"Science makes God unnecessary"

This claim by Steven Hawking is too simplistic & naive for a so-called genius to have made. The terms require much more subtle consideration than this divisive, dualistic approach.

Category:

Education

Tags:

• science
• god
• evolution
• consciousness
• love
• eros
• Jung
• Maturana
• Jonas
• religion

[Wollff85]

8:30 More complex forms are no more efficient in the battle of survivial?

Now that is simply wrong. How the more complex bacterium, with a flagellum to move around, is more efficient in the battle of survivial, is easy to see. When you take multicellular organisms, even the simple sponge can filter large amounts of water much more efficiently than any single celled organism ever could.

Every increase in complexity opens up new niches that way.

[soulfetcher]

@Wollff85

Thanks for this. Is it really this simple though? why did simple cells forgo the degrees of individual freedom involved in bonding with others to form more complex organisms when they were already survivors par-excellence? Jonas etc raised this question bacteria etc are already the most ubiquitous and efficient life forms- the most rapidly adapting to their environments (and adapting their environments in turn).

I intend returning to these ideas in a future vid though.

[Wollff85]

@soulfetcher If everybody is good at surviving, after some time, an environment is full. To gain an edge over the competition, communication is an advantage (even bacteria do that). From communication it's only a small step to cooperation (which often means just sticking together; bacteria do that too). When you can communicate well and are already sticking together, cells (as well as people) can orchestrate a division of labor.

And after that, you basically have a multicellular organism.

[soulfetcher]

@Wollff85

I agree. But its considering mechanisms beyond Darwinian & neo darwinian reductionism that i'm interested in exploring, as simple Darwinian competition seems insufficient to fully explain cooperation & the rise of complexity that we observe - it may turn out to be, but this is seeming increasingly unlikely - (for example see "Darwin's blind spot : evolution beyond natural selection" by Frank Ryan).

p.s. and i'm not suggesting intelligent designer ;-)

[SDSen]

Why is it that Diamond cracks when subjected to extreme conditions while carbon evolves into another new form? Aren't both same in chemical compositions, and just differ in bonding structure?

And thinking metamorphically, why is it easiest for an infant or young kid to adopt to a new place, easier for a young adult and most difficult for an old person?

[SDSen]

Let's take a wider look at things! Why did dinosaurs vanish? Weren't they supposed to very complex life forms? And why did simple bacteria from the same time exists even today?

[dewinthemorning]

You are engaging in animism.

I thing reductionism in science is a more valuable method than some of us admit it to be.

And, of course, our cognitive processes need to be carefully considered, and the conceptual metaphores we employ, when making mathematics, for example.

I refuse to consider our unconscious sense of the 'noeminous' as something real.

[2bsirius]

Going beyond dogma is one of the hardest things to do. It's so much easier to let the more charismatic and articulate do our thinking for us.

I must admit that some of your metaphors were inscrutable to me, but I agree with you that we have become simplistic either/or thinkers [that includes kneejerk right/wrong thinking btw]...

Very interesting thoughts. Glad you're back!

[KellyJones00]

@soulfetcher Well, if someone is irrational, they're not what I'd class as the best minds. ;-)

And, well, one *can* be certain of reason. That's the only way one can be certain...

It's not that reason is hard to be certain of, but that people don't particularly care that they don't use reason. I think they know just enough about it to avoid it like the plague.

[soulfetcher]

@KellyJones00

Thanks Kelly, i agree that there is a difference between reason based on (or even slightly infected by) the senses and that which isn't - the problem we struggle to know when reason is being effected by senses (including mind) - especially in the more interesting areas of thought.

Don't you find even the best minds can still be quite irrational even when they think they are being reaonable. Pure reason is great as an abstraction but hard to be certain of.

[Wollff85]

@soulfetcher Thank you for the reference, I'll look into it. Since it really sounds interesting.

[KellyJones00]

@soulfetcher Well, I think I see where you're coming from.

But my 2c worth. There is a difference between reason based on the senses and that which isn't. Would you agree with that? More info:

The scientific method is the former. That is the "a posteriori" kind, posteriorly meaning "after". That is, proof obtained "after" sensory evidence. Then philosophical is the former, the "a priori" kind, proven before sense data (which is arguably not even relevant to the proof).

E.g. 1+1=2 (a priori).