Scientists hit by climate doubt fallout

[Andy Hunt]

When the Buddha said that killing animals would not bring good karma, he was referring to the Vedic practice of the time of animal sacrifice to gain the favour of the gods, not suggesting that vegetarianism was a more spiritual diet.

He was trying to prevent needless cruelty to animals.

[Ludwig]

On the deepest level, all religions say the same thing - i.e. there is an realm of existence beyond appearances. In this they are (IMO) all right.

But probably all wrong.

You speak from your experience, I speak from mine.

[Ludwig]

On the deepest level, all religions say the same thing - i.e. there is an realm of existence beyond appearances. In this they are (IMO) all right.

Though, strictly speaking 'existence' can only be applied to the realm of appearance.

That is the fallacy of post-Renaissance thinking. Existence also encompasses the realm of consciousness, belief and intuition.

What is so special about appearance? Sight happens to be the most highly evolved of our senses - but does that mean that a bat perceives the world "wrongly"? Why should we assume that our normal sensory perception of the world is complete? I see no logical reason for doing that, and I'm also satisfied from my own experience that it isn't. Nor, contrary to what many think, does modern science say that it must be. In fact modern science doesn't really say anything about WHY we perceive the world at all. Mind you, I've had this debate too many times now and I'm rather bored by it. Maybe one day I will lay my ideas out in detail and stick them on my Web site and just refer people to that, like they'd give a toss anyway.

[Andy Hunt]

I find your perspective interesting Ludwig, so don't think that nobody does. You dare to think a bit differently, like to look upstream before the world begins. Good on you mate.

[kenneal - lagger]

Do we all see things the same, I wonder? Is that why beauty is in the eye of the beholder?

[biffvernon]

On the deepest level, all religions say the same thing - i.e. there is an realm of existence beyond appearances. In this they are (IMO) all right.

But probably all wrong.

You speak from your experience, I speak from mine.

Yes that's fine, you have experienced a realm of existence beyond appearances. But that could be because you did not see the reality.

[caspian]

Do we all see things the same, I wonder? Is that why beauty is in the eye of the beholder?

We see things the same (apart from when there are abnormalities of the brain that interfere with visual cognition). But the brain may interpret those images from person to person. The interpretation is partly socially constructed, so what I may think is beautiful, you may think is hideous.

[Aurora]

Do we all see things the same, I wonder? Is that why beauty is in the eye of the beholder?

We see things the same (apart from when there are abnormalities of the brain that interfere with visual cognition). But the brain may interpret those images from person to person. The interpretation is partly socially constructed, so what I may think is beautiful, you may think is hideous.

Eye of the beholder? A beautiful woman will always be a beautiful woman.

[RogueMale]

We see things the same (apart from when there are abnormalities of the brain that interfere with visual cognition). But the brain may interpret those images from person to person. The interpretation is partly socially constructed, so what I may think is beautiful, you may think is hideous.

Most people (aside from a few religious nutters in countries like the USA and Turkey) have no trouble accepting half of Darwin's theory of evolution (i.e. natural selection) but either don't accept the other half (sexual selection), or are unaware it even exists. For sexual selection to work, animals (including, of course humans) need to have sexual preferences, which are themselves inherited. If it were otherwise (i.e. a social construct), evolution by sexual selection would be all over the place, rather than in particular directions.

I don't know why postmodernism (whence the concept of social constructs comes) has such influence over otherwise rational people's thoughts. It's manifest bollocks.

Now, I don't doubt that people's sexual preferences are to a limited extent determined by their cultural background, but only in things like whether you prefer girls with bangs. Other things like musical, artistic or programming language preferences are probably determined to a large extent by their personalities or ways of thinking, which may also be largely genetically determined.

None of which has anything to do with climate change. Thread drift, I guess. I find it interesting anyway.

[Ludwig]

But probably all wrong.

You speak from your experience, I speak from mine.

Yes that's fine, you have experienced a realm of existence beyond appearances. But that could be because you did not see the reality.

Of course that is possible... It's rather hard to summarise exactly what my experience is. The whole point of accepting a spiritual dimension to existence is that you have to go without proof: you rely largely on a certain type of gut feeling. Essentially my conviction is that things are connected not just externally, but also on a level of meaning and belief. The single thing that changed my view of reality was investigating hypnosis. In the light of that, some aspects of things like quantum mechanics that are otherwise counter-intuitive start to seem to make a little more sense.

Still, I'm not trying to win any arguments here, just saying that from my perspective there is more evidence that there is something that connects all consciousness, than that there isn't. I wouldn't call it God in the Christian sense: it incorporates the Christian God, but also extends to include all the suffering and evil in the universe; it is essentially amoral - it is simply "everything".

I also think that the mind can influence physical events - but not in an "on-call" kind of way because that would entail "something for nothing", which seems to be a big no-no in terms of how the universe works. I suspect that this is why some "healers" report that they can heal others much more easily than themselves - there must be an element of detachment, even neutrality, for it to work.

I should probably keep quiet about this shit, but it interests me and it's hard to stop once I get started.

[RenewableCandy]

Using evolutionary-psychologizts' own arguments (very roughly summed up as "men will bang anything, women are more choosy"), the main driver of evolution by sexual selection must be female choice.

It is therefore incumbant on all us girlies to get out there and choose nice sociable sensible blokes who aren't CC "sceptics"

[Aurora]

New Statesman - 26/02/10

There is a danger of a permanent gap opening up between climate scientists and the general public

Those who believe in climate change are losing the battle for public opinion. According to an Ipsos poll carried out in February on behalf of the advertising agency Euro RSCG, just 31 per cent of people believe that climate change is "definitely a reality", down from 44 per cent a year ago. Corrosive cynicism is increasing: 50 per cent of adults in the UK believe that "politicians make a fuss about climate change in order to distract us from other issues", while 47 per cent think that climate change is another "excuse to raise taxes".

Article continues ...

[Andy Hunt]

"men will bang anything, women are more choosy"

You obviously have never been out in Bury on a Saturday night . . .

[Andy Hunt]

But probably all wrong.

You speak from your experience, I speak from mine.

Yes that's fine, you have experienced a realm of existence beyond appearances. But that could be because you did not see the reality.

Because none of us have an independent reference point outside our own lives by which to measure our own experiences, it therefore follows that none of us can know anything for sure.

And since that us true, it follows that anything at all is possible. What is up to us to decide as individuals is what we think is probable or even preferable.

Life is a probability wave. Don't forget that most of what we consider to be normal in the modern age would have been considered black magic only a few hundred years ago. The potential for that kind of discrepancy in perception is always with us.

[caspian]

Most people (aside from a few religious nutters in countries like the USA and Turkey) have no trouble accepting half of Darwin's theory of evolution (i.e. natural selection) but either don't accept the other half (sexual selection), or are unaware it even exists. For sexual selection to work, animals (including, of course humans) need to have sexual preferences, which are themselves inherited. If it were otherwise (i.e. a social construct), evolution by sexual selection would be all over the place, rather than in particular directions.

I don't know why postmodernism (whence the concept of social constructs comes) has such influence over otherwise rational people's thoughts. It's manifest bollocks.

You misunderstand me RM, I wasn't implying that sexual attraction is random - far from it. Sexual selection is important in all higher animals, including humans. But clearly there is a social element as well. In Tonga obesity is (or at least, was) regarded as being the epitome of beauty. And not so very long ago, lack of body odour was thought to be rather peculiar (hence Napoleon's letter to Josephine, in which he wrote: "I will return to Paris tomorrow evening. Don't wash.").

And yes, postmodernist "science" is utter bollocks. I think Alan Sokal nicely proved that one.