be extinct in 100 years.^[21] More significantly the rate of species extinctions at present is estimated at 100 to 1000 times "background" or average extinction rates in the evolutionary time scale of planet Earth;^[22].

So much for "coping.... to the negative changes we impost on them."

btw, I'm interviewing Aubrey de Grey again for G'Day World on Sunday. If anyone has any questions for him regarding his work, let me know.

Aubrey de Grey was a couple of years behind me at Cambridge and while he moved on from computational sciences into pseudo biology he's still pinching other peoples ideas and making seemingly random postulations based on doing things with technology that still doesn't exist or can't quite be harnessed.  Still some people think he's going somewhere and you can't call him an idiot.

Ok, back to the subject of why humans are better than animals.  Super King goes for the argument that we have progressed more and now you've picked up on the extinction thing.  Well this goes back to my original argument that humans are basically stupid and like animals, follow the Alpha.  We have 1000's of scientists working night and day to create stuff that means we can change our lives to the point where even sitting down to a meal with our family, walking to a shop to buy something, holding a conversation with a neighbour about nonsense subjects like growing flowers or something equally banal is "soooo yesterday".  And not only do we have ways of killing each other with such efficiency we are equally effective in eradicating the flora and fauna, which keeps us on track to remain as humans and not have to be transhumanised into something else...

re AdG, you're familiar with the Technology Review challenge? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Grey_Technology_Review_controversy

If you're able to back up your claims of "pinching" and "pseudo biology" and "random postulations" you should have entered, won the prize.

I heard something about it but it's not the sort of thing that I concern myself with.  I could be wrong (because I only heard through idle conversation) that the conclusion was that it was entirely likely that the stuff he's doing might be nonsense but no-one could refute un-proven postulations with more postulations.  Good luck to the bloke I say.  It's hard enough to get a degree at Cambridge so I've got no worries about him making a few bob on the pundit circuit.  And in any case, it gives people something to have a natter about.

Does he still have that dandruff filled beard?

BTW Cameron.  Don't let Dino see you using wikipedia...

Other than some contributions of original thought from Superking there is nothing forthcoming other than to tell me what some so-called eminent scientists have said.  I reckon I shall forget this question and assume that the advanced Atheists are incapable of original thought and unable to say what they think for fear of upsetting the Alpha class of the Atheists...

^ Except Super-King, he had some original thought.

Quick, someone make me king of atheism

Well here's some coincidence..

I don't think that author has an idea either

well quite frankly Arthur, as with your criticisms of Kurzweil and De Grey, I think your question is pretty vague. Who said humans are "better" than animals? We *are* animals, as I think you said before. We have a brain which is more evolved in many ways compared to the brains of most other species of animal. Does that makes us "better"? I don't think so, it makes us different and capable of a different standard of stupid human tricks, like destroying the environment. Better is subjective. I don't get the point of your question.

If you follow the concepts and paths that the likes of Kurzwiel and de Grey are proponents of and attempt to give credence to them for the benefit of improving your point of view, you are simply following a pattern which is evident throughout the religions of this world and are showing a faith in what they are proponents of.  Which is contrary to the concept of being an Atheist.  While there is no problem with sticking with good practical science and research as a guideline to how and what to do next is no big deal but to formulate your take of the world from the preaching rather than good solid vision of so-called eminent scientists is akin to following a religious sect.

And finally you've come up with an answer that follows the thoughts of a forum contributor (SK) rather than attempting to skirt around the question with some high-brow references one or more of your high-priests of Atheism - as you immediately did in your opening post which was a combination of referal to Kurzwiel and a bluster of how brilliant the human race is.

As a self appointed "facilitator" for people who think they are "alone" with Atheism you are making a good job of going down the path of being a bloke on the corner of the street holding a pack of brochures packed with everyone elses ideas and trying to get them to believe in them.  Those "brochures" are  not very different to publications like "The Watchtower" or "The War Cry".

Still, I guess you make some sort of living out of all this and if you can find enough ignorants you will, eventually, become an Alpha in your own right.

Enjoy!

Arthur, comparing the scientific theories of Kurzweil and de Grey to proponents of religion is an extremely weak argument. K & dG base their theories on large quantities of evidence and research which, contrary to your statement, is EXACTLY what atheism is all about. As I've said before in this forum, LOTU has nothing to do with Kurzweil and de Grey's writings, I merely brought them up when someone was attempting to criticize transhumanism.

I see again that you like to attack with ad hominem arguments and with a complete lack of scientific or logical refutation of the theories of K & dG. When you have an intelligent argument to make, by all means, let us know.

I don't need to produce any arguments to refute what they claim because I understand what they are claiming, not all the details (they don't know them all either) but enough to understand.  I recognise them as leaders in their field - but that's as far as it goes. They may base their arguments (and that's all they are) on established scientific facts and discoveries (some they have made themselves and been recognised for) and make links between each one using an array of logical postulations but it doesn't make the concept of what they saying an absolute.  They have belief (and maybe faith) in what they are doing, they have become, in their own fields, the Alphas.  Just like any good proponent of religion, say an Arch Bishop, Mullah, Prophet or something, they are clearly focused on their vision of what will be - and the fact that they are evangelising their position is further evidence that they are wanting to have a dominance of some kind over a segment of the worlds population.

I think I have said this before but I'll put it in a different way. When you have formed a good understanding of life in general, science, nature, technology and the environment in which we live and work, you will not pick up someones book (not just AdG or RK) or listen to their teaching and take what they present as being the way it is, or will be (as you claim to be an Atheist you'll probably already done that with books such as the Bible or Quran).  What you'll do is absorb the essence of what they are trying to tell you and use it to improve something that you have or to think a bit to one side (or a lot to one side)  as seems appropriate to the knowledge that you have and more importantly, what you are trying to achieve.

I can't remember off the top of my head who said this:-

"Your only fault young man is that you are thinking about the problem logically"

Now that is good advice to anyone, especially someone who is trying to be some kind of visionary.

Again, Arthur, you're just ranting. You're attacking people (me, Kurzweil, de Grey) by insinuating that we are either idiots, ill-informed or just plain liars, yet you don't provide any evidence for any of your claims. Neither K or dG claim to be prophets, just to be analyzing data and making predictions. I've never claimed to take either of their books as gospel truth. You're just making shit up and ranting. Why? Are you able to discuss ideas rather than attacking people's integrity?

 I've never claimed to take either of their books as gospel truth.

Nevertheless you will wheel them out and simply point to what they say, rather than explaining to us how YOU come to YOUR conclusions without falling back on their take on stuff.

An by the way, people who are classed as prophets never actually introduced themselves as prophets, their followers did that...  

I don't have either the time or the education to do scientific research on every aspect of how the world works personally, Arthur. I rely on others and take the opinion of the consensus of the science community as being good enough for me.

To answer the question raised in the headline:

The ability to imitate is far from advanced among humans.

There was an article in the most recent New Scientist about how speech isn't as uniquely human as might be thought (ie other animals communicate in various ways, so we're only different by the degree to which we do so). Actual speech as we would think of it, and the complexity of our language and syntax (and possibly the use of recursion) is still just us though...

It also highlighted some other things that we now know aren't so unique - culture, emotions, tool use, morality, personality and an understanding of "theory of mind" (being able to attribute thoughts/intentions to other individuals and hence understand how they're likely to behave)

Plus some things that are still thought to be unique to us - art, cooking, religion, humour and organised sport.

I'd think the most distinguishing feature would be history. Any findings that any other species has a shared concept of their history?

@dekrazee1: It's the uniquely advanced faculty to imitate that creates history. No other animal is equally perfect in imitating. We're able to imitate a set of rules, clusters of ideas and patterns of behavior that are hundreds of years old.

@SK: Animals don't use grammar.

They certainly don't use our grammar but they do appear to get along by using, what us humans percieve to be, a far less sophistocated communication language.

@SK: "some things that are still thought to be unique to us - art, cooking, religion, humour and organised sport" ... please define art, humour and organized sport so that the concepts exclude honeycomb, spiderwebs, lion cubs at play, and dogs playing fetch.  These concepts are totally subjective.  Cooking is not a positive accomplishment as current thought links most of our disease to the over-processing of our food.  Whole food and organic food diets are thought to be healthier and desirable ... just like animals eat.  Religion is obviously not a fantastic achievement either, as this entire forum is set up to debate it.  We're not looking so good in this argument.

So given that the physical and chemical properties of our brain are the things which cause us to do things, does this also mean thet the trigger for the process (which itself is derived from some sort of physical and chemical process) is unrelated to learning?  Even if it is related to learning, how is this learning thing activated. Does the "act of learning" mean thousands of years of trial and error by revealing the predetermined solutions one-by-one until DNA is so rich in this information that brains are formed with it?  And why, if it's all simply down to protons neutron and electrons (and further sub-atomic particles thereof) are they different in cats, cows and why would we percieve that animals are doing it to a lesser degree - or why do we think that humans are doing it to a better degree - are our bodies better at processing chemical reactions?

I was just taking those things from the article, they did have a longer justification of why each thing can still be considered unique, and a proper definition. I think the online copy is accessible to subscribers only but I can copy and paste the relevant bit to here... which I will do in just a minute.

There was something about how animals can demonstrate understanding of some simple syntax... I'll see if I can find an easily quoted chunk from that bit.

On second thoughts, these articles are pretty lengthy, I'll do what I've done before and dump it into a topic in my rarely travelled forum and link to it

http://www.tangler.com/forum/superking/topic/42071

The stuff I mentioned above is towards the bottom of the article (in the print copy the sections at the bottom were in separate boxes from the main flow of the text)

Turns out their explanations aren't as good as I remembered... but they still explain why our art/humour/sport/etc differ from animal traits.

A nice article SK.  And while it does put into perspective some of the similarities of communicatin and behaviour the article is not sullied by any claims to know what the essence of the differences are - in terms of chemical and physical properties.  Which is good.  However in the context of this forum it doesn't really help explain why, given that we, humans and animals, are only an arrangement of chemicals, should be any better or worse than each other.

Seems a large part of the article was cut off the bottom, fixed that now, so the part about the traits that are still unique to us is now there.

As regards one chemical configuration being superior to any other, there is no objective sense in which you could judge one thing to be better than another, but in that sense we're no better than any object - everything is just a certain arrangement of atoms. Seems to me to reduce things too far to say that everything is just an arrangement of chemicals, that ignores the real similarities/differences between us and other animals.

Whether we're better than them or not depends entirely on your criteria, perspective and how you award points.

Whether we're better than them or not depends entirely on your criteria, perspective and how you award points.

I'd say that is an entirely correct statement.

Up to now I've only seen arguments (on and off this forum) based on the "because it is" method which could be an edict from someone who knows nothing but has much influence.

For the sake of this forum, let's say that points are awarded based on the criteria and perspective brought forth by the LOTU concept which adheres to scientific principles and everything we know or understand is governed by that perspective.

But the laws of the universe are intended to be objective, describing physical phenomena and the like, not subjective criteria for judging the worth of chemical patterns. Science in general strives for objectivity... it's not something to base morals or subjective judgement on.

However, science can examine how morality arises in us, maybe by following that angle you could come to a conclusion about what we value more... says nothing about what we should value, but it could be a start.

Sorry, but who or what 'intended' the laws of the universe to be objective? There is theory and there is practice. Objectivity has nothing to do with anything. Science does not strive for objectivity -- since most science originates from the (sometimes informed) subjective guess work of theory -- that would be ridiculous.

SK: Very nice article, and it definitely makes your points about the traits you listed ... except the whole tone seems to be saying that the more we study, the more alike we all are, animals and human.  The more we learn about "them", the more like "us" we realize they are.  From that standpoint, it's only a matter of time before we realize that the chimps and dolphins are just laughing at us behind our backs.  Now I'm paranoid.  How does that fit into this equation?

@Taki.  Welcome to the realm of the critical thinkers.

@Giganat. I think may have hit a good spot there.  Your paranoia might indicate the basic animal trait of realisation that there is stuff in nature that can cause a human to lose their grip on the concept of us (humans) being the Alphas of the animal kingdom.  Why stop at chimps and dolphins?

Science does not strive for objectivity -- since most science originates from the (sometimes informed) subjective guess work of theory -- that would be ridiculous.

The aim when formulating a scientific theory is to produce an objective description of what happens in the world - there are no theories about how things ought to be, how any particular scientist would like things to be, how any particular person feels about a subject, these subjective things just aren't a part of it.

Wherever possible, the purest form of a theory is a mathematical relationship. The rest is a translation of that into a description we can read and understand. Please, explain where you can insert subjectivity into a mathematical equation.

AD, I somehow doubt we're going to find that any other species has actually been the "alpha" all along without us noticing 

Well... unless we discover that certain structures of our brains are actually some kind of parasitic larvae... controlling us for their own ends, and preventing us from discovering them. But what are the odds?

Read the Trilogy in Five parts By Douglas Adams.  He was a devout Atheist and he seemed to know a lot of things.  And before you cry FICTION, just think of Arthur C Clarke.

Read the Trilogy in Five parts By Douglas Adams.

I have done. Were there specific parts you wanted me to take note of?  

Nothing in particular.  It's a ripping good read!

Actually it might not have been in the H2G2 books (it was 20 odd years ago when I read) it may have been in one of the radio programms.  The pan-dimensional creatures (the things we call mice, who comissioned the Magratheans to build the organic super-computer called the Earth in the first place) were actually experimenting on us.  The dolphins knew the Vogon constructor fleet was on it's way to demolish the earth (and they left before the destruction).  The dolphins were frustrated because despite their advanced communication methods us humans didn't have the mental capacity to understand their warnings.  Their message to humanity was "So-long and thanks for all the fish", which was only discovered when it was realised that the Earth that was destroyed was actually a parallel (or something).

And you know what? if you take his (Adams) fiction and strip out the wayward characters and some of the humour you end up with stuff akin to that which Arthur C Clarke had the piss taken out of him for all those years ago...

The aim when formulating a scientific theory is to produce an objective description of what happens in the world - there are no theories about how things ought to be, how any particular scientist would like things to be, how any particular person feels about a subject, these subjective things just aren't a part of it.

This is completely wrong. The aim is to be objective when attempting to prove or disprove any (scientific) theory. The whole point of theory is that there is limited knowledge to work with and as such subjective thinking is required to make the leaps of imagination required when formulating a theory. The thing about objectivity is that in order to apply it you require fixed points to work around.

In the books the last message from dolphins was misinterpreted as a suprisingly sophisticated attempt at doing a double backflip through a hoop while whistling the star-spangled banner  (and was actually "So long and thanks for all the fish")

I take your point, maybe they are in fact far beyond what we realise... I just find it very unlikely. We would have to consider the possibility that every animal is actually far more intelligent than we take them for, even the really stupid looking ones.

Taki, I know there will be some subjective thinking involved in coming up with a theory, but the theory itself should (in theory) be universally applicable - objective. It may not be the case, but its what's desired.

I think you should probably look up the definitions of objective and subjective.

If we're using them in different ways that would sure explain the difference of opinion...

I'm going on objective being something that isn't subject to anyone's opinions, hopes, thoughts on what's right and wrong and etc.

Everything is subject to opinion and thought. Objective dogma (scientific or otherwise) seems a bit of a contradiction to me. You should probably consider whether or not the human mind is even capable of truly objective thought.

There are objective facts that can be known about the world - the mass of an object for example, that's fixed and true regardless of what anyone thinks. There are of course arguments about perception that would make this harder to nail down as a certainty, but in the normal way of thinking, these kinds of physical properties can be known objectively (given a decent way of measuring them)

As I see it, scientific theories are rooted in these kinds of objective facts and measurements.

What you see as an 'objective fact' was once-upon-a-time a very, very subjective opinion. And THAT is the nature of science.

When was the mass of an object ever an opinion?

Doesn't have to be mass, but as an example...

Now you're being obtuse. Gravity was always there, but it took a human mind to quantify it. And I dare say people disagreed with Newton's opinions and theories at the time.

Dark matter is a perfect example. No-one has seen it, no-one knows what it is, making all theories and opinions on the matter open to debate, irrespective of whether they're correct or not. Why? Because until we actually know even the correct answer is just someone's subjective opinion.

This was interesting, and related to the discussion:

What does it mean to be human?

What does it mean to be human? And can science illuminate the answers? A star-studded panel of scientists gathered to discuss those heady themes last night at the World Science Festival in New York City.

Ok, Gravity. Objective fact of nature that things with mass attract each other. Then we describe this and write a law of gravity pertaining to the tendency of things with mass to attract each other. That we didn't all agree at once doesn't make it a matter of opinion - those who disagreed with the idea were simply wrong. Albeit Newton didn't describe it perfectly, so technically he was wrong too, but he was a whole lot closer than anyone disagreeing with him at the time.

When I say the aim is to be objective, I mean that there is an objective truth "out there" about how the universe is, how it works or describing some relationship between things, and we try to make our description of the world as close to that as possible. The aim being to arrive at the same thing as the actual law in nature. Whether we have succeeded is an objective fact. Some may have a different opinion, but because the argument is over something that has an objectively true answer, eventually someone will be proven wrong.

Dark Matter is one of many theories looking to answer various problems with the current model of things that don't have a great amount of evidence for or against yet... there are quite a few of these in astrophysics and particle physics at the moment, and many of them are waiting for further evidence from equipment that hasn't been brought online yet (be they giant telescopes or giant atom smashers).

I think there is perhaps a line to be drawn between scientific theories and scientific conjecture - a "theory" is after all, in science, something that is considered to be fairly certain.

Of course it's a matter of opinion until something is 'proven'... and even then it can still be a matter of opinion.

As for there being an 'objective truth', well good luck and dog speed with that one. Whether you're looking for a universal theory of everything, or to 'know the mind of (a) god', there is always going to be something that doesn't quite fit. Even gravity doesn't quite work how it should. It has been suggested that gravity could be an overspill effect of a neighbouring universe, but how does one go about proving that?

Now you've said it yourself there. FAIRLY certain. Kind of makes it all fairly objective... or to put it another way, a little subjective.

The laws and stuff as, currently explained to us by the scientific community, are the ones which are supposed to determin the path of our current thoughts.  Given that a lot of scientific theories are in some way wrong and that tests to prove theories are, in general, balanced in favour of proving a theory one might conclude that science is, broadly, an opinion based on supporting evidence that is awaiting a test to disprove it.  A good example of this is that of Alchemy (base metal to gold) whilst it might be achievable sometime in the distant future using an atomic re-arrangement machine of some sort, one can imagine that it would be infinitely cheaper and practical to continue to dig for gold.  In terms of making stuff and technological advances it appears that specific things are ok to run with (iPods, mobile phones, light-bulbs etc...) but is it something that (from a broader prospective) that you'd want to classify as Laws and have them govern the way to think about life, the universe and everything.

Anyone see a hole appearing anywhere?

Taki, do have an alternative method, other than the scientific method, for coming up with a set of explanations for how the universe works that are likely to be correct?

Again, 'correct' or 'incorrect' are both subjective concepts. One expresses an opinion as to whether something is valid or not based on any (though not always all) available data, and then makes a subjective judgement (said judgement being subject to preconceived ideas and/or personal experiences). It's all fine and well to say something is objectively this or objectively that, but these ideas and theories only exist within the mind or minds that contemplate them. With no such thing as objective thought, there can be no objective truths. The very search for answers to the question 'how does the universe work?' are subject to the desire to understand.

I think we're using objective/subjective in rather different ways. If anything that is thought is immediately subjective, simply on the basis that it is a thought within a mind, then yes... there will be no way to come out with objectivity... that's self evident.

On the other hand, I don't think it is beyond us to consider an objective truth without adding anything subjective to it - the universe and the way it operates is objective, a bald fact. What we attempt to do is have our thoughts or theories describe that objective truth as faithfully as possible - we strive for objectivity. Maybe we can't reach it (especially if we use your meaning of objective) but we try, and I think we get close.

There is no science that is only true some of the time, or to certain people - those things are what I would class as subjective. There is no science that requires a moral judgement or decision, it is all based solely on the facts we can gather about the world, true or false, and very preferably verifiable, testable and falsifiable.

How can you 'consider' something without adding anything subjective? Anything you think is by the very nature of thought subjective.

The universe and how it operates has nothing to do with objectivity. Simply because one is using the human mind to work it out! To try and comprehend. Nothing just 'is'. For something to be one has to perceive it, and to perceive it one has to consider, think, and form opinions. What we attempt to do is put things into a context we can understand, we can fathom, we can perceive as true. In order to achieve true objectivity you would need to know everything and have an opinion on nothing. That is impossible.

I think you will find that science has been wrong in the past, but was considered true at the time. And if you truly believe that morality has no place in science then I think you need a strong dose of humanity (maybe a quick look at what NAZI scientists got upto in the search for true and false).

One cannot differentiate to the degree you are suggesting between the thought and the mind that thinks it.

Oh, I see...

Just finished the first year of a philosophy A-level, and the theories we covered fell into 2 broad groupings - the ones that made sense, and the ones that seemed to somewhat pulled out of nowhere. If you want to go down the "to be is to be perceived" route then good luck to you, I'll be sticking to the worldview that makes sense to me where the world exists independent of our minds.

I'm not saying perfect objectivity is definitely possible, just that it's what scientific thought aims for. I think partial objectivity, which manages to leave out the most part of our personal opinions is possible. There will be some things we naturally assume... things like "the world exists" or "effects follow causes". Maybe these aren't true and nothing makes sense or in fact exists, but they seem like fairly safe assumptions to me.

As for morality and science, the morality isn't a part of the science, it is something you should be doing independently of whatever the research itself is. The question of whether it's right or wrong doesn't enter into the "doing the science" part so much as the "should I attempt to do this in the first place" part.

Sorry, but how 'objectively speaking' do you know what exists independently of your mind? The answer to that question can only be an opinion, a very subjective opinion. What 'makes sense' to you is just as subjective as anything and everything else you've written.

And there you go again with 'partial objectivity'. How does that work? Look at what you're writing. You've gone from objective truth to safe assumptions! The human mind is absolutely subjective, insofar as that it can never truly be objective. Yes, one can attempt to think in a manner that is objective, but it will always be just that; an attempt.

So, one should question the morality of an experiment before beginning, and in your opinion that is not part of the scientific process? Seriously? How is it possible that the scientist in question knows every possible avenue that their research may lead them down before they begin, in order to predetermine the morality of what they may have to do?

You know what, this subjective/objective thing... we're still going to disagree no matter what either one of us says, I've said what I think, anything else will be repeating myself.

The morality part, I didn't literally mean you should check the morality before you start then continue to do whatever the line of inquiry leads you to. If what you're doing becomes unethical then obviously it's time to stop. But that's a moral judgement, which is a separate thing from the science. My original point was that the end result of a scientific investigation is never going to be about what's moral or not, only what's true or not.

Taki, going down Kant's noumenon and phenomenon path is nice drawing-room philosophizing, but completely pointless if we are trying to determine a platform of knowledge with which to improve the future of the human race. Our minds are the only tool we have to observe the universe. So let's use it as best we can until you come up with a better idea.

Our minds are the only tool we have to observe the universe.

When will you start using your's then Cam?  

Looks like the debate has got back to wheeling out someone elses ideas again.  Although I do like the idea of using stuff we know about as best as we can until we come up with a better idea because we can make ipods, washing machines, space ships and electric razors with what little knowledge we have.  We can also base a lot of conjecture on what improvements we might expect too make on our current know-how.  Knowing something doesn't matter one tiny little jot though.  If cabability isn't there, whatever it is we want will never happen.

A good example of this is that the majority of people who can spell largely unused words, use clique based analagies or quote someone elses ideas are hardly capable of cooking a meal from a freezer packet whilst your average tradesman could organise a feast for a king, so as to speak...

ooh, ooh, that last paragraph is me!  largely unused words and internet memes ftw

I can cook some things though... just not many 

SK, I wouldn't expect that an A level student is capable of washing properly, never mind being able to cook something.  Most of you are in training for University so you've got to get your body used to processing and surviving off the tiny amounts of body essentials that are in Pot Noodles, Pizza and cheap booze.  I shouldn't worry though, the chances are you'll come out as a thouroughly regular guy who just gets on with normal stuff to build a life. 

hehe, yeah.. I'm probably actually ahead of many of my peers in that I am actually capable of producing something edible from a kitchen. Not just pre-prepared stuff either, the few things I do know how to make are actually fairly involved 

Cameron, trying to sound clever whilst cribbing from Wikipedia is a tricky thing. A thing you've singularly failed to pull off. 'The Church of LOTU' itself seems to have sprung from the loins of (piss poor) drawing room philosophising. But don't let that irony stop your continued blustering.

I don't want to be offensive (much), but since you fired the first shot... your pseudo religion with it's wishy-washy pseudo philosophising is a complete joke. Reading the FAQ on the LOTU website was hilarious. If I didn't know you were serious I would have sworn it was meant to be satirical. There are some moments of absolute genius!

"Where does one go to hear the atheist “gospel”?"

"The idea is that this religion will be fully based in science and critical thinking."

"Isn’t religion antithetical to atheism? Traditionally, yes. Wikipedia defines..."

Ah, wikipedia THE font of all knowledge. I bow to the genius behind this. It's so bad it might, just might, be genius.

Hey Taki.  I bet you haven't got an entry in Wikipedia.  Yes, one in your very own name.  Telling all how you were too thick to make it past high school, got fired from a half decent employer and then became a media mogul who's business partner cleared off  in "unknown circumstances" and then set up an on-line mediacast station broadcasting interviews to internet cripples from anyone who couldn't get onto proper TV and radio broadcasts.  Meanwhile being a vociferous atheist looking for all and any excuse to take down anyone who puts up a reference to religion - especially Christianity, even starting up your own religion for atheists.  Have you done all that?  No of course you haven't - And I bet you have never, ever taken some infinitesamally tiny extracts of someones life which appear without a proper provenance and ripped them to pieces just because she was an old lady who did good stuff but had the temerity to be a Christian...  Nope, didn't think you had either.  And, I bet you never had a conversation with a couple of aquaintances last week who were all for science being the ruler of the world - but when challenged for evidence of some deviation from the path of "the best available scientific information" and said they "wondered that there might be something beyond current knowledge"  immediately dissmissed as idiots.  And furthermore you have not proposed to use this as a basis of educational reform by teaching science in a better way to kids, especially when you never got taught science to a level beyond high-school.  No you haven't have you...!

I know someone who has though...

I’ll not be drawn into character assassination… just yet.

You could phrase that more amusingly you know... "antichrist-ian" for example

Although obvious he's just an anti-christian person, not the antichrist.

OR  IS  HE.............

The antichrist is meant to be the living embodiment of evil, isn't he/she/it? When I see Cameron 'evil' is the last word that springs to mind. Seriously, if the (allegedly) sly and subtle Devil was going to send someone to convince us all that religion was nothing more than a childish toy, he'd have dropped a bollock by sending Cameron.

Cameron is just a tool

Be nice heller, please

Taki, what's the difference between atheism and antitheism?

One doesn't believe in god, and one doesn't believe in religion?

I don't get what the fundamental difference is

do read the Taki contribution immediately before mine, in its entirety, before making  assumptions

(sorry dek...I had to edit that. I got a little too emo. I really missed the double entendre in my post. Now I see it, I stand by it either way)

Wonder where Archbishop Reilly has got to?

He seems to be neglecting his flock. (in this part of his diocese at least)

I thought you might be interested to know (if you don't already), the "old lady" I referred to in my last post is the one referred to as Mother Theresa of Calcutta.  Who is, of course, dead and is not in a likely position to defend herself.  And it makes me think about that tiresome old argument based on ad hominem.  I wonder if, since he wrote his "famous blog" on the subject, that old Father Rielly has reformed himself because every time someone attacks him he dismisses them out of hand and refuses to recognise any validity from a personal attack.  Especially when it is based on very weak, little or no substantiated evidence.

Yes Arthur, I did pick up on the Mother Theresa connection.

If only Rev Reilly was trying to help the poor and disadvantaged, wemay have something to celebrate.

Atheism - the doctrine or belief that there is/are no god/gods.

Antitheism - an active opposition to theism.

I am an atheist, but I'm not actively opposed to theism or theistic beliefs. I'm happy to defend my point of view, but I don't see any need to push my beliefs (or lack thereof) onto other people... that kind of thing tends to lead to nastiness.

Well said Taki.  I certainly subscribe to that way of thinking and I doubt that anyone has any scientific or logic-based evidence to refute it.

I could try... but I'd only be arguing for the sake of it 

andromeda / Arthur / Taki / heller, I'm disinterested in defending myself. I'm interested in discussing and debating ideas. If and when you folks are ready to do that in a grown up way, I'm ready to play. Until then, I've got other things to do and other places to do them.

I think I'm an atheist and a slight antitheist.

I'm disinterested in defending myself.

Well you can't defend the indefensible, can you?

You have no science that you have demonstrated here, all you do is to refer people to Wiki, or other fringe dwelling scientists that are unable to prove their theories either.

If you are so disinterested, then why for goodness did you start this rot in the first place.  Your behaviour smacks of cowardice if you ask me.

You started up a church WHY? Is it because religious organisations recieve favourable treatment from certain places?

You are a great leader Cam, as soon as you are confronted by a few mature adults you run away with your tail between your legs, but I suppose that as you are only used to dealing with over awed teenagers, you have forgotten what it's like to debate something, and instead hide behind the tiresome old "Ad hominem"defense.

You come here and insult other people/beliefs, but can't cop it when the boot is on the other foot.

You wrote this Cam:- I've got other things to do and other places to do them.  

Well if you are so busy, then why launch this immature garbage in the first place?

You started this pseudo church, and now you suddenly have other things to do in other places. Maybe you haven't been taking your immortality pills regularly enough, otherwise you would have forever to do other things and go to other places.

@Cameron who said:  I'm interested in discussing and debating ideas.

Who also said: I don't have either the time or the education to do scientific research on every aspect of how the world works personally, Arthur. I rely on others and take the opinion of the consensus of the science community as being good enough for me

So what you are saying then is that it is really good to debate and discuss someone elses ideas whilst not having the capability to understand them completely.  What I don't quite get is the concept of putting up someone elses argument to defend a position when you quite clearly take the conclusion of their argument to being fact without understanding it and therefore have no comprehension of any surrounding context.  That's not argument, that is akin to following a faith...

Oh, Cameron. Defending yourself and defending your ideas and opinions really isn't the same thing. The difference between "You are stupid" and "Your ideas are stupid" should be obvious.

Happy to do 'mature', but I'm not sure discussing 'a religion for atheists' qualifies.

spike

I am a bit late,as this subject has been talked to death.I am an atheist & I believe Humans are NOT better than animals. In the animal world each species is governed by'Survival of the Fittest'. This is still true with humans,the fittest now being the richest(in financil terms).In a few years time when the easy to get resources & food are used up,when the sea has flooded most of the fertile deltas around the world,& the huge explosion of human population has been reduced to perhaps 50% of todays numbers,---then the suvivors(the fittest & richest)will start a new chapter of balanced population,matched to food availability.

During this peroid humans will realize that they are bound by the laws of Nature,that wildlife & flora are a valuble part of future human existance.Humans will stop thinking they are Better than animals,&possibly try &coexist in the Natural World,instead of modifying everything. (Except that humans have a deformity,a deformed gene,which may never be corrected).This gene may be the catalyst that makes us want to explore & conquer the rest of the Universe.

spike

I am a bit late,as this subject has been talked to death.I am an atheist & I believe Humans are NOT better than animals. In the animal world each species is governed by'Survival of the Fittest'. This is still true with humans,the fittest now being the richest(in financil terms).In a few years time when the easy to get resources & food are used up,when the sea has flooded most of the fertile deltas around the world,& the huge explosion of human population has been reduced to perhaps 50% of todays numbers,---then the suvivors(the fittest & richest)will start a new chapter of balanced population,matched to food availability.

During this period humans will realize that they are bound by the laws of Nature,that wildlife & flora are a valuble part of future human existance.Humans will stop thinking they are Better than animals,&possibly try &coexist in the Natural World,instead of modifying everything. (Except that humans have a deformity,a deformed gene,which may never be corrected).This gene may be the catalyst that makes us want to explore & conquer the rest of the Universe.

that's a double load of bollocks

Spike has a lot more faith in humanity than I do. I'm not sure 'coexisting with nature' quite dovetails with 'conquering the universe' either.

I say that Spike is talking a bit of sense.  Unusual on this forum I realise but sense nonetheless...

What about "Oh my dog" or "Oh your God" or just "Oh" 

We have options

I don't think a plain "Oh" would be enough for Archbollock Reilly, SK.

He could be saying "Where are my rose-tinted shades...I hope they're not where I'm thinking"...

So what was in that speech bubble before you edited it to LOTU?

Sorry, SK, I cannot remember...it was a few days ago and my memory is

You'd be better off asking his dog - but that only shows that a certain animal is better than a certain human...

Turn the power off for a year and see how hard it is to distinguish Humans from other animals, the humans of today can only survive in the environment which their ancestors created for them each generation standing on the shoulders of the previous generations achievements. Having all the tools doesn't mean you can do the job.

Speak for yourself!!

The rest of us can't be blamed for your incompetence......you appear to be very dull and un-scientific..

You are a real cockhead Andromeda, You have attacked me from the word go, Fuck off, you appear very socially challenged.  Read your Dawkins and you shall understand what I am talking about. how long would you expect a human baby to survive if its mother was dropped into the wilderness one week before birth? Its mortality rate would drop signifigantly because this species has learned to survive in the world or environment it has had built for it.

Mortality rates are high in every species living in the wild, part of the basis for evolution is that there are more offspring than can survive. The fact that humans have managed to change their environment to the benefit of the species isn't a weakness, it's what makes us so successful. I know there's a perfectly good argument that our actions have, in the long term, been detrimental to both the environment and ourselves, but at least we're trying...

Are you saying we'd be better off living in the wild? That we shouldn't "stand on the shoulders" of previous generations? I for one would call that a hideously bad idea. As for "having all the tools doesn't mean you can do the job", I'm sorry but where exactly would you point to people not "doing the job"? The way you say that makes it sound like we're stood wide-eyed in a world entirely built by those in the past, and unable to keep it running...

I can understand Andro's hostility - you come out of nowhere claiming to have all the answers, say almost nothing of any sense or substance, then go on the defensive as soon as you get called on it.

Having the tools refers to having the ability to control our environment, whilst not doing the job refers to how people can't seem to work together because there are too many hidden agendas. If you take a look at Andromedas posts it appears that he is most likely a christian or similar religious fanatic, doing his damndest to undermine any collective unity whithin this group of people. Hence he has taken offence to me calling myself GOD. Each of his posts are just sensless negativity, obviously designed to make this Church of LOTU an unpleasant experience.

The original question is framed to the assumption that we are actually better than other animals, Douglas Adams pointed out that the Dolphins felt they were better than humans for all the opposite reasons that humans were declaring. We pat ourselves on the back for our virus like behaviour. Michio Kaku has plenty of good theories about mans options to shine or revert back to animal basics, do a search, and have a read. My Claims to have all the answers are merely a parody of what is GOD,  Surely thats not too hard to understand.

Read your Dawkins

hahahahaha, he can't convince his peers that he is on the right track, let alone convince aynone who has even a glimmer of intelligence..

And then you quote the science fiction writer 'Douglas Adams', well that is the clincher for me. hahaha..

I think you should grow up and stop believing in fairy tales.. (and the man with the rose coloured glasses)

Turn the power off for a year and see how hard it is

I have lived without power for more than a year in the past and the fact that I am posting this is a testament to my survival..

Fuck off,

After you my friend, after you.. 

to undermine any collective unity whithin this group of people.

The main unity that I've encountered on this topic, is the unity of thought that most people who visit here think that the pseudo church of LOTU is composed of wankers..

I see your game, you don't get rid of me that easily, you are the equivolent of the ranting Christian nutter in Queen street mall. Like the idiot who carries on about his gun collection and how the banks are stealing all your money, while you stand in the bank, waiting to be served by the same teller who hit the silent alarm. Your efforts to attack me in the hope that you can dissapate any sense of cohesion are typical of the brainless majority of people who think Jesus did what the bible claims,  The sort of people who make outragous claims with no actua