This video was produced by the Sony Corp. for its annual Executive meeting held in June, 2008.
Monday, October 27, 2008
What does it all mean?
http://release.theplatform.com/content.select?pid=x7aVOMrlfkkijQwcLllwk6WjB5JE0zrF
Saturday, October 18, 2008
Sunday, October 12, 2008
Steven Johnson
I wanted to alert my friends at Drexel University and the surrounding Philadelphia area that one of my favorite writers/thinkers will be speaking at Bossone Auditorium on October 21.
http://upcoming.yahoo.com/event/599531/
Now the video above is obviously dated but it is a good introduction to Steven's kind of thinking. He is a champion of a science called Emergence. Basically Emergence deals with things like ant colonies, city development, the internet, and human consciousness. This may seem like a radically diverse array of topics (and it is) but they are connected by a common theme. Each of these cases use a bunch of little "stupid" things and connects them into a "smart" thing. It is nature's practical application of a whole that is greater than the sum of its parts.
What does this mean? Well, think for a second about an ant colony. It has huge numbers of individual ants. But none of those ants have the ability to govern the ant colony and lead complicated projects. Not even the ant queen. But somehow, in spite of this lack of leadership from the top, ant communities are able to accomplish amazing and unbelievable things by this kind of bottom up governance. But how?
Well, Steven wrote a really interesting book about this very thing. It is called "Emergence" and I would recommend it to anyone who takes an interest in how things work.
Also, there is an amazing podcast about this science of Emergence right here:
http://www.wnyc.org/shows/radiolab/episodes/2005/02/18
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
I thought a lot of the book made sense, and a lot of it didn't. It was quite obvious reading that he believed strongly in evolution. I will have to go through my notes (if I can find them these days) and discuss this with you sometime.
He brings up some interesting things as well. He seems to see his "emergence" theories as proof that there is not God or that God is not necessary.
It would be interesting to hear him speak, though.
October 12, 2008 7:40 PM
Hi Melanie, I appreciate your posts :)
Some time ago I posted about a guy named Francis Collins and his book called "The Language of God."
He is the guy that headed up the Human Genome Project and the book discusses his transformation from an atheist to a person of faith in God. But he also has a lot of stuff to say about Christian's rejecting evolution and why that is both unnecessary and damaging to our cause.
I grew up in a home that still teaches against evolution. My mom and dad have raised me to appreciate science and love the mysteries that God has crafted into our beautiful universe. But they shut down every time scientific discussion speaks of "millions of years ago..."
I hit a wall during the making of Singularity where I was unable to deny it anymore. My perspective shifted and I actually began to see evolution as the creative process of God. Instead of trying to wrap the evidence around my beliefs I wanted to actually see what was really going on and what that could tell me about the God I love. When faced with issues and topics that challenge our faith we can either trust that God's plan is bigger than our understanding or we can retreat into our own understanding as a buffer from reality. I am afraid that is the place that many Christians have chosen to live. I would love to devote more time to this issue because I think it is important. I guess a good place to start is with a question. Is your faith is contingent on the existence of evolution. Why or why not?
October 13, 2008 11:16 AM
Rats! I posted a response, and I have a feeling it didn't go through. My apologies if this duplicates anything.
Strangely enough, I recently pulled out Francis Collins' book to read soon. I found it a long while ago on clearance and picked it up.
It's funny to me that you have come to the conclusion, with study, that evolution is undeniable, while I went rather the opposite direction. My parents were a self-proclaimed athiest and agnostic. I do believe in micro evolution, but not macro evolution. As for the earth and things in it being millions of years old (which was what used to be said, now it's billions - who knew I was that old?) The truth is when it comes to the age of the universe, I don't think any time frame we have can account for it. I am curious now to see what Mr. Collins says.
I have to wonder why God would create taking millions/billions of years. Seven days, I can see a reason behind, as a pattern. But millions of years? Why?
You asked if my faith was contingent on the existence of evolution and the answer is quite obviously that it is not. God is God regardless of whatever creative process he uses or has used, however, and with or without evolution, my faith would not be swayed on that basis. Evolution from what I can see, just makes no real sense to me. I don't see one species evolving into another, among other things at least not without redefining species.
Anyway, I said this far better the first time around or at least I think I did. LOL
October 14, 2008 11:02 AM
Thank you for that response Melanie, I know how frustrating it is to invest time into creating a good thought and having it disappear! My favorite part about this response is that your faith is not dependent on creation vs evolution. I have heard many people hinge their entire belief system on that issue and I am baffled by that.
It is also quite interesting to think about the way our paths have unfolded in relation to our parents. An initial reaction might be to think that we are both rebels but I believe there is more too it than that ;)
To me, the search for scientific truth represents a fundamentally different approach to understanding reality than does faith or philosophy or art. It encourages disproof. A good theory must stand the rigors of the entire community using the tools of elegant mathematical expression and experimental observation. If you are presenting a theory, you expect it to be ripped apart. It will be ripped apart many times throughout time as our understanding and our technology grows. This is the march of scientific progress. It leaves a wake of discarded older models behind it. Newton, Einstein, Bohr, all had ways of showing us the world and none of them were complete. They each gave us a stepping stone on the unending march of questions that we walk as a conscious species. Their answers enabled new thoughts but they weren't designed to be the END of thoughts.
Clearly there are answers that we are not yet aware of to questions that puzzle us about our universe. The realm of science is to assume nothing and proceed as if we can only trust that which we can prove. That is the only way it can work. This obviously presents a conflict of intention with those of us who believe in a creative and loving God.
Einstein said it best when he said, "The only incomprehensible thing about the universe is that it is comprehensible."
October 14, 2008 1:23 PM
I think the great disadvantage of science is that it can only prove what is directly observed or can be duplicated. The origins of the universe will never fit into that category. One cannot disprove some things, nor can they be proven. Science nearly by necessity discounts God in the equation. The only problem is that if God was part of the equation, leaving him out would be akin to holding down the 7 on a calculator and still expecting for the answers to be correct.
"Einstein said it best when he said, 'The only incomprehensible thing about the universe is that it is comprehensible.'"
And sometimes one of the truths of God is that he is incomprehensible. How can the finite comprehend the infinite?
But to me, only God makes sense.
October 14, 2008 10:04 PM
See, now I see that as its great advantage. There are limits to what it can speak to. But what it does speak to, it is careful to say the right thing. And when it is wrong, science is the first to admit it. When Einstein's theory of relativity overthrew the Newtonian worldview that all the world was so comfortable with, the world was told because it would result in a deeper understanding of the truth of our reality. Sadly, the history of the church is full of many missed opportunities to champion these truths until it is too late. Think about Galileo and story of heliocentrism. Only recently has the Catholic Church recanted its handling of such atrocities. The dangerous trend I see in the church as a whole is that we tend to lean too strongly on our own understanding. There are many amazing and confusing things about our universe and science should be viewed as ally in the search for Truth. Even when the results don't seem to connect with our understanding we can acknowledge that there is much to still be understood :)
You had mentioned earlier that evolution made no sense and that a 7 day pattern made sense but I would suggest that God is a God of process and that evolution is a perfect picture of that process.
October 15, 2008 8:55 AM
Actually, I think both the church and science have been guilty of suppressing the truth. I will give this some thought. But science has been wrong plenty of times, and the church has been far from perfect - at least in this world.
Regardless, some things cannot be proven or disproven with science. A lot of times with science the data is unbiased, but the interpretation of data is not. At least that is my personal observation, especially when it comes to statistics.
"I would suggest that God is a God of process and that evolution is a perfect picture of that process."
I can see your point there to a point. LOL
"Even when the results don't seem to connect with our understanding we can acknowledge that there is much to still be understood :)"
I can definitely agree to this wholeheartedly. :)
The more information we have, sometimes the more evident it becomes how limited our knowledge truly is.
--Melanie