h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Thank you for that link, R'man Excellent talk. What a very sensible man. I wish I was so erudite

Yikes, I'm out of practice at this. I just typed up a really long reply to Christiane, and then in the course of adding snacks along the way to break it up, I lost it.

It was about Dennett's argument, in his book "Freedom Evolves". The book establishes just what it says on the cover. Freedom is something that evolves just like everything else in life, without outside help.

The world may be totally predetermined, as the Calvinists said, and yet within that world we have freedom, make choices, and do things that are good or bad. Evolution gets us to where we are by a process that is demonstrably mindless, and yet gives rise to intelligence and mind.

The old argument against (pre)determinism was that if everything is ordained and can't be altered, we don't have to make any effort; what we do won't make any difference.

Dennett quotes someone else's proof that in a totally determined universe such as Conway's Game of Life http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conway's_Game_of_Life a pattern can exist that will prolong its existence by fending off attacks.

That is enough to show that our efforts are not after all in vain. Balancing reasons and choosing actions is part of what we (have evolved the ability to) do.,

Better stop before I lose this version.

Dear R'man,

So sorry you lost your long reply to me. It also happens to me when I edit what I have written.

I shall read your re-write in the morning. ~Did you read the discussion about whether we were larks or owls. I am a lark and my brain functions best from about 4 a.m. until possibly midday. ~Then I have problems remembering why I am even speaking about something.!! !Very off putting.

Terry Pratchett openly admitting that he has Altzheimers may possibly do some good for oldies like myself.

There is a Phenomenology conference in France next year. |I would love to be able to present something on Phenomenology, Feminism and growing old. !! I have a theory that every one is going to have at least another 25 years added to thier lives during the course of this century - so being eighty will be no big deal.

What do you think?

Sincerely

Christiane
AlsoRan80



Christiane.
AlsoRan80

Well, I'm sixty now and I hope to remain spry for a while yet. I do the crossword daily, and most days i have a QGOS (quick game of Scrabble) with Mrs R. They say such exercise fends off the otherwise wapid detewiowation of the bwain cells . . .

At the same time, I do stake my claim to justified unpredictability. There is an old rhyme in Irish:

Fiche bliain ag fás
Fiche bliain go maith
Fiche bliain ag laigheas
Is fiche bliain gan rath

Which I translate as:

Twenty years for growing
Twenty on the ball
Twenty years for slowing
And twenty off the wall

I have reached the age where I am licensed to be off the wall as often as I want.

Here's something: a campaign to raise £5,500 to place atheist bus ads for a week, saying "There's probably no God. Now stop worrying and enjoy your life."

They were promised matching funds by Richard Dawkins, if they reached their target; then they'd have £11,000.

They have reached and passed it. Right now the donations stand at £72,733.13

http://www.justgiving.com/atheistbus

A) "There's probably no God." is more agnostic than atheist, atheists should be saying "There is no God.", b) very few people who believe in God worry about it. and c) Richard Dawkins is a religious fanatic as bad as a member of Al-Qaeda or one of these looney US churches. He gave a talk at UHI, it was quite entertaining.

I agree. I'm just as much as atheist as Dawkins is, but I don't shout about it.

But somebody should shout about it. I'm happy to let him rant

I'm not sure he's a >religious fanatic<.. more an anti-religious fanatic

By the way - brilliant fund-raising

> "There's probably no God." is more agnostic than atheist, atheists should be saying "There is no God."

Not so. Agnostics say "Nothing can be known about such things". This is not a question of probability, it defines an epistemological standpoint.

Atheists can be of a scientific turn of mind, and therefore painfully aware of the impossibility of proving a negative. "There is no such thing as a white raven" cannot be proved, but "There is" can, by producing one.

Science does not produce final certainty, but I am content with very convincing indications and statistics. In the case of God, there is an argument I find convincing, which depends on the observable fact that intelligence can only function in animals about the size we are: in anything very much bigger or smaller the required speed and complexity of internal communication cannot be achieved. Therefore there is (probably) not in this universe a being that can have (for instance) intimate knowledge of all of humanity.

This is slightly off-topic, but for the category of intelligent design, I present this little gem
http://jazzmando.com/keith_carey.shtml

ok, it's way off topic...

wail ...

Well I woke up this morning, and found something missin' from under my bed

wail ...