> Matt: Nietzsche once wrote that a man should only try to master one virtue, and the one that I had chosen well before that was truth.
> 
> BBella: I had to finally give up on the pursuit of truth (the big T) not that many years ago and replace it with trust as my one virtue to master.
> 
> And dear BBella, while I recognize only too well both your wisdom and your world-weariness concerning the quest for Truth, I can't help feeling that trust requires discernment: I can understand your trusting a UI, messages from the heart, intuition, but not, for instance, politicians, priests, scientists! -I do trust everything that IS..in the moment! I might not like it...but I trust it. If something IS I trust it IS for a reason or purpose, one that I may not fathom or understand, but for a purpose that fits in with the framework of the ALL. This does not mean I trust anyone at anytime to do the "right" thing..I trust that whatever choices are made are made for an ultimate purpose I may not see. Trust is a moment to moment decision I have to make for myself. Trust does not have to be passive...even if I defend myself from an attack, at some point, I will have to make the choice to trust it happened for a reason. If politicians or scientist choose this or that, and I don't believe in their choice, I will at some point decide to accept the results of their choices happened for a purpose....this will not stop me from trying to change the effects of their choices. Again, I do not see trust as passive...but a choice I have to make in the moment to accept all that has happened in the past to this moment happened for some ultimate purpose, even if that purpose is only for my eyes only! This is so I can move on to the next moment with historical knowledge but no baggage of what if's, guilt, or regrets. These emotions I found were the heaviest for me to carry and weighed my life down to a point of death, and trust has been my only trustworthy tool to relieve my mind and body of the weight of these emotions. ->Zarathiswriter reckons a man and a woman should try to master as many virtues as possible, including kindness, fairness, tolerance, unselfishness, truthfulness, conscientiousness, trustworthiness...need I go on? Mastering one virtue shouldn't detract in the slightest from our attempts to practise others. (Sorry if that sounds sanctimonious.)-I completely agree! But, all of the above virtues could not relieve me of my painful mental burdens...trust was able, which is why I value it so highly. - 
> However, Matt writes: "...when I question aggressively, or seem to act the fool, it is in some way related to trying to get to THAT goal" [i.e. truth]. Oh yes, Matt, I'm with you on all counts, including having a laugh on the way. BBella may well be right that the pursuit of truth eventually wears you down, and her extraordinary experiences provide living proof of the benefits of faith, but I think she has found her truth in her trust and doesn't need to continue the quest. BBella, do correct me if I'm wrong.-By George,I think you have me there! That's one I didn't see coming. You are right, I have found my big T!!! Thanks for that! -> Happy New Year to one and all. -May everyones New Year be blessed with all good things and with a trust for the not so good ones!!!

Matt: All scientific data still requires interpretation, and because we don't have direct access to what really happened, science will always be a great blob of uncertainties built upon precious few truths.
> That is what made me tolerant of religion....
> 
> Agreed, as usual. I'm tempted to reverse the idea for religion, and say that it's a great blob of truths built on uncertain foundations. Religions have always been effective because they appeal to the almost universal human desire for explanations, reliable social and moral frameworks, and meaning in life. If you take them all as systems of symbols, they do have a truth of their own, not least because of their similarities. But if you take them as literal truths, their ground becomes very shaky, not least because of their differences. Like you, Matt, I have the deepest respect for those whose religious faith brings them comfort and leads them to help others. People who denigrate religion en bloc sicken me. As with many such prejudices, their arguments have enough truth at their core to make them seem convincing ... I don't think any reasonably objective observer would dispute that religion has done a great deal of harm ... but their lack of balance makes them as irrational as the religious fundamentalists they attack. 
> 
> Matt: Nietzsche once wrote that a man should only try to master one virtue, and the one that I had chosen well before that was truth.
> 
> BBella: I had to finally give up on the pursuit of truth (the big T) not that many years ago and replace it with trust as my one virtue to master.
> 
> Sorry, folks, but I disagree with Nietzsche. I can't imagine for one minute, Matt, that you would slaughter a hundred innocents, and argue that this was justified because you are pursuing truth not human happiness. And dear BBella, while I recognize only too well both your wisdom and your world-weariness concerning the quest for Truth, I can't help feeling that trust requires discernment: I can understand your trusting a UI, messages from the heart, intuition, but not, for instance, politicians, priests, scientists! Zarathiswriter reckons a man and a woman should try to master as many virtues as possible, including kindness, fairness, tolerance, unselfishness, truthfulness, conscientiousness, trustworthiness...need I go on? Mastering one virtue shouldn't detract in the slightest from our attempts to practise others. (Sorry if that sounds sanctimonious.) 
>-Well, I think you take him a little too directly at his meaning. He was writing in response to general Lutheran and Catholic Dogma that gives man a list of hundreds of virtues that "one must master." When you couple that with my Buddhist training, of course I'm going to agree with that. N wasn't saying that we should stop being or doing these other things, but that Man's greatest weakness is in *concentrating* in shallow waters. -A human being is by nature very very bad at multitasking. If there's one virtue for you to be as faithful to as possible, then you will reap much greater rewards. Why is this? Because it forces you to master patience and discipline. The Ascetic nature of religions help people realize things that they do not need. -A common Chinese and Japanese criticism of Western culture, is that no one accepts what they do; a waiter doesn't want to be a waiter. A Banker wants to be a politician, and in general, everyone wants to be or do something or somebody else. If each person spent time being the best waiter they can be, or the best banker--other things will naturally follow. Discipline is the key to all ascetic thought, and I'll always side a little more with stoics than epicureans. (Though Lucretius's philosophy on building and maintaining friends stands the test of time.) -Some of the things you discuss, are all virtues that people exercise, what I'm talking about is the degree. One cannot master both truth and kindness, because sometimes its more kind to tell a lie. Your other question resolves around the pursuit of truth at the expense of others: Truth serves people as ends and not means. Therefore it isn't right to pursue truth at the expense of other people, but one can hardly say that this is a question that a child wouldn't answer in the same way: It's something I do but I'm no master of ethics. -> However, Matt writes: "...when I question aggressively, or seem to act the fool, it is in some way related to trying to get to THAT goal" [i.e. truth]. Oh yes, Matt, I'm with you on all counts, including having a laugh on the way. BBella may well be right that the pursuit of truth eventually wears you down, and her extraordinary experiences provide living proof of the benefits of faith, but I think she has found her truth in her trust and doesn't need to continue the quest. BBella, do correct me if I'm wrong.
> 
> Happy New Year to one and all.-And Happy New Year to you as well!

What drives me in this search? The ancient drive for truth. If I hold one virtue dear, it is that I hold truth above all else--in as many things as possible. Nietzsche once wrote that a man should only try to master one virtue, and the one that I had chosen well before that was truth. -
I had to finally give up the pursuit of truth (the big T) not that many years ago and replace it with trust as my one virtue to master. It has already paid off many times over...something truth never did. Truth is fine when you are young and have the belief "it's out there"...but eventually it wears you down and you have to replace it for something more suited for your speed.-bb


> > I've more or less given up following all the posts that DT makes that give links to work on biology and evolution, since they are mostly perfectly valid work-in-progress. Inevitably there are many alternative hypotheses put forward, and rival research teams enthuse over their own ideas. This is the way science is done these days. Eventually as more evidence is accumulated a clearer picture will emerge.
> 
> Part of the problem you describe is the sensationalism required in today's newsmongers. With TV, print papers, and 24-hour news channels and the internet blogs, etc. everyone is vying to sell their story. Remember the IDA fossil hysteria. I post these findings because I have time to hunt them up and I think many of them do provoke discussion. 
> > 
> > Quote: Although each species emits sound signals that resemble signals of other species, the animals never mistake the sounds for those of other species...Harmony between sounds and sound-receiving organs likewise presupposes the...requirement of simultaneous appearance, while excluding the possibility of gradual evolution.
> > 
> > This seems to me to be an exceedingly weak argument. Do they also apply it to birds? Do they apply it to humans and other apes? I would have thought the sounds that animals make could quite easily evolve gradually, and their ears likewise. 
> 
> You are making the Darwinian assumption of gradualism in development. If you note my other recent entry, there is much less gradualism than originally proposed. In that view their argument has a point.-I actually side with David on this: Punctuated Equilibrium was an attempt by Stephen Jay Gould to explain why evolution sometimes moves at a breakneck pace. I admit to being hostile to David's ideas at first in regards to a deeper (and I'm not talking mystical) mechanism that helps drive change. But I agree that Natural Selection is too passive; I don't think it describes *enough* in terms of change and that some deeper mechanism must be at work. Eukaryotes aren't as subject to random mutations as bacteria are due to sexual reproduction, and sexual reproduction itself doesn't guarantee that a beneficial trait WILL be carried on to the next Gen.


> I've more or less given up following all the posts that DT makes that give links to work on biology and evolution, since they are mostly perfectly valid work-in-progress. Inevitably there are many alternative hypotheses put forward, and rival research teams enthuse over their own ideas. This is the way science is done these days. Eventually as more evidence is accumulated a clearer picture will emerge.-Part of the problem you describe is the sensationalism required in today's newsmongers. With TV, print papers, and 24-hour news channels and the internet blogs, etc. everyone is vying to sell their story. Remember the IDA fossil hysteria. I post these findings because I have time to hunt them up and I think many of them do provoke discussion. 
> 
> Quote: Although each species emits sound signals that resemble signals of other species, the animals never mistake the sounds for those of other species...Harmony between sounds and sound-receiving organs likewise presupposes the...requirement of simultaneous appearance, while excluding the possibility of gradual evolution.
> 
> This seems to me to be an exceedingly weak argument. Do they also apply it to birds? Do they apply it to humans and other apes? I would have thought the sounds that animals make could quite easily evolve gradually, and their ears likewise. -You are making the Darwinian assumption of gradualism in development. If you note my other recent entry, there is much less gradualism than originally proposed. In that view their argument has a point.


> > In jest:
> 
> Do you collect this stuff, or where do you find it? Each quote is great. Haven't heard any of them.-Some quotes (Gluckman, Kierkegaard, and Twain) I just commit to memory when I read them. For the others--I'm no magician so there are no secrets: brainyquotes.com is a huge source, and often Google, when I am clueless. For the other ones I pulled, I googled both "science quotes" and "patience quotes" and scanned a few pages for ones I liked. -oh, thinkexist.com is a source for some really, really abstract quotes. (Gotta love the collective intelligence that is the web!)


> "Although this may seem a paradox, all exact science is dominated by the idea of approximation. When a man tells you that he knows the exact truth about anything, you are safe in inferring that he is an inexact man." Bertrand Russell
> 
> "It is a good morning exercise for a research scientist to discard a pet hypothesis every day before breakfast." Konrad Lorenz
> 
> "Science becomes dangerous only when it imagines that it has reached its goal." George Bernard Shaw-
Apropos of the above quotes is to remember the bombastic certainty of Dawkins and the evolution of whales from land animals, presented here awhile ago. I know George grinds his teeth every time I enter something from Uncommon Descent but this review of whale evolution is well researched with many cogent entries from the accepted peer-reviewed bunch:-http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/whale-evolution-darwinist-trawlers-have-every-reason-to-be-concerned/#more-11035-And I can add a pithy quote of my own: "Theoretical science is always uncertain science". David Turell


> In jesto you collect this stuff, or where do you find it? Each quote is great. Haven't heard any of them.


> >I omitted how much time I think it would take. 
> I'd say we'd be able to start getting meaningful results in chemistry in 30yrs. (Maybe earlier, if we learn better ways to manipulate quantum chips.)
> > 
> > In short, we're on the verge of a scientific revolution in information processing, and it's going to be even bigger than digital computing. It's Ray Kurzweil's singularity. 
> 
> I can't wait that long. I'll use my authors and methods for now. )-In jest:-"Patience is necessary, and one cannot reap immediately where one has sown."
 --Soren Kierkegaard-"A healthy male adult bore consumes each year one and a half times his own weight in other people's patience. "
John Updike -"There is something fascinating about science. One gets such wholesale returns of conjecture out of such a trifling investment of fact." 
~Mark Twain, Life on the Mississippi, 1883-"Every great advance in science has issued from a new audacity of imagination." ~John Dewey, The Quest for Certainty, 1929-And one of my favorites:-"A science is any discipline in which the fool of this generation can go beyond the point reached by the genius of the last generation." ~Max Gluckman, Politics, Law and Ritual, 1965


>I omitted how much time I think it would take. 
 I'd say we'd be able to start getting meaningful results in chemistry in 30yrs. (Maybe earlier, if we learn better ways to manipulate quantum chips.)
> 
> In short, we're on the verge of a scientific revolution in information processing, and it's going to be even bigger than digital computing. It's Ray Kurzweil's singularity. -I can't wait that long. I'll use my authors and methods for now. )


> > It is also this fact that has even some biochemists here at UNO stating that biochemical complexity is going to be solved by mathematicians and physicists, not by biochemists. (Hence the work already underway on our cluster.)
> 
> Your description sounds great.-I omitted how much time I think it would take. -This is a big assumption I'm about to make: If Moore's law holds for quantum computing as it does with our current models, then every 18 months the power and cost of quantum technology should double and halve respectively. Right now the best quantum computer in the lab was recently able to factor every prime up to the number 15 before losing stability. If it doubles every 18 months then it will follow an exponential growth. Most of the algorithms we need to study the chemistry already exist: Human's have been doing them for close to 60-70 years. -I'm lazy, but we're at 2^4 right now. Every 18 months you add another to the exponent, so 2^5, 3yrs from now 2^6. This means that the complexity of what we can compute with it increases at the same rate. I'd say we'd be able to start getting meaningful results in chemistry in 30yrs. (Maybe earlier, if we learn better ways to manipulate quantum chips.)-In short, we're on the verge of a scientific revolution in information processing, and it's going to be even bigger than digital computing. It's Ray Kurzweil's singularity.


> It is also this fact that has even some biochemists here at UNO stating that biochemical complexity is going to be solved by mathematicians and physicists, not by biochemists. (Hence the work already underway on our cluster.)-Your description sounds great.


> > Be careful... too many books to read, lol. Which should I tackle first, Shapior or Foster?
> 
> Shapiro first, certainly.
> >
> > Massimo Pigliucci--and evolutionary biologist--flat out stated that it isn't a question of concern for biology, to paraphrase "because evolution only works when describing life." 
> 
> Right. Life comes only from life is our only experience. 
> > 
> > What could be more practical than building a quantum computer capable of running these kinds of simulations? This is from the mind of a computer guy however, so take that as it is.
> 
> I'll give you the quantum computer. Then what? We have no idea what to put into it to start a program to study the origin of life. Your computer will have to run 800 million years, subtrating 4.5 billion, start of earth, to 3.7 billion, start of life, to discover the chance processes that came by. You will be studying 10^80 atoms, or 10^88 protons. Perhaps I'm wrong about time required. How long do you think it will take?-You clearly don't understand the power Quantum computing delivers; no offense. -Why will quantum computing render all current cryptography obsolete? Because modern RSA keys require large prime numbers, the largest known complete factorization was a key that was 2^663 bits long, which factors to about 10^21. This certainly didn't take 10^21 years to accomplish, and this was done with standard digital computers. It was done on a supercomputing cluster that would take a 2.2Ghz opteron (your home Desktop PC) 75 years to find a solution for. The source number was 200 digits long--10^200, more than twice the total number of particles in the cosmos. -A quantum computer would factor this at the speed of light, and it is THAT fact that has chemists (especially in pharmaceuticals) foaming and drooling at the mouth. The difference is that although we can model quantum systems digitally, it's a translational process--standard computer logic likes 0's and 1's, not 0's, 1's, and BOTH 1 and 0 at the same time. It is that last part that keeps us from fully modeling quantum physics on digital machines. It takes alot more processing power to handle the probabilistic nature of quantum physics--but photons do it naturally, thus the intense draw towards building such a wonderful device. -It is also this fact that has even some biochemists here at UNO stating that biochemical complexity is going to be solved by mathematicians and physicists, not by biochemists. (Hence the work already underway on our cluster.)


> Be careful... too many books to read, lol. Which should I tackle first, Shapior or Foster?-Shapiro first, certainly.
>
> Massimo Pigliucci--and evolutionary biologist--flat out stated that it isn't a question of concern for biology, to paraphrase "because evolution only works when describing life." -Right. Life comes only from life is our only experience. 
> 
> What could be more practical than building a quantum computer capable of running these kinds of simulations? This is from the mind of a computer guy however, so take that as it is.-I'll give you the quantum computer. Then what? We have no idea what to put into it to start a program to study the origin of life. Your computer will have to run 800 million years, subtrating 4.5 billion, start of earth, to 3.7 billion, start of life, to discover the chance processes that came by. You will be studying 10^80 atoms, or 10^88 protons. Perhaps I'm wrong about time required. How long do you think it will take?