Me & Isaac Newton documentry

  • Thread starter Mentat
  • Start date
3,754
2
I was just watching a video documentary entitled "Me & Isaac Newton". It contains interviews with some experts in certain fields of science (for example, Michio Kaku was their to explain how he started out in Theoretical Physics and what he believes the future of Science is).

One comment was made on that documentary that I really approved of - and I wanted others' opinions of it. Steven Pinker (one of the interviewees (if that's a word)) said that he viewed those brilliant moments of insight (or those "eureka!" moments) as just another tiny step in a series of previous tiny steps. I agree with him.

He also made the point that, if our subconscious were really capable of understanding the Universe via these "Eureka!" insights, then there is no use of Science of Philosophy - as we could just sit around and wait for our subconscious to tell us the answers.

Any/All comments are appreciated.
 
477
4
interesting thread.

i don't know if these 'eureka!' ideas just drop out of no where. even if the concious mind is unaware of a possible subconcious line of thinking, that doesn't mean that an perfectly rounded and thought-out idea can spontaniously appear. what i mean is: at some level we are thinking these thoughts out, even if we don't realize it.
 
3,754
2
Originally posted by maximus
interesting thread.

i don't know if these 'eureka!' ideas just drop out of no where. even if the concious mind is unaware of a possible subconcious line of thinking, that doesn't mean that an perfectly rounded and thought-out idea can spontaniously appear. what i mean is: at some level we are thinking these thoughts out, even if we don't realize it.
Right, and we couldn't possibly come up with these grand "eureka" thoughts, if we didn't have all of the preemptive thoughts before it.
 
477
4
Originally posted by Mentat
Right, and we couldn't possibly come up with these grand "eureka" thoughts, if we didn't have all of the preemptive thoughts before it.
exactly, what are you trying to do, break it all the way down to how do we have thought in the first place?
 
3,754
2
Originally posted by maximus
exactly, what are you trying to do, break it all the way down to how do we have thought in the first place?
No, I'm just trying to get people's opinions on Pinker's comment.

It would take much more than one thread to attempt an explanation at how thoughts occur.

In fact, from my experience here, I would assume that even putting forth an hypothetical explanation would take at least a couple of threads.
 
477
4
Originally posted by Mentat
In fact, from my experience here, I would assume that even putting forth an hypothetical explanation would take at least a couple of threads.
well then, the question is: are you the man for the job?
 
1,927
0
Pinkerton is avoiding the fact we are social animals.

It is an old argument, are advancements made by extrodinary people or do extrodinary people come to light when society is ready to accept what they have to say. By definition a genuis is someone whose work is valued by society.

Obviously, the reality is a mixed blessing of both extremes. Sometimes the cloths make the man, and sometimes the man makes the cloths.
 
1,476
0
Serendipity and eureka moments are, I think, intuitive leaps of thought or reason. Whenever I hear or think of the word serdipity I am reminded of Flanders discovery of penicilin. As the story goes he was about to throw the ruined petri dishes out when it struck him all at once what he had in his hands. We normally think liniarly with the left sides of our brains, the right side is intuitive, artistic and conceptual thinking. For whatever reason our right side suddenly make the leap sees the whole concept at once and overpowers or notifies the left side; "Eureka, I've found it."
That moment with Flanders was not sitting and mulling over somthing that he didn't understand or know but a flash of recognition, of realization. It's rare but not as rare as we think. What causes it or where does it come from? What is intuition? I have no idea that a scientific materialist would except. I often think Jung was right that we do have a collective conscious. Another thing that always amazes me is that when we, mankind are ready for or need an advancement a number of people will come up with it at very nearly the same time. That, but of course, is nothing but coincidence.

(Why is it that a scientific materialist can accept amazing totally improbable coincidences but not any universal or higher consciousness? I believe in miracles; you belive in coincidences. What's the difference? :wink: )
 
1,927
0
Flanders was part of a concerted worldwide effort to find something exactly like penicilin. His petri dishes were contaminated by mold from a bakery two blocks away. Serendipity or the inevitable?
 
477
4
Originally posted by Royce
(I believe in miracles; you belive in coincidences. What's the difference?:wink:)

well the scriber-bantam english dictionary defines 'miracle' as this:


miracle: n. 1. act or happening in the physical world that departs from the laws of nature; supernatural occurance.
this differs greatly from the definition of 'coincidence', which is:

coincidence: n. 3. notable falling together of events or circumstances, apparantly accidental.
basically, i don't believe that anything is a miracle (by this definition), because i believe everything must obey the laws of nature.
 
Last edited:
1,476
0
Okay, maximus, replace coincidence with accidental. I don't accept your difinition of miracle. Miracles do not have to depart from the laws of nature just depart from the normal and expected series of events. Of course everything must obey the laws of nature. Who or what made the laws and nature? Why do they have to obey the laws? There is logic and order in the universe Why? Why not chaos?

Wuli, we both think it inevitable. Someone was bound to find it sooner or later. Flanders found it because that particular mold spore from two blocks away just happened to fall into his petri dishes that his assistant just happened to leave uncovered and kill the bacteria culture he was trying to grow. He just happened to be in the right frame of mind at that particular moment to realize that he had accidently found what they were all looking for. Again a marvelous series of accidents that just happened at just the right time. Personally I'd rather believe in purpose and intervention than accidents and coincidences. Its so much more beautiful, elegant and grand.
 
Last edited:
476
0
Originally posted by Mentat
He also made the point that, if our subconscious were really capable of understanding the Universe via these "Eureka!" insights, then there is no use of Science of Philosophy - as we could just sit around and wait for our subconscious to tell us the answers.
Definitely. Understanding can't come without effort. Subconsciousness has only memory, recognition of something already there. That something is put there by hard work, education and thinking. Its all about intuition and building ground for it to work.

But, he's right also in that sense, that if we'd just sit there, answers would come. It would only take awful lot of time. Understanding then would have to come from experience by means of hitting head against the walls. Subconcious understanding is a result of heavy practice.
 

RageSk8

Ironic coming from a man who's own "scientific accomplishments" and "insight" seem to spawn out of long nights with a latex glove and lots of "ky jelly."
 
Last edited by a moderator:
3,754
2
Originally posted by wuliheron
Pinker is avoiding the fact we are social animals.
How so?

It is an old argument, are advancements made by extrodinary people or do extrodinary people come to light when society is ready to accept what they have to say. By definition a genuis is someone whose work is valued by society.

Obviously, the reality is a mixed blessing of both extremes. Sometimes the cloths make the man, and sometimes the man makes the cloths.
But are you saying that Relativity (for example) could have just come about in someone's mind, with no prerequisite knowledge (Maxwell equations, Lorentz transformation, etc), and without the need of building up towards a conclusion? That it would have eventually have found it's way into Einstein's mind, without any effort on his part?
 
3,754
2
Originally posted by Royce
Serendipity and eureka moments are, I think, intuitive leaps of thought or reason.
"Leaps" then, instead of another step in a series, right? If this were so, it would be reasonable to assume that one needn't do any study, in order to make grand, brilliant, breakthroughs in Science and Philosophy.

Whenever I hear or think of the word serdipity I am reminded of Flanders discovery of penicilin. As the story goes he was about to throw the ruined petri dishes out when it struck him all at once what he had in his hands. We normally think liniarly with the left sides of our brains, the right side is intuitive, artistic and conceptual thinking. For whatever reason our right side suddenly make the leap sees the whole concept at once and overpowers or notifies the left side; "Eureka, I've found it."
Actually, the right side of the brain would just be that much more likely to lead us on wild goose chases, since it is always trying to see the full picture, while the details remain undefined.

That moment with Flanders was not sitting and mulling over somthing that he didn't understand or know but a flash of recognition, of realization. It's rare but not as rare as we think.
On the one hand, it would appear as though you think of Flanders as a special sort of person (a genius, perhaps), while on the other hand, it would appear that you think anyone could have made the same discovery he did, provided they recieved the same "flash". Which is your actual viewpoint?

(Why is it that a scientific materialist can accept amazing totally improbable coincidences but not any universal or higher consciousness? I believe in miracles; you belive in coincidences. What's the difference? :wink: )
Well, I can't exactly be categorized as a scientific materialist, however I know that the difference is this: If you believe in coincidences (however bizzare they may be), then you needn't attribute any source, as they just "happened". However, if you believe in "miracles" then you must attribute a source - otherwise, why would something leave it's natural pattern, and do something "strange"? The attribution of "sources" (for "miraculous" events) is not scientifically feasible until some proof is found of their being a source.

There's also the matter of Occam's Razor, but that seems much too evident, and isn't really a necessity anyway.
 
477
4
Originally posted by Royce
Okay, maximus, replace coincidence with accidental. I don't accept your difinition of miracle. Miracles do not have to depart from the laws of nature just depart from the normal and expected series of events. Of course everything must obey the laws of nature. Who or what made the laws and nature? Why do they have to obey the laws? There is logic and order in the universe Why? Why not chaos?
well, now we're getting into questions of the anthropic principles which has the sole purpose of attemting these questions:
and it goes: the universe is the way it is because if it were any other way, we couldn't exist! at first this may seem as a given, but think about it. and i quote einstein: the most incomprehensible thing about the universe is that it is comperhensible.

Wuli, we both think it inevitable. Someone was bound to find it sooner or later. Flanders found it because that particular mold spore from two blocks away just happened to fall into his petri dishes that his assistant just happened to leave uncovered and kill the bacteria culture he was trying to grow. He just happened to be in the right frame of mind at that particular moment to realize that he had accidently found what they were all looking for. Again a marvelous series of accidents that just happened at just the right time. Personally I'd rather believe in purpose and intervention than accidents and coincidences. Its so much more beautiful, elegant and grand.
but why must it be beautiful? and why is the falling together of events any less beautiful than divine intervintion?
 
1,476
0
Originally posted by Mentat
"Leaps" then, instead of another step in a series, right? If this were so, it would be reasonable to assume that one needn't do any study, in order to make grand, brilliant, breakthroughs in Science and Philosophy.[QUOTE}

My friend, you are playing your favorite game of devil's advocate, right? Yes a leap means just that, skipping steps in the normal linear process and going immedialy to the conceptual conclusion.
This can not be done with out an extensive knowledge and firm understanding of the basics and well as background and relavent knowledge. There are no shortcuts or such a thing as a free lunch.
You, we still have tostudy and do our homework, sorry.


[QUOTE}
Actually, the right side of the brain would just be that much more likely to lead us on wild goose chases, since it is always trying to see the full picture, while the details remain undefined.
Possibly it would help if we thought of the left hemisphere, the linear reasoning, calculating, logical side as being Aristotle and the right as being Plato the conceptual, creative, forest versus trees side. I know that you are inclinded toward Aristotle thinking.
We need to disect a mouse and examine its structure and make up and look at it's bit and pieces under a microscope to know how and why a mouse works and this is important knowledge to learn and know but we loose the mouse in the process. We can never know what a mouse is or what it does, how it lives and behaves in its natural setting or how it fits in it's enviroment and ecology. The latter is far more important in terms of knowing life around us and our enviroment.

On the one hand, it would appear as though you think of Flanders as a special sort of person (a genius, perhaps), while on the other hand, it would appear that you think anyone could have made the same discovery he did, provided they recieved the same "flash". Which is your actual viewpoint?
Actually both. If it hadn't been Flanders then it would have been somebody else because at that time wi had the tools and knowledge necessary to make and understand the discovery. It was only a matter of time. None of this detracts from Flanders genius or luck or whatever. He was the one that made the connection.

Well, I can't exactly be categorized as a scientific materialist, however I know that the difference is this: If you believe in coincidences (however bizzare they may be), then you needn't attribute any source, as they just "happened". However, if you believe in "miracles" then you must attribute a source - otherwise, why would something leave it's natural pattern, and do something "strange"? The attribution of "sources" (for "miraculous" events) is not scientifically feasible until some proof is found of their being a source.
"It just happened" is not a scientific or logical answer and has nor more or less validity and say it was a miracle or devine intervention.
Both are essential meaningless utterances as far as science is concerned. As for being a scientific materialist, I know your not unless your in you devil's advocate mode.
 
1,476
0
Originally posted by maximus
well, now we're getting into questions of the anthropic principles which has the sole purpose of attemting these questions:
and it goes: the universe is the way it is because if it were any other way, we couldn't exist! at first this may seem as a given, but think about it. and i quote einstein: the most incomprehensible thing about the universe is that it is comperhensible.
Yes, I've been wrestling with that principle for quite a whle now.
To me it seem self referetial and thus not logically valid but the is no denying the truth of it; but, does it actually address the questions or just make more questions? I have yet to come to any conclusion about the anthropic principle.


but why must it be beautiful? and why is the falling together of events any less beautiful than divine intervintion?
Because it is. Everything about the universe is beautiful and elegant. It used to be a requirement for any new theory. If it wasn't beautiful and elegant it couldn't be complete or correct.
The falling together of natural events is just as beautiful and elegant. One is a discripition the other a possible cause for thing to naturally fall together. Both are beautiful and elegant in there own right.
 
3,754
2
Alright, first you said:

Originally posted by Royce
Yes a leap means just that, skipping steps in the normal linear process and going immedialy to the conceptual conclusion.
Then you said:

There are no shortcuts or such a thing as a free lunch.
You, we still have tostudy and do our homework, sorry.
Isn't that a contradiction. On one side, you have the idea that I could just sit there and wait for good luck give me the true ToE, and on the other hand, I have the typical reasoning that tells me I must study and work hard (thus making little steps) in order to make any breakthroughs (which would be the final little step in that set of little steps). Which is your opinion?

Possibly it would help if we thought of the left hemisphere, the linear reasoning, calculating, logical side as being Aristotle and the right as being Plato the conceptual, creative, forest versus trees side. I know that you are inclinded toward Aristotle thinking.
We need to disect a mouse and examine its structure and make up and look at it's bit and pieces under a microscope to know how and why a mouse works and this is important knowledge to learn and know but we loose the mouse in the process. We can never know what a mouse is or what it does, how it lives and behaves in its natural setting or how it fits in it's enviroment and ecology. The latter is far more important in terms of knowing life around us and our enviroment.
First off, it is only according to "common" human opinion that the latter is more important, as it is not out of reach for science to know everything about the life of an organism by studying it's insides. After all, Paleantologists (sp?) do that all the time.

Secondly, if the right brain is Plato, and the left is Aristotle, then which one of them makes the breakthrough? And why is it that one that must make the breakthrough?

Actually both. If it hadn't been Flanders then it would have been somebody else because at that time wi had the tools and knowledge necessary to make and understand the discovery. It was only a matter of time. None of this detracts from Flanders genius or luck or whatever.
Well, IMCO (in my current opinion), you are either lucky or you are a genius, but you cannot be both. A genius is capable of conceptual leaps, because of a superior mental ability, a lucky person was just at the right place at the right time.

"It just happened" is not a scientific or logical answer and has nor more or less validity and say it was a miracle or devine intervention.
Not really true. You see, Science is incapable of answering "why" questions (it was not designed to have anything to do with them). Thus, if you ask a scientist, "what is the purpose of ______" (no matter what phenomenon you use to fill in the blank spot), s/he will tell you "it's just that way", because s/he cannot possibly find a scientific reason why something is the way it is.

Thus, if you ask me, "why did _______ happen", and ask for a scientific answer, I must tell you "it just happened".

Both are essential meaningless utterances as far as science is concerned. As for being a scientific materialist, I know your not unless your in you devil's advocate mode.
My good buddy knows me rather well. In fact I both am and am not a scientific materialist.
 
1,476
0
Originally posted by Mentat

Isn't that a contradiction. On one side, you have the idea that I could just sit there and wait for good luck give me the true ToE, and on the other hand, I have the typical reasoning that tells me I must study and work hard (thus making little steps) in order to make any breakthroughs (which would be the final little step in that set of little steps). Which is your opinion?

________________________________



we must first learn to crawl then walk and finally run before we can jump. Knowledge unlike matter does not come out of a vacuum. Any single isolated piece of knowledge is meaningless to us in a vacuum.
We have to have done our homework and learned all that we can before we can make any leaps. They are not really leaps but logic and reasoning at the conceptual level rather than the linear.

__________________________________


First off, it is only according to "common" human opinion that the latter is more important, as it is not out of reach for science to know everything about the life of an organism by studying it's insides. After all, Paleantologists (sp?) do that all the time.

___________________________________



There you are dead wrong, my friend. There is no way that any scientist can determine the behavior of any animal or the ecological nitche that it fills nor its population growth patterns by examining it's innards. They can tell what it eats and things like that and sure thats important. Think of the plagues that rats, mice, mosquitoes and other animals and insects have caused and still cause
in the world killing thousands.

___________________________________



Secondly, if the right brain is Plato, and the left is Aristotle, then which one of them makes the breakthrough? And why is it that one that must make the breakthrough?
Either or both make breakthroughs. "Leaps" are made using the knowledge gathered by the left side and collated and digested by the right side until it "suddenly" sees and understands the entire concept and its implications. They are only Leaps because we usually are not aware of the work the right sid is doing until it anounces that it has finished. This is mainly for men. Women literally are wired to use both sides of their brain simutaniously and thus tend to be more intuitive and less linear in their thinking. Like a multiple processor computer.

______________________________

Well, IMCO (in my current opinion), you are either lucky or you are a genius, but you cannot be both. A genius is capable of conceptual leaps, because of a superior mental ability, a lucky person was just at the right place at the right time.

_______________________________

This also is not true. Every genius has to be lucky, at the right place at the right time. So much so that some have said that that is what genius is - being at the right place at the right time with the right information on hand and the mind to take advantage of the situation.
_____________________________



Not really true. You see, Science is incapable of answering "why" questions (it was not designed to have anything to do with them). Thus, if you ask a scientist, "what is the purpose of ______" (no matter what phenomenon you use to fill in the blank spot), s/he will tell you "it's just that way", because s/he cannot possibly find a scientific reason why something is the way it is.

Thus, if you ask me, "why did _______ happen", and ask for a scientific answer, I must tell you "it just happened".
"Why" yes I agree. "How?" "It just happened." is not an answer. Not why but how did that penicillin spore travel two block and how did it land in the uncovered petri dish and how did it kill the bacteria culture growing there and how did Flanders realize what he'd found.
"How?" is a scientific question. "Why?" is aphilosophical question and this is the Philosophical Forum.

________________________________

My good buddy knows me rather well. In fact I both am and am not a scientific materialist.
_________________________________


But not at the same I hope. You'd have to have a split personality.
One real and physical and the other imaginary. :wink:
 
Last edited:

FZ+

1,550
2
I'd like to refer to my new thread: Evolution of Knowledge
https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=3012

I think of the Eureka moment as a moment of mutation in thinking, when a random insight occurs that may or may not be correct. This insight is usually wrong, but looking at statistics we select the small number of cases where it was correct.
 
477
4
Originally posted by Royce
Because it is. Everything about the universe is beautiful and elegant. It used to be a requirement for any new theory. If it wasn't beautiful and elegant it couldn't be complete or correct.
The falling together of natural events is just as beautiful and elegant. One is a discripition the other a possible cause for thing to naturally fall together. Both are beautiful and elegant in there own right.
beauty is a human invention. the universe is the way it is, it cares not about beauty. it is humans that make the distinction.
also,what's beautiful to one person may not be beautiful to another. how can the universe be described in such a variable language?
 

jammieg

I agree with Pinker on step by step insight and disagree we should then sit around and wait for it to just pop up.
I think everyone has little bits of insight everyday, add up some bits and one has a big insight. For me personally the most rewarding little bits of insight are simple everyday occurances like figuring out a new way to get my car keys out of the locked car or a new way of remembering not to lock them in the car in the first place. Most likely it's direct experience of reward that's more important than the study of supposedly difficult and esoteric knowledge.
 
3,754
2
Originally posted by Royce
we must first learn to crawl then walk and finally run before we can jump.
Uh-uh, this implies that we start off needing to make small steps (in gaining knowledge) and then we become able to continually make intuitive "leaps".

Knowledge unlike matter does not come out of a vacuum. Any single isolated piece of knowledge is meaningless to us in a vacuum.
We have to have done our homework and learned all that we can before we can make any leaps. They are not really leaps but logic and reasoning at the conceptual level rather than the linear.
I still disagree. You see, if "leaps" or "Eureka! moments" are a result of looking at "the big picture", then one shouldn't ever have to learn the details, since the real answers are to be found on the most basic "surface".

There you are dead wrong, my friend. There is no way that any scientist can determine the behavior of any animal or the ecological nitche that it fills nor its population growth patterns by examining it's innards. They can tell what it eats and things like that and sure thats important. Think of the plagues that rats, mice, mosquitoes and other animals and insects have caused and still cause
in the world killing thousands.
It is possible in principle (which means regardless of how long it takes to achieve the appropriate scientific understanding and technology) to know what someone is thinking (for example) by examining his/her brain. Just because we definitely cannot do it now, doesn't mean we cannot do it in the future.

Either or both make breakthroughs. "Leaps" are made using the knowledge gathered by the left side and collated and digested by the right side until it "suddenly" sees and understands the entire concept and its implications. They are only Leaps because we usually are not aware of the work the right sid is doing until it anounces that it has finished.
Isn't this contradictory to your previously stated opinion? Either we are subconsciously "walking up" the "little steps" toward understanding, or we just "jump over" a bunch of the "steps" without ever using those "intermediate steps". You were saying that we could "leap" toward right conclusions, without ever using the "intermediate steps", but now you are saying that we need to subconsciously go over all of the steps.

Besides, again the question of why we ever do any research at all arises. While you did attempt to account for it in your analogy (and did a fair job of it, if I may say so), you still allowed for the "leap" to occur subconsciously, and thus not necessitating a good many "steps" that others would have to take to arrive at the same conclusion. Thus, what determines when one is ready to "leap" over a bunch of "steps"? Why could I not just "leap" over arithmetic and understand Calculus?

btw, I'd like to point out, merely for the purposes of clarification, that two of my I.Q. tests have shown that I use both sides of my brain equally. So, it's not necessary that a man use only the left side, but it's probably typical.

This also is not true. Every genius has to be lucky, at the right place at the right time.
Prove it.

"Why" yes I agree. "How?" "It just happened." is not an answer. Not why but how did that penicillin spore travel two block and how did it land in the uncovered petri dish and how did it kill the bacteria culture growing there and how did Flanders realize what he'd found.
"How?" is a scientific question. "Why?" is aphilosophical question and this is the Philosophical Forum.
But I wasn't talking about the "how", and your analogy reveals that you may have misconstrued slightly the distinction between the two types of question. You see, if I ask "how did the penicillin spore travel..." then I am asking a question that is entirely unrelated to whether it was a coincidence or not, and that's the issue we were discussing - coincidences and miracles. However, if you say that something was not a coincidence, then you have to explain why it happened.

But not at the same I hope. You'd have to have a split personality.
One real and physical and the other imaginary. :wink:
No, I'm just constantly uncertain. It relieves me from having to change my belief system, since (for the most part) I don't really have a set belief system.
 
1,476
0
Originally posted by Mentat
Uh-uh, this implies that we start off needing to make small steps (in gaining knowledge) and then we become able to continually make intuitive "leaps".
_________________________

Except for the word "continually" yes. Just as human knowledge has grown in little steps and is based on the work of those who came before up to where we are today, we individually have to learn the basics and build upon them in complexity and depth so that we have on hand the information, knowledge and understanding to allow our minds to perform the OCCATIONAL leap.

_________________________

I still disagree. You see, if "leaps" or "Eureka! moments" are a result of looking at "the big picture", then one shouldn't ever have to learn the details, since the real answers are to be found on the most basic "surface".
_________________________

If we can learn, see and understand the entire 'Big Picture' and all it's implications without knowing or learning the details then I see no reason why you would not be right. I don't believe, however, that we can do this successfully. I sure can't. If you can then I bow in respect to you superior intellect and genius and will shut up my unworthy ramblings.
_________________________

It is possible in principle (which means regardless of how long it takes to achieve the appropriate scientific understanding and technology) to know what someone is thinking (for example) by examining his/her brain. Just because we definitely cannot do it now, doesn't mean we cannot do it in the future.
_________________________

It may some day be possible for us to read the mind of another with instruments of an advanced technology. It works in SF and SF is often an accurate predictor of future technology. I however seriously doubt it. If as so many believe, human thought is nothing but electrochemical processes in the brain and all that we can detect is the EM waves of thought, it would be extremely difficult to seperate the EM waves and arrange them in their proper organization to show us what the subject is actually thinking; and, if so, how will we know if the thoughts we detect are conscious or unconscious?
_________________________

Isn't this contradictory to your previously stated opinion? Either we are subconsciously "walking up" the "little steps" toward understanding, or we just "jump over" a bunch of the "steps" without ever using those "intermediate steps". You were saying that we could "leap" toward right conclusions, without ever using the "intermediate steps", but now you are saying that we need to subconsciously go over all of the steps.
No, not subconsciously, but conceptually in the right side of our brain. The right hemisphere that we men are not and can not really be aware of working at all because of the way our brains are interconnected. Yes, this has been proven or rather discovered.
Men's hemisphere are connected by one set of neurons primarily with one-way communication. Womens brains have two such interconnections each going the opposite way giving two-way communication.
_________________________

Besides, again the question of why we ever do any research at all arises. While you did attempt to account for it in your analogy (and did a fair job of it, if I may say so), you still allowed for the "leap" to occur subconsciously, and thus not necessitating a good many "steps" that others would have to take to arrive at the same conclusion. Thus, what determines when one is ready to "leap" over a bunch of "steps"? Why could I not just "leap" over arithmetic and understand Calculus?
_________________________

Genius(?)
Because without a very good basis and understanding of arithmetic, Calculus is incomprehensible to us and thus would be meaningless. Should one actually do this we would send for the men in white coats and butterfly nets.
_________________________

btw, I'd like to point out, merely for the purposes of clarification, that two of my I.Q. tests have shown that I use both sides of my brain equally. So, it's not necessary that a man use only the left side, but it's probably typical.
_________________________

Are you lefthanded by any chance? Yes, there is a connection. Lefthanded or ambidextrous people, both male and female, have been shown to use their right side more than normal(?) and thus both sides more than righthanded people do.
_________________________

Prove it.
_________________________

No. Read more about geniuses and their work and lives, in your spare time of course, if you don't take my word for it.

But I wasn't talking about the "how", and your analogy reveals that you may have misconstrued slightly the distinction between the two types of question. You see, if I ask "how did the penicillin spore travel..." then I am asking a question that is entirely unrelated to whether it was a coincidence or not, and that's the issue we were discussing - coincidences and miracles. However, if you say that something was not a coincidence, then you have to explain why it happened.
Because it was time for it to happen.(?) A miracle presumes purpose and intention and divine intervention. I can only say that IMHO a superior being decided that we needed it and the time was right for us to recieve it, ie. we could now understand and use it properly for the benefit of mankind. A coincidence is an improbable series of events that have no apparent cause or purpose, ie. no "how" or "why".

No, I'm just constantly uncertain. It relieves me from having to change my belief system, since (for the most part) I don't really have a set belief system.
While I too am uncertain at times, I can not put my thoughts and belief systems in one pigeon hole. It is far to limiting and confining and unnecessary. I seriously doubt if any one can honestly say that they are a Materialist and nothing else or Idealist for that matter. See the thread poll "What Is Your Philosophy?"
 
Last edited:

Related Threads for: Me & Isaac Newton documentry

  • Last Post
Replies
16
Views
11K
  • Last Post
Replies
15
Views
3K
  • Last Post
2
Replies
44
Views
7K
Replies
39
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
1
Views
647
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • Last Post
Replies
6
Views
1K
Replies
7
Views
2K

Hot Threads

Top