FANDOM



ns as conjuring trick Edit

http://newsgroups.derkeiler.com/Archive/Talk/talk.origins/2008-01/msg09548.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/04/science/04edgehed.html?pagewanted=2...

Nicholas Humphrey Psychologist, London School of Economics; author,"The Mind Made Flesh" "...I believe that human consciousness is a conjuring trick, designed to fool us into thinking we are in the presence of an inexplicable mystery. Who is the conjuror and why is s/he doing it? The conjuror is natural selection, and the purpose has been to bolster human self- confidence and self-importance - so as to increase the value we each place on our own and others' lives...."

Which means we shouldn't believe a word Humphrey says because he believes his language is "conjuring trick". The statement itself was made by his consciousness which means that the statement itself is a "conjuring trick" and he therefore himself is a conjuring trick.

These are known as self-defeating statements. Gould made the same mistake saying that the mind "consists of illusions", which means that Gould believed his mind consisted of illusions and thus we shouldn't believe a word he said. In addition the statement itself was an "illusion" because he formulated it with his mind!

What Darwin said about NS: ".....I have called this principle, by which each slight variation, if useful, is preserved, by the term natural selection, in order to mark its relation to man's power of selection. But the expression often used by Mr. Herbert Spencer, of the Survival of the Fittest, is more accurate, and is sometimes equally convenient. We have seen that man by selection can certainly produce great results, and can adapt organic beings to his own uses, through the accumulation of slight but useful variations, given to him by the hand of Nature. But Natural Selection, we shall hereafter see, is a power incessantly ready for action, and is as immeasurably superior to man's feeble efforts, as the works of Nature are to those of Art....."

What one notices about this NS business is that NS in and of itself is invoked as the actual explanation for what we observe. No, NS can only be the label for the mechanism, the actual process responsible for the universe and organisms. But what is this process that is labeled NS by everybody? NS as a word term in and of itself can't be the actual explanation just like the label "gravity" is not the actual explanation for what the attraction between bodies are. This needs to be defined elsewhere and will be independent of the actual label.

Ad blocker interference detected!


Wikia is a free-to-use site that makes money from advertising. We have a modified experience for viewers using ad blockers

Wikia is not accessible if you’ve made further modifications. Remove the custom ad blocker rule(s) and the page will load as expected.