Skip to main content

you don't need to do cosmology to know how physically insignificant we are

Try flying at 30,000 feet and looking down.
Labels:

Comments

Unknown said…
When I consider thy heavens, the work of thy fingers, the moon and the stars, which thou hast ordained; What is man, that thou art mindful of him?

Again, I leave for a few days, and THQ has doubled!

I've never bought the idea that science taught us our physical insignificance. I think what happened is that in the 19th century, people moved to cities, and started to have that primordial fear before nature exclusively through science, and as a result falsely credited it for showing that man is small. Ever been to Death Valley?
12:04 PM
Leo White said…
I am ashamed to say it, but no--never been there. I guess I never got past the word "Death"... so that whatever anyone else might have told me after that wasn't going to motivate me to head in that direction.

Worthwhile point about city life and insignificance and viewing it through science... I think your entry is missing a word or two, but my take is that when we look at self through eyes of science, we can seem to be a glorified puddle of water plus other chemicals: looking at the ourselves through the eyes of cosmology, makes us look like an incredibly small puddle of water and other chemicals.

It would seem to me that since we're the only part of the universe that SEEMS to be looking at the universe... the greater the size of the universe, the greater the show that is being put on for us by God.

If your rich uncle took you to see a dog jump through a hoop, you might say "big whoop, but thanks anyways." But if your rich uncle took you to India to see the elephants parade in front of the Taj Mahal, etc., you would say, "Wow, awesome uncle: you must really want to make me feel special, and you did!" So the bigger and more beautiful/mysterious the universe is, the better the show God has put on for us.
Hey, I kinda like that... so much that I'll post it separately too.
10:49 PM
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

what is an organism?

How about defining it as an instance of functional complexity? And treating the list of properties as following necessarily from this definition? Okay, this is very diamond-in-the-rough (or perhaps zirconium...) but here goes my thoughts on the matter: (Complexity) Many diverse parts (functional) acting for the sake of the whole I think I need to add something like "not as the instrument of another" or something like that. Given that they act together as one whole and given entropy, etc., the organism will need to posses more order than its surroundings (homeostasis). It will therefore need to take in energy (nutrition), which it will use to sustain its readiness to interact with its environment so as to preserve its own being (homeostasis again?), but which will eventually break down (death), so that in order for that life form to continue it will need to duplicate itself (reproduction), which, upon occurring, will involve both development (growth) to maturity and...
13 comments
Read more

response to friend who suggested that the self is a democracy of neural parts

This is a nice way to try to avoid being cornered re the irreality of the self if you're a reductionist, for you can assert that a pattern obtains at the microscopic level that is not all that unlike the pattern found at the societal level.  No need for the one self that does it all: instead, you have many sub-selfs that compete for dominance or take turns guiding the whole. The problem with this is, however, that the voters/officials are all zombies.  None of them thinks about the whole as such.  And perhaps none of them thinks even about themselves (unless one is a panzoist).  None of them makes a comparison of alternatives. The more this proposed democracy seems like a zombocracy, the more consciousness will be seem to be epiphenomenal. Furthermore, if the oneness of the self is less real than the multiplicity of explanatory neural parts, then why can't each of these neural parts be conceived of as democracy as well?  And why not parts of these parts, et...
6 comments
Read more